From margdean at erols.com Tue Jan 1 03:23:13 2002 From: margdean at erols.com (Margaret Dean) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 22:23:13 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lycanthropy References: <001a01c191e3$16a06a60$ed07eb50@Sumps.AAA> <001e01c19221$baec29e0$7d3bfea9@cable.rcn.com> Message-ID: <3C312BA1.9F7E466@erols.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32451 Jennifer Boggess Ramon wrote: > At 3:38 AM +0000 12/31/01, mullsym255 wrote: > >I'm sorry if this has been discussed before (I did a search and > >nothing came up), but just what does a werewolf look like when it > >transforms? > > Lupin, at least, seems to go directly from Homid to Hispo and back, > with none of the intermediate stages. > > Oops. Sorry. That's terminology from the _Werewolf: the Apocalypse_ > role-playing game. Translation: he seems to go from his "normal" > human form to a Dire Wolf-like form - larger and fiercer than a > normal wolf, the same size as Sirius's dog-form (which is itself > described as bear-like). He doesn't seem to have a wolf-man hybrid > form at all, except perhaps as a stage in the transformation. As far as I can tell, the "wolfman" form is purely a creation of the movies (presumably so they could have a human actor play the monster rather than having to mess with trained animals) and has no basis whatsoever in folklore. Werewolves in folklore are people who turn into wolves, period. And that seems to be what Lupin does, more or less. Larger than a natural wolf . . . conservation of mass, anyone? :) --Margaret Dean From Joanne0012 at aol.com Tue Jan 1 03:28:24 2002 From: Joanne0012 at aol.com (joanne0012) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 03:28:24 -0000 Subject: What if JKR is a member of our group? In-Reply-To: <012d01c1921f$e70042c0$88465aa6@yourl4vt9q703u> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32452 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Laura Hale" wrote: > > > If she is not a member , I could definitely see her having assistants > > read the posts and filing away good ideas to develope for future plot > > twists. > > But then, wouldn't she open herself up to accusations of plagiarism? A lot > of pro-authors are on record as saying that they don't do the sort of thing > so they can avoid such accusations. (Some messy incident involving Marion > Zimmer Bradley... seems to have prompted a lot of that...) Though maybe > like Babylon 5, she uses better cites to keep track of that which she has > done?. . . JKR has effectively immunized herself against future plagiarism suits based on internet speculations via two pathways: (1) by claiming to have already outlined everything in detail, she in effect claims to have already thought everything out, and it would be the accuser's word against hers as to which was conceived first and (2) like the proverbial infinite typing monkeys eventually producing Shakespeare -- there are so many boards and fanfics out there speculating on every possible permutation of the future, it's pretty likely that one of them will hit on something just be sheer random luck. From midwife34 at aol.com Tue Jan 1 00:30:18 2002 From: midwife34 at aol.com (jrober4211) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 00:30:18 -0000 Subject: the Dursleys as secret keepers Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32457 In a previous post about JKR being a member of this group, I mentioned a few possible plot twists I would like to see developed. One of those was having the Dursley's accepting Harry as he was and helping him , in some kind of way, to defeat LV. Here is my theory fleshed out: The Dursleys are really the secret keepers for Harry's location when not in school, and before his enrollment in Hogwarts. They are terrified not to agree to do this because of their abnormal fear of magic, and being stalked by a bad wizard, that may or may not be dead, without magical protection is unthinkable. It could be done in the form of protective charms and some form of a "secret keeping" charm that differs from the one that was supposed to protect his parents, from Dumbledore and the Ministry of Magic. No protection would be unthinkable to the Dursley's even though they do not approve of magic. That would explain their treatment of Harry throughout his lifetime, the resentment they harbor towards him,the fact that they did not put him up for adoption as an infant, and the limits they exercise in how far they go with abuse towards Harry, in that it is more on the lines of neglect and verbal abuse from the aunt and uncle, ( An ordinary child would have died in infancy of "failure to thrive" in this situation ) Dumbledore seems to be aware of how the Dursley's treat Harry as the original invitation to Hogwarts was addressed to Harry "in the cupboard under the stairs". Dumbledore seems to want to develope character in Harry by placing him with muggles that see him as less than average, nothing special, and in a situation where he is more likely to be pushed into developing his latent abilities as a child without detection from Voldemort. I think Dumbledore also wanted to put Harry in a situation where he would develope no particular attachment to the muggle world, thus insuring his future enrollment in Hogwarts. I can see the Dursley's reluctantly teamimg up with Harry as the trio defends them against a future attack from Voldemort or the death eaters. I can see Uncle Vernon assisting the trio when under attack, and in the macabe sense of humor that I have noticed in JKR, Dudley kills Voldemort, in a weakened condition, by inadvertently falling on him and suffocating him. The Dursley's are honored with some form of award for destroying a fiend that the muggle world is made aware of by Dumbledore, much as the muggle ministry was alerted when Sirius escapes. Of course, the Dursley's still see Harry as the ultimate reason they are put in this position and resent it, but are infinitely glad that they have such a competent wizard in the family that comes through for them when the chips are down. The Dursley's bask in the glory awarded them by the English ministry, taking full credit for Voldemort's demise. Harry eventually earns grudging respect from the Dursley's, even though at this point, Harry probably could care less if they loved him or not. See, I told you I had no talent for writing .....lolol. Maybe JKR can think of a better way to work this if she is listening :-) Jo Ellen From Seiryuu_Avatar at msn.com Tue Jan 1 01:20:46 2002 From: Seiryuu_Avatar at msn.com (Brian Yoon) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 17:20:46 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Werewolf Appearance References: Message-ID: <00a301c19263$0107f1c0$7f28fea9@yoonabomber> No: HPFGUIDX 32458 From: mullsym255 > picture him however we want to. How has everyone else pictured Lupin > after transformation? > It must look like a real wolf. If you remember, when Snape takes over the DADA class for a few days, one of the things he asks is "how doy uo tell a werewolf from a real wolf?" If a werewolf actually stood on his legs, wouldn't it be _very easy_ to tell between a werewolf and a wolf? (No one except Hermione knew the answer) Brian Yoon From Ryjedi at aol.com Tue Jan 1 02:35:43 2002 From: Ryjedi at aol.com (rycar007) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 02:35:43 -0000 Subject: idle musings on the FF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32460 In some rare, more Eastern accounts of lycanthropy, there are certain events that will lead to becoming the wolf full time. They vary, I think one is being stabbed, or shot, by something iron (silver kills werewolves). The more modern interpretation of the disease is that the wolf is the astral form of the person's spirit (at night the astral form will leave the body in whatever form the spirit takes, sometimes it's an animal, sometimes not). If one is disturbed greatly or killed while sleeping, the astral spirit will not return to the body. Man, I read too much. -Rycar From midwife34 at aol.com Tue Jan 1 02:44:26 2002 From: midwife34 at aol.com (jrober4211) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 02:44:26 -0000 Subject: Sirius, a Slytherin?? / Fat Lady attack In-Reply-To: <012101c19242$5ac45e40$11ae1e3e@stephen> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32461 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Lucy Austin" wrote: > >Lily Potter said: > > >Also, if you'll remember, the Fat Lady that guards Gryffindor tower knew who > Sirius was - she revealed his name when asked who had slashed her picture. > Now it's true that she might have known him anyway, but it seems more likely > that she'd know him if he'd belonged in her tower at some point in the past. > > Not to disagree with Sirius being a Gryffindor, but just to nitpick - it was Peeves who said it was Sirius Black, not the Fat Lady - she'd run away to hide! > > Lucy > > >I thought it was Pettigrew that attacked the fat lady, now why do I think that? I can't remember specifics about canon, can someone help me with this? Jo Ellen From midwife34 at aol.com Tue Jan 1 03:10:50 2002 From: midwife34 at aol.com (jrober4211) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 03:10:50 -0000 Subject: halfbloods of other types in HP Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32462 I have seen the ongoing debate about half blood muggles/wizards in the postings, but I haven't seen anyone address the other half creature/wizard combo's in the series, so here goes: In order for a giant and a wizard to procreate, its my theory that the pairing would always have to be a giant female with a wizard/muggle male as it would be biologically impossible for a wizard/muggle female to carry a half blood giant fetus to term. I won't even get into the aspects of how a pregnancy could be accomplished since the giant females are 20 feet tall and the average wizard/muggle male is only 6 feet tall. Maybe this is why Hagrid's mom ran out on them. I wonder if this crossed JKR's mind when she was writing about Hagrid's origins........But the old joke of the daschund male dog and the German Shepherd female dog pairing does come to mind, perhaps this is how we got welsh corgi's? Also, Fleur's grandmother is a velee. Now at the quidditch world cup, those velee's turned into some kind of hideous bird headed things when they got angry at the leprechauns. Now, assuming you are a parent of such a mixture, and knowing how infant's have no control over their instinctive emotions, can you imagine going into the baby's room in the middle of the night and finding an angry looking little vulture baby thing waiting on its bottle? Jo Ellen- who happens to be a midwife, which is why i suppose I thought about this...... From Calypso8604 at aol.com Tue Jan 1 04:48:19 2002 From: Calypso8604 at aol.com (Calypso8604 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 23:48:19 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Part-veelas (was halfbloods of other types in HP) Message-ID: <7a.20018162.29629993@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32463 In a message dated 12/31/2001 10:45:39 PM Eastern Standard Time, midwife34 at aol.com writes: > Also, Fleur's grandmother is a velee. Now at the quidditch world cup, > those velee's turned into some kind of hideous bird headed things > when they got angry at the leprechauns. Now, assuming you are a > parent of such a mixture, and knowing how infant's have no control > over their instinctive emotions, can you imagine going into the > baby's room in the middle of the night and finding an angry looking > little vulture baby thing waiting on its bottle? > Sorry to nitpick, but it's veela, not velee. I always thougt it funny that there's a race of beings composed entirely of women (I presume...though that would be hard to explain full-veela...Argh! Must stop thinking too muxh about this) that turn into birds when they're mad...Imagine them at a certain time of month ^_^. Anyway, this post brought up another thought to my mind; just how much "veela power" does a half-veela such as Fleur inherit? As far as we know, she doesn't turn into an angry siren-like creature but you never know. However, we DO know that she has the physical appearance of veela in their human form, she has the charm that attracts males, and her enchanting powers seem stronger (nearly enchanting a dragon to fall asleep when it takes twenty wizards to stun it) which I presume is from veela enchanting powers. Calypso [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Tue Jan 1 05:02:49 2002 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 05:02:49 -0000 Subject: Mixing It Together (filk) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32464 HAPPY NEW YEAR! Let's start it off with a new filk. Mixing It Together (from PS/SS, Chap. 8) (To the tune of Putting It Together, from Sondheim's Sunday in the Park With George) Dedicated to Lisa Inman (THE SCENE: Potions Class. SNAPE is conducting his first class with the new Gryffindor students) SNAPE (spoken) I don't expect you will really understand the beauty of the softly simmering cauldron with its shimmering fumes, the delicate power of liquids that creep through human veins, bewitching the mind, ensnaring the senses...I can teach you how to bottle fame, brew glory, even stopper death -- if you aren't as big a bunch of dunderheads as I usually have to teach. (music) Bit by bit, mixing it together Snip by snip, only way to make a potion work Every shimmer makes a bit of thunder Ev'ry simmering fume adds its murk Waving just a wand here can't work wonders Amateurs when here can only blunder Mixing it together, that's what counts Ounce by ounce, stirring it together Parts surmount, adding up to make a potent brew First of all, you need this education I want you working briskly from the start If you'll overcome your limitations And your dunderheaded inclinations And if you have made your resolution That you'll master alchemy's solutions The posh of potion art is mixing it together Quill by quill Leech by leech, making the dissection Bile by bile, chopping every scarab as it comes Learning how to be a great magician Cutting up the roots until you're numb Finding that you're part of a tradition Which insists on hard work and cognition . Potions aren't easy! If your fire won't burn, If your cauldron won't bubble Then you've got to act fast, Or you're in double trouble If you want to learn to be effective, Glory, fame and death view in perspective Then you must prepare your distillation Carefully as any incantation You will quickly know through intuition When you've made the right juxtaposition Slug by slug, filling up the kettle Bug by bug, stewing each lacewing 21 days Here there is no room to be subjective For there could be real hell to pay. What if your wolfsbane should prove defective And if you've not learned of the corrective You will wind up in a bad condition In an urgent need of a physician Potions aren't easy! I sometimes students poison (This is no mere anecdote) And you won't feel coy, son, If you should lack for an antidote If you understand these definitions Then this topic you can make your own So if you'll excel in erudition And you have a stalwart dispositon Ready to face any apparition And you're not the least bit apprehensive Even if you find me quite offen -- Even if you find *this* quite offensive SNAPE addresses Harry directly And thee, boy Our new celebrity, boy Can you tell me of wormwood, boy? Or maybe of monkshood, boy? Will you be any good, boy? Snape returns to the class as a whole Bit by bit Mixing it together Egg by egg Blending an elixir night and day All it takes is time and perseverance With a lot of pluck along the way I will strictly punish incoherence And I will brook with no interference So when I express exasperation I expect redoubled application Think of every class as an audition Students can best learn through repetition Tackle now this matter with ambition With a high degree of motivation If you follow all my admonitions You will minimize my irritation Though it's my innate predisposition To desire your humiliation The panache of potion art Is mixing it together Bit by bit - Drop by drop - Fang by fang - Spleen by spleen - CHORUS OF GRYFFINDOR STUDENTS And that Is what Snape takes to heart! - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From fordpr1020 at aol.com Tue Jan 1 05:07:57 2002 From: fordpr1020 at aol.com (thefortressiserlohn) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 05:07:57 -0000 Subject: What if JKR is a member of our group? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32465 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jrober4211" wrote: > Has anyone ever wondered if JKR is a member of this group and we are > all not aware of it? I'm sure she has better things to do with her > time, but after reading everyone's posts for the last several weeks, > I have come to the conclusion that this group would be a great source > for future plot threads and for keeping track of the details in > previous books. That is exactly the reason I would think that she does NOT read this list - if she reads an idea on the list and uses it the author would quite possibly claim plagarism on JKR's part, leading to another nasty legal battle. Does this world really need another nancy stouffer? I'd say that JKR is doing quite well without our input =) --jc and it's 2002.... From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Tue Jan 1 05:23:01 2002 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 05:23:01 -0000 Subject: What if JKR is a member of our group? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32466 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "thefortressiserlohn" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jrober4211" wrote: > > Has anyone ever wondered if JKR is a member of this group and we > are > > all not aware of it? Maybe (I beg the indulgence of our female members as I spin my gossamer theory) - just maybe, JKR's new husband is a member of our group. He, like all HP fans, lamented the long hiatus between volumes four and five, but he, unlike the rest of us, resolved to do something about it. He arranged to be introduced to her (originally no doubt with nothing more on his mind than to encourage her celerity), but found himself as strongly attracted to her as was Hagrid to Norbert. And likewise was she to him (Let not to the marriage of true minds...) So in addition to nuptial bliss, Mr. JKR (sorry, I'm too lazy to look up his name) is now in a signal position to encourage his bride to move forward with all deliberate speed on OoP, and thereafter on Vol. 6 & 7 - CMC JUNO Honour, riches, marriage-blessing, Long continuance, and increasing, Hourly joys be still upon you! Juno sings her blessings upon you. CERES Earth's increase, foison plenty, Barns and garners never empty, Vines and clustering bunches growing, Plants with goodly burthen bowing; Spring come to you at the farthest In the very end of harvest! Scarcity and want shall shun you; Ceres' blessing so is on you. - Shakespeare, The Tempest, IV,i (Juno is the Goddess who sanctifies all marriages, as all of us in this well-educated group well know) From blpurdom at yahoo.com Tue Jan 1 06:10:55 2002 From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 06:10:55 -0000 Subject: What if JKR is a member of our group? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32467 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jrober4211" wrote: > Has anyone ever wondered if JKR is a member of this group and we > are all not aware of it? I'm sure she has better things to do with > her time, but after reading everyone's posts for the last several > weeks, I have come to the conclusion that this group would be a > great source for future plot threads and for keeping track of the > details in previous books. > > If she is not a member , I could definitely see her having > assistants read the posts and filing away good ideas to develope > for future plot twists. So here is my suggestion, lets all " feed > the beast" so to speak. Keep up the good work in asking those > unanswered questions about the details, about the story lines , > and the interrelationships between the characters! who knows, > maybe she or an assistant has posted "red herrings" to keep us > guessing :-) There are other people who know future developments besides JKR or her assistants or employees of the publishing house who may be among the first people to see her manuscripts. Robbie Coltrane and other movie cast members received information about character back- stories; Natalie McDonald's parents probably still have the information that JKR sent to her. One has to wonder if any of THEM are on the list, laughing their heads off at the silly conjectures we sometimes come up with.... (*cough!*Mrs. Figg is Crookshanks*cough!*) --Barb Get Psyched Out! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HP_Psych http://schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb From lucy at luphen.co.uk Tue Jan 1 09:13:17 2002 From: lucy at luphen.co.uk (Lucy Austin) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 09:13:17 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Fat Lady attack (WAS: Sirius, a Slytherin?? ) References: Message-ID: <017301c192a4$8cc81820$11ae1e3e@stephen> No: HPFGUIDX 32468 >jo ellen said: >I thought it was Pettigrew that attacked the fat lady, now why do I think that? I can't remember specifics about canon, can someone help me with this? No, sorry! It was Sirius that attacked the Fat Lady in an attempt to get at Pettigrew, who was cowering under Ron's bed or something! Lucy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bethz1 at rcn.com Tue Jan 1 05:27:30 2002 From: bethz1 at rcn.com (Ms. Found in A Bottle) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 00:27:30 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Series staring Malfoy? References: <004101c19243$34547960$e6d51b18@cfl.rr.com> Message-ID: <00b401c19285$01e86e40$7d3bfea9@cable.rcn.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32469 I was thinking it would be interesting if the books were written as a different series with Harry being sorted into Slytherin like the Sorting Hat wanted to do in the first place. Since it goes through the trouble of telling Harry he could be great there. Even if JKR doesn't write it someone should get permission to. Beth ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richasi" To: Sent: Monday, December 31, 2001 4:36 PM Subject: [HPforGrownups] Series staring Malfoy? > I'm not sure if this has been posted here yet, but I just > read something on Mugglenet (linked from www.insideharrypotter.com) > regarding what will come after books 6 and 7: > > "J.K Rowling is quite tired of writing about Harry Potter, a world > famous 13 year old fictional book character!! J.K has announced that > after books 6 & 7, she intends to start a new series about a different > character. Guess who it is! Draco Malfoy. This time more background > information about the main character will be presented & Draco will > 'develop' more than Harry." > > My only response to that is: ACK! While it would be nice to see > more in relation to Hogwarts and that "Universe" but to focus on... > on... Malfoy!? No offense, but :/ > > hehe From tracym255 at aol.com Tue Jan 1 10:25:41 2002 From: tracym255 at aol.com (mullsym255) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 10:25:41 -0000 Subject: Lupin's relationship with Harry Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32470 I've recently reread PoA and there's something that's been bothering me. Is Harry hurt that Lupin doesn't attempt to reach out to him like Sirius has? They were both one of his dad's best friends, so does he ever wonder why Lupin just doesn't seem to care as much? Sirius sends Harry birthday presents and invites Harry to live with him, so why doesn't Lupin? I understand that the latter would probably be impossible considering the werewolf problem, but would it be so hard to send Harry a present? And just one more thing.. was Lupin ever a bit miffed at James for making Sirius best man and godfather to Harry? I have to say that if I were in his position, I'd be a bit jealous. Tracy From midwife34 at aol.com Tue Jan 1 10:26:44 2002 From: midwife34 at aol.com (jrober4211) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 10:26:44 -0000 Subject: Werewolf Appearance In-Reply-To: <00a301c19263$0107f1c0$7f28fea9@yoonabomber> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32471 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Brian Yoon" wrote: > From: mullsym255 > > picture him however we want to. How has everyone else pictured Lupin > > after transformation? > > > > It must look like a real wolf. If you remember, when Snape takes over the > DADA class for a few days, one of the things he asks is "how doy uo tell a > werewolf from a real wolf?" If a werewolf actually stood on his legs, > wouldn't it be _very easy_ to tell between a werewolf and a wolf? (No one > except Hermione knew the answer) > > > Brian Yoon What happens to their clothes when they transform? Also, when Sirius is hiding in the cave during GoF, he transforms from dog to man and back again. Well, is he naked? I know Rita Skeeter and Professor Mcgounagall's glasses go with them when they transform, do the clothes also transform into fur, feathers, or whatever? Jo Ellen From tabouli at unite.com.au Tue Jan 1 11:44:38 2002 From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 22:44:38 +1100 Subject: The Z factor, Lexicon, the perennial kiddiefic debate (LONG) Message-ID: <004001c192b9$b2028840$bc32c2cb@price> No: HPFGUIDX 32472 (sorry, sent this to OT by mistake, gh) Amy Z: > I've seen have been the Grade Z variety where the special effects budget is $5.74 (whatever the director found in his couch that a.m., I suspect) and they're lucky to have a hand puppet to communicate a wolfish sort of thing. Ahhh, *now* we know the secret behind that mysterious Z factor... our Amy is a purveyor of Z grade movies which use hand puppets to represent werewolves! Steve: > If you need to find that kind of information in the future, check the Lexicon. (Tabouli backpedals frantically, feeling she is too venerable a listmember for such rebukes). Sorry, sorry, it did occur to me to do so at the time, but I was lazy and didn't want to crank up the Internet again just to check: after all, the whereabouts of Fluffy is obscure enough that I hadn't heard it mentioned on-list before (an increasingly rare thing) so I thought it mightn't be there. Clearly I underestimate Steve's thoroughness... Penny: > Is a believable 18 yr old Harry really a childrens' lit protagonist after all? > >For those who are subjectively inclined to view the HP books as childrens' books, I'd be curious to hear your reasons. Is it the age of the main characters (and if so, at what age would a later book cross the bridge into something other than childrens' lit for you)? Is it the fact that the books are marketed to children? Something else?< It's not the age of the characters for me, it's how they're written. Sure, most children's books have child protagonists, but not all. There are certainly children's books in existence with adult and teenage protagonists. I mean, hey, in Malory Towers Enid Blyton followed her characters through to 18, and no-one would ever suggest that that was an adult's or even combined series! I feel I've argued my reasons for dubbing HP a children's series several times, but perhaps a recap (I often have this problem on this list, as topics seem to recycle pretty regularly... do I repeat my earlier comment, tell people to check the archives, or remain silent?). OK. Let me see (braces herself for howlers). It's an overall feel thing, particularly given the era in which the books are set (i.e. 1990s, not 1950s). JKR is addressing a lot of fairly heavy issues in the book: murder, betrayal, sex, persecution, abuse, etc., but her world is essentially child-sized and plot driven. There's an innocence about it. Much more so in the first two books, but arguably still so in the second two. Good and Evil are clear-cut, even if allegiances are sometimes in doubt. The consequences and explorations of very serious events are neatened and skimmed over (e.g. Harry's treatment at the Dursley's). Emotions are described poignantly, but not plumbed too deeply. Sex is handled with kid gloves, and I'll wager will continue to be (JKR herself said it wouldn't fit with the "tone of the books" for Hermione to have a teenage pregnancy, or develop a drug habit, for example). Compare HP with the way 12 year old protagonists experience sex in "The Go-Between" or "Ada", definitely adult books, and the difference is profound. I'd need to muse on this a bit more, but another aspect of HP that says "children's books" to me is the handling of the child-adult divide. The "kids save the day" (guided by the wise adult who understands that they're really far cleverer than the nasty bumbling adults who are trying to thwart them) motif is pure Famous Five. Popular in children's fiction because children (who typically feel disempowered with regard to adult problems and emotions, as any child whose parents divorce will know) like the idea of taking centre stage and being recognised. Only in GoF do we start to glimpse the immense complexity of the wider adult world, much of which functions independently of children (and often disregards them). I suppose it's possible that the last three books might induce me to call them Young Adult fiction, but in all honesty I think this would be a bit jarring for the unity of the series as a whole. I often mention 'The Go-Between' in this discussion, because I think it's an interesting and convincing example of an adult book with a 12 year old boy as protagonist. The author (L.P. Hartley) draws an intelligent, sensitive 12 year old and manages to portray his innocence without patronising him. Watch his handling of the adult-child gap... much more realistic, I think (albeit quite disturbing). Then there's Antonia Forest's books (yes, she of the tragic encounter I described in OT), which convincingly presents her stories through the eyes of a 12-14.5 year old girl (Nicola). These are now out of print, but I'd be interested to hear the thoughts of anyone who's read them... IMO they're a stronger candidate than HP for the children's series which should really be young adult fiction category. Antonia takes on some very weighty adult issues... in "The Ready-Made Family" Nicola comes home from school to discover that her 19 year old sister is about to marry a 41 year old divorced man with three children, who are coming to live with her family. No neatening of consequences there, the whole situation unfolds in ghastly detail through 13yo Nicola's eyes. Although she does end up doing a rescue, she doesn't "save the day" by any means: all the complexity is left in, and Nicola, who *starts off* with a children's book "save the day" "good/evil" "I know better than the bumbling adults" approach to the situation, she ends up getting a new and painful window into the complexity of the adult world. The end of GoF has elements of this, of course, but there's still a certain cartoonish aspect to JKR's adult characters which detracts from the real seriousness of the situation (making it more "child-sized"... the adults are still securely bumbling). Of course, a significant difference is that JKR is juggling two tasks, creating a magical parallel world *and* characterisation and human dramas, whereas Antonia Forest is only tackling the latter, giving her a lot more air time to explore the human element and consequences in detail. Perhaps that's why GoF got so long... Tabouli (who knows she is tempting fate writing such blasphemy...) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From aiz24 at hotmail.com Tue Jan 1 12:32:49 2002 From: aiz24 at hotmail.com (lupinesque) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 12:32:49 -0000 Subject: Series staring Malfoy? In-Reply-To: <00b401c19285$01e86e40$7d3bfea9@cable.rcn.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32473 Richasi wrote: > I just > read something on Mugglenet (linked from www.insideharrypotter.com) > regarding what will come after books 6 and 7: > "J.K Rowling is quite tired of writing about Harry Potter, a world > famous 13 year old fictional book character!! J.K has announced that > after books 6 & 7, she intends to start a new series about a different > character. Guess who it is! Draco Malfoy. This time more background > information about the main character will be presented & Draco will > 'develop' more than Harry." Much as I'd love to read a Draco-centered series by JKR, this has the sound of a rumor completely invented by a fan. Although JKR has said she has other projects she'd like to get onto once she's done writing Book 7 and mourning her departure from that world, she has never remotely hinted that she's tired of writing about Harry. A lot of sites just post rumors as if they are based in fact, without any citations. In the meantime, for those who like the idea better than Richasi does , there are lots of fanfics about Draco. If you want fanfic recommendations, head over to OT and ask and you'll be inundated. Amy Z ---------------------------------------------- "No one wants to read about some ugly old Armenian warlock, even if he did save a village from werewolves. He'd look dreadful on the front cover. No dress sense at all." -HP and the Chamber of Secrets ---------------------------------------------- From Joanne0012 at aol.com Tue Jan 1 14:38:54 2002 From: Joanne0012 at aol.com (joanne0012) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 14:38:54 -0000 Subject: what if JKR were a member of our group? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32474 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jrober4211" wrote: > HI Folks of the wizarding world: > > I had not thought of the potential for law suites when I originally > posted my supposition. Actually , most of you understood that I only > hoped we could influence her writing so that story lines and > characters would develope the way each of us wants to see them > mature. I was hoping that one of JKR's gang would take the seeds for > one of the many ideas here and flesh it out in her future books. I > personally want to see Snape mellow out in some kind of way, either > by falling in love or by having a life changing event happen to him. > I also want to see Hermione and Ron get married. I would like to see > the trio of H/R/H become one of the most powerful aurores in > wizarding history , along the lines of that old theme "the power of > three". . . . > My question now is just when does a suggestion of a future idea or > plot become strictly mine? There is only so much you can do with > these particular characters and the theme of "good versus evil" is as > old as time. Not to mention that , as far as I can tell, just about > every idea or possible character development has already been > discussed in this particular group. How would you prove that JKR > stole an idea from here? To answer the last question first -- you just can't. Future ideas or plots about the Howarts characters CAN'T become yours to copyright, because the characters belong to JKR. Her publishers tolerate online fanfic, but if anyone tried to actually print anything with her characters, they'd be all over them faster than Warner Bros. on a harrypotter web site. We won't see H&R get married, not anyone become an auror, since the books will end when the kids gradutate from Hogwarts. The epilogue chapter at the end of Book 7 will tie up loose ends, but won't tell everyone's entire future! Snape is Snape, he's not going to mellow. He's just fine the way he is. From CRSunrise at aol.com Tue Jan 1 12:38:52 2002 From: CRSunrise at aol.com (CRSunrise at aol.com) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 07:38:52 EST Subject: Plot Twist Idea Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32475 Hiya folks Early someone mentioned we should post our ideas for stories and such. Well, I was thinking of a plot twist I'd love to see, although I doubt it'd ever come to anything. My thought is in the last book Harry could find out that his parents are still alive. That for one reason or another, they had to to go into hiding, but couldn't take him with for some reason them. So they had to fake their deaths, knowing someone would take care of Harry until they could come out of hiding. I know it's a loopy idea, but I like it. Wouldn't that make Harry all the much happier since he has no family except for those he has at Hogwarts? Crystal AIM/AOL=CRSunrise, OneLastW1sh Hotmail=CRSunrise_98 at hotmail.com ~~Life's a constant roadway. There are many twists and turns. You also have to watch out for the potholes~~ ~~Take one step at a time or you'll fall flat on your face~~ ~~A life lived in chaos is an impossibility...~~Madeleine L'Engle A League of Their Own -- This is my fanfiction site http://members.tripod.com/~CRSunrise_98/ Join my Mailing Lists A League of Their Own Updates-for updates and such on the above site leagueupdates-subscribe at yahoogroups.com For the Newsie Lover out there newsie-lovers-subscribe at yahoogroups.com Want to gets Cards year round? Join my card list Cards_Etc-subscribe at yahoogroups.com From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com Tue Jan 1 16:11:44 2002 From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 10:11:44 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: what if JKR were a member of our group? References: Message-ID: <3C31DFC0.1BC7EA7F@kingwoodcable.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32476 joanne0012 wrote: > > We won't see H&R get married, not anyone become an auror, since the books will > end when the kids gradutate from Hogwarts. The epilogue chapter at the end of > Book 7 will tie up loose ends, but won't tell everyone's entire future! I beg to differ on this point of view. Rowling has stated in interview (especially the most recent BBC interview) that the last chapter will be an epilogue telling us what happens to the survivors, but this could mean many things. We might just find out who survives, or we might jump forward a couple of years and find out where they are. Jumping forward is a possibility, since we began the series with a 10 year jump. We may not learn the survivors' entire future, but we might learn what they are doing in 10 years time. -Katze From pennylin at swbell.net Tue Jan 1 16:17:05 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny & Bryce) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 10:17:05 -0600 Subject: ADMIN: Reminder no Fanfic speculations on the main group References: Message-ID: <3C31E101.4080504@swbell.net> No: HPFGUIDX 32477 Hi everyone -- CRSunrise at aol.com wrote: > Early someone mentioned we should post our ideas for stories and such. Actually, if this was suggested, I missed it. Suggestions for fanfics & the like should not be discussed on this group, but rather on our sister group, OT-Chatter. There are also numerous fanfic groups out there for this sort of thing. The main group is a canon-based discussion group though. Happy New Year everyone! Penny Magical Moderator Team From clio at unicum.de Tue Jan 1 16:40:46 2002 From: clio at unicum.de (clio44a) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 16:40:46 -0000 Subject: the Dursleys as secret keepers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32478 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jrober4211" wrote: > Here is my theory fleshed out: The Dursleys are really the secret > keepers for Harry's location when not in school, and before his > enrollment in Hogwarts. They are terrified not to agree to do this > because of their abnormal fear of magic, and being stalked by a bad > wizard, that may or may not be dead, without magical protection is > unthinkable. It could be done in the form of protective charms and > some form of a "secret keeping" charm that differs from the one that > was supposed to protect his parents, from Dumbledore and the Ministry > of Magic. snips an interesting theory about the Dursleys and magic I, too, think that there must be a very good reason why Ddore forces Harry to stay with the Dursleys. But I doubt they are his Secret Keepers. I don't think a secret keeper can live in the same place as the person whose location he or she is guarding. If that was possible James and Lily could have been their mutual secret keepers and they wouldn't have to bother with whom of their friends to burden with that task. Besides, doesn't a secret keeper have to be a wizard? If there is anyone involved in protecting Harry during the summer, it would be Mrs Figg as it was pointed out multiple times on this list. Clio From clio at unicum.de Tue Jan 1 16:43:01 2002 From: clio at unicum.de (clio44a) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 16:43:01 -0000 Subject: Lupin's relationship with Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32479 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "mullsym255" wrote: > I've recently reread PoA and there's something that's been bothering > me. Is Harry hurt that Lupin doesn't attempt to reach out to him like > Sirius has? They were both one of his dad's best friends, so does he > ever wonder why Lupin just doesn't seem to care as much? snip >And just one more thing.. was Lupin ever a > bit miffed at James for making Sirius best man and godfather to > Harry? I have to say that if I were in his position, I'd be a bit > jealous. > > Tracy The more one thinks about the Marauders, the more interesting they get, don't they? IMHO they were not such a tight knit group as we were first made to believe in POA. I would like to add some thoughts to your post. You are right, it appears that Sirius was a 'better' best friend of James than Remus. If both of them were equally close friends, why didn't make James one of them his best man and the other one godfather? Plus Sirius was the first choice in being secret keeper. Did they really not trust Remus because he was a werewolf? He wasn't even told that Sirius and Peter had changed positions. And in the famous Whomping-Willow-incident Sirius not only endangered Snape but also Remus. Imagine what would have happened if Remus really had killed or only bitten Snape. Was that only carelessness on Sirius part? We assume that Sirius and James were fast friends with Remus because they (and their sidekick Peter) became animagi to help him. Experience teaches that 3 people can't be 'best friends'. Tensions are inevitable. We have already seen in GOF that H/R/H have to deal with tensions. Er, what was I trying to say? Ah... I must admit, I doubt Sirius character a little bit. He surely is very affectionally towards Harry, but people have pointed out his loose-cannon mentality earlier, and I think they are right. I wonder what James, his best friend, was like. I wouldn't be overly surprised if we would learn about a character flaw of James'in bk.5. He and Lily seem a tad bit too perfect, and Harry sure has put his parents on a very high pedestal. It would hurt him a lot if he learned that they were only human. What we already know about James is that he wasn't that good a judge of character obviously. He chose Peter over Remus to be his secret keeper. A lethal mistake. Was there really no-one else who could have taken that job? What about Lily's friends? I really look forward to hear more about the generation of Harry's parents in the future books. Clio, who is a bit distracted by those sparkling new Euros that ly next to her PC. From cstump at kirkwood.cc.ia.us Tue Jan 1 16:34:22 2002 From: cstump at kirkwood.cc.ia.us (grandisiowa) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 16:34:22 -0000 Subject: Lupin's relationship with Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32480 VERY thought provoking this. > I've recently reread PoA and there's something that's been bothering > me. Is Harry hurt that Lupin doesn't attempt to reach out to him like > Sirius has? They were both one of his dad's best friends, so does he > ever wonder why Lupin just doesn't seem to care as much? Lupin is a werewolf. He might perceive himself as dangerous. Because of his condition, he has been living a hand to mouth existence. He would want to be part of Harry's life, but might wonder if that is a wise idea. I think he cares very much about Harry. He is just not as effusive as Sirius. I think Sirius' emotions control him basically, while Lupin tries very hard to control his emotions. They are very different personalities, and a lovely study in contrasts. Does Lupin care as much as Sirius? Absolutely. It might be a difference in the characters' personalities. Another factor involved is the teacher element. I know that there are extenuating circumstances in this teacher student relationship, but there are certain obligations about being a teacher, and how you should behave. You guessed it, I'm a teacher. I work at a community college. Sometimes I become friends with my students, but only after they are done with their course of study with me. Why? Well, there's a power relationship involved, and it's best to be cautious about that sort of thing. So Lupin may hesitate about reaching out to Harry because of that as well. Sirius sends > Harry birthday presents and invites Harry to live with him, so why > doesn't Lupin? I understand that the latter would probably be > impossible considering the werewolf problem, but would it be so hard > to send Harry a present? Money. Lupin hasn't had any money. He is very, very poor, because of the werewolf thing. We can only assume he doesn't have a family fortune, and has been forced to make his way in the world. Ergo, again, while the desire to send Harry presents might be there, difficulties present themselves. And just one more thing.. was Lupin ever a > bit miffed at James for making Sirius best man and godfather to > Harry? I have to say that if I were in his position, I'd be a bit > jealous. This is a good point for consideration. Certainly, Sirius and James were BEST friends from all indication, and that might be why James chose Sirius. Remus could have understood this, or this could have really hurt. >From a pragmatic viewpoint, there's that werewolf thing again. I can imagine that James and Lily would like Remus to be involved in Harry's life, but to have Remus take care of Harry should something happen to them might not be wisest for both Harry and Remus. I would really like to know (rather than speculate :) ) Remus' psychology. I find him a fascinating and complex character, full of reserve, and twists. Sirius, in spite of his tragedy, wears his emotions on his sleeve. We're never quite sure what Remus is thinking or why. Thank you for such a thought provoking message. Catherine From rainbow at rainbowbrite.net Tue Jan 1 16:36:40 2002 From: rainbow at rainbowbrite.net (Lily Potter) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 11:36:40 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lupin's relationship with Harry References: Message-ID: <00e601c192e2$7d752d20$68a1dec7@rainbow> No: HPFGUIDX 32481 mullsym255 said: > I've recently reread PoA and there's something that's been bothering > me. Is Harry hurt that Lupin doesn't attempt to reach out to him like > Sirius has? They were both one of his dad's best friends, so does he > ever wonder why Lupin just doesn't seem to care as much? Sirius sends > Harry birthday presents and invites Harry to live with him, so why > doesn't Lupin? Judging from the ratty clothes that Lupin wore, he probably doesn't have any money to buy Harry gifts with. Being a warewolf, he'd certainly have a hard time holding a job. And he would also be fearful of changing into a warewolf and hurting Harry, which would explain why he didn't invite Harry to live with him. I think Lupin cares about Harry very much - hence why he spent so much time teaching Harry how to defend himself against the Dementors. But Lupin has to keep everyone at a distance for fear of hurting them. > And just one more thing.. was Lupin ever a > bit miffed at James for making Sirius best man and godfather to > Harry? I have to say that if I were in his position, I'd be a bit > jealous. Possibly, but in a group of friends, it's pretty natural for each person to have a "best friend." It doesn't mean that James didn't like the other guys, Sirius obviously was just more special to him for whatever reason. I think that's perfectly natural. .. )) -::- . )) ((. .. -::- Lily -::- -::- ((.* From rainbow at rainbowbrite.net Tue Jan 1 16:43:17 2002 From: rainbow at rainbowbrite.net (Lily Potter) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 11:43:17 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Plot Twist Idea References: Message-ID: <00f201c192e3$6a4c2090$68a1dec7@rainbow> No: HPFGUIDX 32482 CRSunrise at aol.com said: > My thought is in the last book Harry could find out that his parents are > still alive. That for one reason or another, they had to to go into hiding, > but couldn't take him with for some reason them. So they had to fake their > deaths, knowing someone would take care of Harry until they could come out of > hiding. Nice idea, but impossible i'm afraid. When Harry is fighting Voldemort at the end of GoF, we see Lily and James both come out of Voldemort's wand, confirming that they were killed by him. Something that i would like to see JKR do is write books about years past at Hogwarts. I'd love to get to know the Marauders and Lily better by reading about their adventures when they were Harry's age. Or even a real "History of Hogwarts" that gives plenty of details about the school from its concption to present day. One can always hope anyway ;) .. )) -::- . )) ((. .. -::- Lily -::- -::- ((.* From rainbow at rainbowbrite.net Tue Jan 1 16:38:35 2002 From: rainbow at rainbowbrite.net (_-*Rainbow Brite*-_) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 11:38:35 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Werewolf Appearance References: Message-ID: <00ec01c192e2$c1e921f0$68a1dec7@rainbow> No: HPFGUIDX 32483 jrober4211 said: > What happens to their clothes when they transform? Also, when Sirius > is hiding in the cave during GoF, he transforms from dog to man and > back again. Well, is he naked? I know Rita Skeeter and Professor > Mcgounagall's glasses go with them when they transform, do the > clothes also transform into fur, feathers, or whatever? Their clothes must transform with them. You can see that in book #1 when Professor McConnagal transforms from a cat to her human form in front of her entire class. I'm sure she would not have done that if she turned out naked. .. )) -::- . )) ((. .. -::- Lily -::- -::- ((.* From gwynyth at drizzle.com Tue Jan 1 17:17:32 2002 From: gwynyth at drizzle.com (Jenett) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 11:17:32 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lupin's relationship with Harry In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32484 At 4:43 PM +0000 1/1/02, clio44a wrote: >I would like to add some thoughts to your post. You are right, it >appears that Sirius was a 'better' best friend of James than Remus. >If both of them were equally close friends, why didn't make James one >of them his best man and the other one godfather? Plus Sirius was the >first choice in being secret keeper. Did they really not trust Remus >because he was a werewolf? We get told in POA that the potion that Remus takes is relatively recent. It makes sense that if the Potters knew they were in danger from Voldemort, that they'd prefer to have someone take over Harry's education and well-being who would not be turning into a ravening monster once a month. It's not a big deal *now* - Harry's certainly old enough to be on his own overnight. But one of the traditional roles of a godfather is to help raise a child if the parents are unable to. (Not necessarily by having custody, but by being a part of their life, at least). Sirius obviously couldn't do that, because he was in prison, but in the normal course of affairs, it's reasonable to assume that the Potters would assume that Sirius might at least be visiting/etc, if not a great deal more involved. We also have no idea, I think, whether the Potters thought that Dumbledore would take Harry to the Dursleys. It might have been purely Dumbledore's idea. Dumbledore might have talked to them about it as a last resort. It might have been meant as a temporary measure, except that Sirius got framed, and in a year or two, Harry would have been handed over to Sirius. We really don't know. They might have specified that Sirius take over as Harry's guardian in event of their deaths, and it's the prison part that got in the way, or Dumbledore ignoring their stated wishes. We also don't know what Remus was doing at the time they needed a secret keeper. We don't know if he was in the same country, same area of the country, or doing something else entirely. There might be something about being a werewolf which makes the secret keeper part more risky. (I don't know, if when he became a wolf, the spell stopped working. Or they thought it might and didn't want to take that risk...) We also don't know about the relative religions - godparents generally need to be of the same basic religious faith, as that's part of the idea. If Remus were not religious, or of a different faith (again, we don't know either way), he wouldn't be a good choice for godfather. Or maybe werewolves have a hard time being in churches. Or that whoever married the Potters and whoever baptised Harry refused to involve a werewolf. Or that Remus asked not to have that responsibility. Lots and *lots* of potential reasons, in other words, that Sirius got the best man and godfather postions. > Experience teaches that 3 people can't be 'best friends'. Tensions >are inevitable. We have already seen in GOF that H/R/H have to deal >with tensions. Maybe your experience does. Mine doesn't. Nor does that of several of my friends and acquaintances. I have multiple people who are close to me. Two of them are romantic partners of mine (I'm polyamorous. Both of them know about the other, they're also friends), and I have another best friend I'm not romantically involved with. However, I'd identify all of them as 'best friends' if I weren't romantically involved with two of them. However, they *are* different people, and have different talents and skills. Therefore, sometimes one of them is a preferable person to ask for help with something, or for support with something. Or just to plain have a conversation on a specific topic. It doesn't make them 'not best friends' - but it does mean there's some stuff I'll talk about with one of them that I might not with another, or some times when I'll ask one of them for specific help, and not another. For example, only one of the three is really religious himself (though we have different faiths) or interested in discussion religion more than fairly briefly. If I want to talk about religious issues, I talk to him, by preference. It doesn't mean there are never tensions (though we have very few of those, relatively speaking). It doesn't mean that we don't do different things with one another. Those things are true. They're different people. But we still all have relationships that I'd define as including 'best friendshipness' Some people can't deal with that - some people seem to *need* a heirarchy of 'best', 'next best' and so on. And that's ok. But that's not how it works for everyone. Personally, I see the tensions - such as they are - in the HRH trio to be as much a factor of the tensions of puberty, and figuring out how to deal with friends-of-gender-you're-attracted-to, and 'is this friendship or love' more than I think it's fundamentally a heirarchy of friendship issue. It might or might not end *up* as a heirarchy of friendship issue - but I think it's a bit early to tell. They're still young. They're still figuring this out. Best friendship is only a "There can be only one" if you make it be. It *is* a choice to structure your world that way. It's not a foregone conclusion. -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 margdean at erols.com Tue Jan 1 17:52:51 2002 From: margdean at erols.com (Margaret Dean) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 12:52:51 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] RE: what if JKR were a member of our group? References: Message-ID: <3C31F773.2A51F5E4@erols.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32485 jrober4211 wrote: > I had not thought of the potential for law suites when I originally > posted my supposition. Actually , most of you understood that I only > hoped we could influence her writing so that story lines and > characters would develope the way each of us wants to see them > mature. Natural as this desire is, I would hope that we would not be able to do any such thing, even if JKR were watching this group! From what I've heard of her, JKR has a very firm idea of how her story will go and how her characters will develop. That's a sign of a good writer. An over-willingness to adapt one's own ideas to other people's desires, um, isn't. --Margaret Dean From margdean at erols.com Tue Jan 1 18:02:19 2002 From: margdean at erols.com (Margaret Dean) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 13:02:19 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Part-veelas (was halfbloods of other types in HP) References: <7a.20018162.29629993@aol.com> Message-ID: <3C31F9AB.286C9594@erols.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32486 Calypso8604 at aol.com wrote: > I always thougt it funny that there's a race of beings composed entirely of > women (I presume...though that would be hard to explain full-veela...Argh! > Must stop thinking too muxh about this) Parthenogenesis, anyone? :) There are quite a number of "beings" in folklore that are exclusively one sex or the other. I'm not sure how much of a folkloric basis there is for it, but the fantasy roleplaying game Castle Falkenstein explains the reproduction of such Faerie this way: when a member of an exclusively-female race wants children, she marries one of the exclusively-male types. All their daughters will be the female race and all their sons will be the male one. Simple. How that works when they mate with =humans,= I'm not sure! > Anyway, this post brought up another thought to my mind; just how much "veela > power" does a half-veela such as Fleur inherit? Actually, if the veela in her ancestry was her grandmother, that makes her one-quarter veela. I'm snipping the rest of Calypso's post since I have no guesses as to Fleur's powers. I might speculate, though, in light of the above, that maybe only female descendants of veelas inherit the veela powers (in any degree) in the first place. (So much for Lockhart being part-veela . . . :) ) --Margaret Dean From Zarleycat at aol.com Tue Jan 1 18:22:44 2002 From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 18:22:44 -0000 Subject: Lupin's relationship with Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32487 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "mullsym255" wrote: > I've recently reread PoA and there's something that's been bothering > me. Is Harry hurt that Lupin doesn't attempt to reach out to him like > Sirius has? I'm sure Remus wanted to keep the teacher-student relationship intact when he was the DADA teacher, so at that point he might have thought that it was inappropriate to approach Harry as one of James' friends. He did show his concern for Harry by helping him work on his Patronus and by being willing to chat to Harry informally in his office. However, there was a definite reticence to talk to Harry about the relationship between himself, James and Sirius. Whether that was because it was all too painful for Remus, or because he knew that any sort of discussion like this would lead Harry to ask more questions about his parents, perhaps asking for information that Remus was not at liberty to share...who knows? I do think this illustrates once again an odd lack of curiosity on Harry's part about his parents and their lives. We don't see him approaching the people who knew James and Lily and asking major questions about their lives. Yes, this may very well be a plot device to keep things under wraps for the next 3 books, but I still find it unusual. Sirius sends > Harry birthday presents and invites Harry to live with him, so why > doesn't Lupin? I understand that the latter would probably be > impossible considering the werewolf problem, but would it be so hard > to send Harry a present? And just one more thing.. was Lupin ever a > bit miffed at James for making Sirius best man and godfather to > Harry? I have to say that if I were in his position, I'd be a bit > jealous. As others have said, Remus probably doesn't send presents because he has enough problems making ends meet. Although, you'd think he could at least send Harry the occasional note asking about his welfare. As for the best man/godfather question, we don't know enough about the Marauders to fill in the blanks. Did they meet at Hogwarts? Were Sirius and James childhood friends whose relationship was already firmly established before they got to Hogwarts? (Note to JKR: Forget about doing a Malfoy series - write a Snape/MWPP at Hogwarts book) The best friend is almost always chosen to be the best man/maid of honor at weddings, so the choice of Sirius seems obvious. And wouldn't you expect that Remus and Peter would have been in the wedding party as groomsmen? Maybe James and Lily would have liked Remus to be godfather, but perhaps it is illegal for a werewolf to have physical custody of a godchild. If so, Remus is out of the running, so of course James would rely on his best friend, once again. Still makes me wonder about a possible godmother... Marianne From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Tue Jan 1 19:01:29 2002 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 11:01:29 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Part-veelas (was halfbloods of other types in HP) In-Reply-To: <3C31F9AB.286C9594@erols.com> References: <7a.20018162.29629993@aol.com> <3C31F9AB.286C9594@erols.com> Message-ID: <1852674971.20020101110129@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32488 Tuesday, January 01, 2002, 10:02:19 AM, Margaret Dean wrote: MD> There are quite a number of "beings" in folklore that are MD> exclusively one sex or the other. I'm not sure how much of a MD> folkloric basis there is for it, but the fantasy roleplaying game MD> Castle Falkenstein explains the reproduction of such Faerie this MD> way: when a member of an exclusively-female race wants children, MD> she marries one of the exclusively-male types. All their MD> daughters will be the female race and all their sons will be the MD> male one. Simple. I like this much better than the assumption of many in the Baum/Oz community that all-female groups like Wood Nymphs, Mermaids, etc. are celibate. MD> How that works when they mate with =humans,= I'm not sure! >> Anyway, this post brought up another thought to my mind; just how much "veela >> power" does a half-veela such as Fleur inherit? MD> Actually, if the veela in her ancestry was her grandmother, that MD> makes her one-quarter veela. Um... no, I don't think so. If there are no "male veela", then Veela + should give rise to full Veela... Right?? -- Dave "The singular of 'Animagi' is 'Animagus'; "The plural of 'Veela' is 'Veela'." From Elizabeth.Dalton at EAST.SUN.COM Tue Jan 1 19:30:24 2002 From: Elizabeth.Dalton at EAST.SUN.COM (Elizabeth Dalton) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 14:30:24 -0500 Subject: Godparents References: Message-ID: <3C320E50.802E1A61@sun.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32489 I agree with what others have written about the teacher-student relationship being a contributing factor to Lupin's reserve, and the difficulties Lupin would have had as a guardian for Harry. I'm not sure about the religion thing-- the Potterverse seems to be consistently silent on the subject of religion. For all we know, they're all regular church/temple/mosque-goers of one kind or another-- it just doesn't come up. kiricat2001 (a.k.a. Marianne) wrote: > Maybe James and Lily would have liked Remus to be godfather, but > perhaps it is illegal for a werewolf to have physical custody of a > godchild. Quite possible, given the obvious prejudice and discrimination against werewolves. > If so, Remus is out of the running, so of course James > would rely on his best friend, once again. Still makes me wonder > about a possible godmother... > Hm. Arabella Figg? Elizabeth (who can't think of anything clever to add after her name this time) From margdean at erols.com Tue Jan 1 20:05:10 2002 From: margdean at erols.com (Margaret Dean) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 15:05:10 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Part-veelas (was halfbloods of other types in HP) References: <7a.20018162.29629993@aol.com> <3C31F9AB.286C9594@erols.com> <1852674971.20020101110129@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <3C321676.D9B50038@erols.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32490 Dave Hardenbrook wrote: > > Tuesday, January 01, 2002, 10:02:19 AM, Margaret Dean wrote: > > MD> There are quite a number of "beings" in folklore that are > MD> exclusively one sex or the other. I'm not sure how much of a > MD> folkloric basis there is for it, but the fantasy roleplaying game > MD> Castle Falkenstein explains the reproduction of such Faerie this > MD> way: when a member of an exclusively-female race wants children, > MD> she marries one of the exclusively-male types. All their > MD> daughters will be the female race and all their sons will be the > MD> male one. Simple. > > I like this much better than the assumption of many in the Baum/Oz > community that all-female groups like Wood Nymphs, Mermaids, etc. > are celibate. That only works if they're also immortal. > MD> How that works when they mate with =humans,= I'm not sure! > > >> Anyway, this post brought up another thought to my mind; just how much "veela > >> power" does a half-veela such as Fleur inherit? > > MD> Actually, if the veela in her ancestry was her grandmother, that > MD> makes her one-quarter veela. > > Um... no, I don't think so. If there are no "male veela", then > Veela + should give rise to full Veela... Right?? Well, going by that system, there would be no such thing as a =half=-Veela either, and therefore Fleur would simply be . . . a Veela. As would her sister. And somehow I don't think that's the case; both of them seem too human. So evidently, however it works for other creatures, when a Veela mates with a human there's some dilution of the strain (whether or not it passes to daughters only or both sexes). --Margaret Dean From ickle_ronniekins at yahoo.com Tue Jan 1 17:30:13 2002 From: ickle_ronniekins at yahoo.com (Ronald Rae Yu) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 09:30:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: Untackled (?) Questions Message-ID: <20020101173013.32864.qmail@web21101.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32491 Hi! I'm Ronald Yu, and I'm new here. And since I'm new, forgive me if I ask questions already discussed before. I've searched these already in HP sites but none seem to tackle them (or maybe I didn't search well). Well, I'm sure somebody somewhere have asked himself some of these before. And I'm sure there are other newbies here as well. How did Myrtle die if she wears glasses (Colin was petrified using the camera)? How did ghosts take their clothes and glasses with them when they died? In book 3, Quidditch Final, Lee comments on the beater work of George Weasley. How could he have known it was HIM (not Fred)? I mean, flying at top speed and everything, he recognized George. What's the use of the first two tasks if the champion who reaches the Triwizard Cup first wins? Why not use Veritaserum or the Pensieve as evidences for Harry's account at the end of book 4? And to clear Sirius as well. Why do the Hogwarts electives have such impossible schedules? I mean, if you have the option of taking as much classes as you can, they should make the schedule possible to follow without time-turners. And since you have options of electives they should not be scheduled by house (Care of Magical Creatures with the Slytherins). With Arithmancy and Divination taking place simultaneously, is Hermione the only Gryffindor (in her year) in Arithmancy? Everyone else is in Divination. Why not Snape go for DADA? What's stopping him? Why do wizards still use owls for messages? Frankly, phones are faster; they should at least try to adapt to muggle ways. Quirrell could have just said 'Accio, Philosopher's Stone!' when he wanted it out of Harry's pocket. Why are there 4-5 quidditch players in Fred and George's batch (them, Alicia, and Angelina, and likely but not positively, Katie)? Is their year really that good? What's the big fuss in not being able to apparate or disapparate within Hogwarts? One could make a portkey anytime and portkey himself in or out of the grounds. No one ever seems to mind or at least notice (even Harry) that Oct. 31 is not only Nick's deathday but also James's and Lily's. Where are the dead bodies of James and Lily? If house elves don't want pay the Weasleys could get one anytime. Why don't they? Molly wants one. If you live in Hogsmeade it would make perfect sense NOT to take the Hogwarts Express to Hogwarts. Do all students need to ride it to school? If Voldie couldn't kill Harry with his wand he could have done so anytime with a gun or something. Do Quaffles move on their own? There's at least one instance when it fell, but in the World Cup it rocketed upwards when it was released. Why could they talk to paintings and not to photos? It is more likely to be the other way around, since photos are based on real people. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send your FREE holiday greetings online! http://greetings.yahoo.com From brewpub44 at earthlink.net Tue Jan 1 17:45:48 2002 From: brewpub44 at earthlink.net (brewpub44) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 17:45:48 -0000 Subject: Harry/Ron/Hermione Team In-Reply-To: <3C30E4A0.F71A6D8E@kingwoodcable.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32492 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Katze wrote: > > > I like your theory! That would be great for the team. Though...I'm not > sure what kind of Auror Ron would make, because he haven't seen much > evidence to any of his powers. He could be the strategist. We know that > once V is gone, there's going to be one hell of a round up. I like it... > You may be right about Ron not being a good Auror, but his family seems to have a bit of a disposition towards the MoM, so that's the trick. Ron decodes the movements and strategies of the baddies, and sets H & H off to do battle. Although it would be nice to see them actually work in the field, instead of Ron piloting a desk the rest of his life. A Barkeep in Diagon Alley From rainbow at rainbowbrite.net Tue Jan 1 18:19:10 2002 From: rainbow at rainbowbrite.net (Lily Potter) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 13:19:10 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lupin's relationship with Harry References: Message-ID: <001401c192f0$cf2158c0$68a1dec7@rainbow> No: HPFGUIDX 32493 Jenett said: > Best friendship is only a "There can be only one" if you make it be. > It *is* a choice to structure your world that way. It's not a > foregone conclusion. You've got a good point. But your viewpoint is a rare one and most people do think in the heirarchichal sense when it comes to friends. I'm not saying that that's right - but i think it's the way most people were raised. Most tv shows, movies and books have one hero and one "best" sidekick. So that's the way people think it's "supposed to be." I agree with your ideas much more, but it's hard to break out of that mold, ya know? I think the relationships between H/R/H are great just the way they are. .. )) -::- . )) ((. .. -::- Lily -::- -::- ((.* From Wilde83 at hotmail.com Tue Jan 1 17:21:44 2002 From: Wilde83 at hotmail.com (Elena Del Moral) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 18:21:44 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Plot Twist Idea (Harry's parents alive?) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32494 Crystal said: Early someone mentioned we should post our ideas for stories and such. Well, I was thinking of a plot twist I'd love to see, although I doubt it'd ever come to anything. My thought is in the last book Harry could find out that his parents are still alive. That for one reason or another, they had to to go into hiding, but couldn't take him with for some reason them. So they had to fake their deaths, knowing someone would take care of Harry until they could come out of hiding. I know it's a loopy idea, but I like it. Wouldn't that make Harry all the much happier since he has no family except for those he has at Hogwarts? Helena Says : That wouldn?t be realistic. Harry has to face his parents death as many other children have to. Is something they can?t change. If they were alive then Harry wouldn?t be the only one who survived to the Avada Kedabra curse. How would Harry?s parents do that to their own son ??? If they had scaped from him , then Voldemort would be running after them instead of Harry , ....And obviously , if they hadn?t been dead , then they wouldn?t have been able to help Harry at the end of GoF. Obtenga el m?ximo provecho del Web. Descarga GRATUITA de MSN Explorer: http://explorer.msn.es/intl.asp#es [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Wilde83 at hotmail.com Tue Jan 1 17:35:51 2002 From: Wilde83 at hotmail.com (Elena Del Moral) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 18:35:51 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: what if JKR were a member of our group? (speculation on epilogue) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32495 joanne0012 wrote: > > We won't see H&R get married, not anyone become an auror, since the books will > end when the kids gradutate from Hogwarts. The epilogue chapter at the end of > Book 7 will tie up loose ends, but won't tell everyone's entire future! Katze said: I beg to differ on this point of view. Rowling has stated in interview (especially the most recent BBC interview) that the last chapter will be an epilogue telling us what happens to the survivors, but this could mean many things. We might just find out who survives, or we might jump forward a couple of years and find out where they are. Jumping forward is a possibility, since we began the series with a 10 year jump. We may not learn the survivors' entire future, but we might learn what they are doing in 10 years time. Helena Says : If Harry and friends , finally get rid of Voldemort forever , then there would be no aurors , because they would have nothing to fight against. I would like Harry to be a proffesional Quidditch seeker , and Hermione would be perfect in politics , helping magic creatures such as elfs...and using her bright mind to help the others.About Ron...Who knows where that funny Weasley will end up being ( Not a second Percy , Plase!!!)... From Wilde83 at hotmail.com Tue Jan 1 17:00:24 2002 From: Wilde83 at hotmail.com (Elena Del Moral) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 18:00:24 +0100 Subject: Pettigrew (was Re: Lupin's relationship with Harry) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32496 Clio says : What we already know about James is that he wasn't that good a judge of character obviously. He chose Peter over Remus to be his secret keeper. A lethal mistake. Was there really no-one else who could have taken that job? What about Lily's friends? I really look forward to hear more about the generation of Harry's parents in the future books. Clio, who is a bit distracted by those sparkling new Euros that ly next to her PC. Hi Clio , What I really doubt about Peter Pettigrew , is how he get to be at Gryffindor?s. He was ambicious and coward and he wasn?t loyal to his best friends . Did he fooled the hat or what ??? Well if he fooled the sorting hat , then it?s really easy to fool James Potter. Helena. From rowena_grunnion_ffitch at yahoo.com Tue Jan 1 20:09:05 2002 From: rowena_grunnion_ffitch at yahoo.com (Rowena Grunnion-Ffitch) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 12:09:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Untackled (?) Questions In-Reply-To: <20020101173013.32864.qmail@web21101.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20020101200905.13754.qmail@web20804.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32497 --- Ronald Rae Yu wrote: > Hi! I'm Ronald Yu, and I'm new here. > > And since I'm new, forgive me if I ask questions A whole lot of questions! You're forgiven :) > How did Myrtle die if she wears glasses (Colin was > petrified using the camera)? Not enough lenses between her and the Basilisk?? > How did ghosts take their clothes and glasses with > them when they died? They don't. They just choose to manifest with their usual accessories out of habit. > In book 3, Quidditch Final, Lee comments on the > beater > work of George Weasley. How could he have known it > was > HIM (not Fred)? I mean, flying at top speed and > everything, he recognized George. Well he *is* a Wizard...... > What's the use of the first two tasks if the > champion > who reaches the Triwizard Cup first wins? Three tasks are traditional, (read any fairytale). > Why not use Veritaserum or the Pensieve as evidences > for Harry's account at the end of book 4? And to > clear > Sirius as well. The problem with Veritserum is that it only produces what the subject *believes* is the truth. Since Harry is thought to be disturbed rather than lying Veritserum would prove nothing. Also since the Pensieve is materialized thoughts, and so subjective, it probably doesn't constitute legal evidence. > Why do the Hogwarts electives have such impossible > schedules? I mean, if you have the option of taking > as > much classes as you can, they should make the > schedule > possible to follow without time-turners. I think the point is Hermione wanted to take *more* classes than anybody could reasonably handle and Dumbledore and McGonagal let her try as an object lesson in overextending oneself. > And since you have options of electives they should > not be scheduled by house (Care of Magical Creatures > with the Slytherins). But if more than one member of the House/Year is taking the course - Care of Magical Creatures seems to be a popular class - it would make sense to schedule them together. > With Arithmancy and Divination taking place > simultaneously, is Hermione the only Gryffindor (in > her year) in Arithmancy? Everyone else is in > Divination. Maybe the two unnamed girls are with her? Arithmancy seems to be a very demanding course - it wouldn't appeal to a lot of the students. > Why not Snape go for DADA? What's stopping him? Many fans opine that Snape doesn't really want the DADA job at all, this is just a myth believed by the students. > Why do wizards still use owls for messages? Frankly, > phones are faster; they should at least try to adapt > to muggle ways. And interfere with their superiority complex? I think not! Fact is we can do just about everything they can these days with our technology - in fact some things we do better! > Quirrell could have just said 'Accio, Philosopher's > Stone!' when he wanted it out of Harry's pocket. Maybe not. Maybe powerful magical talismans don't respond to such simple spells. > Why are there 4-5 quidditch players in Fred and > George's batch (them, Alicia, and Angelina, and > likely > but not positively, Katie)? Is their year really > that > good? Guess so. > What's the big fuss in not being able to apparate or > disapparate within Hogwarts? One could make a > portkey > anytime and portkey himself in or out of the > grounds. Apparently that is harder to do - and maybe fewer people can do it. Crouch jr. apparently *modified* an already existant portkey spell rather than creating one from scratch. > No one ever seems to mind or at least notice (even > Harry) that Oct. 31 is not only Nick's deathday but > also James's and Lily's. Harry doesn't seem to let it spoil his Halloweens either does he? > Where are the dead bodies of James and Lily? Buried somewhere one sincerely hopes. > If house elves don't want pay the Weasleys could get > one anytime. Why don't they? Molly wants one. Maybe it's hard to find one who isn't already taken? > If you live in Hogsmeade it would make perfect sense > NOT to take the Hogwarts Express to Hogwarts. Do all > students need to ride it to school? Probably not. On the other hand Wizards do seem to have rather different ideas about space and distance than us Muggles. > If Voldie couldn't kill Harry with his wand he could > have done so anytime with a gun or something. Evil wizards don't do that kind of thing that's why ;). To kill Harry by mundane means would be an admission his powers are greater than Voldies' which his ego could not take. > Do Quaffles move on their own? There's at least one > instance when it fell, but in the World Cup it > rocketed upwards when it was released. I think so, all the other balls do. > Why could they talk to paintings and not to photos? > It > is more likely to be the other way around, since > photos are based on real people. Photos are taken by mechanical means, while a painting is the work of an artist, (or wizard's own hands) that's why their are more magical. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send your FREE holiday greetings online! http://greetings.yahoo.com From Calypso8604 at aol.com Tue Jan 1 20:13:57 2002 From: Calypso8604 at aol.com (Calypso8604 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 15:13:57 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] RE: Pettigrew (was Re: Lupin's relationship with Harry) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32498 In a message dated 1/1/2002 3:09:30 PM Eastern Standard Time, Wilde83 at hotmail.com writes: > Hi Clio , What I really doubt about Peter Pettigrew , is how he get to be at > Gryffindor?s. He was ambicious and coward and he wasn?t loyal to his best > friends . Did he fooled the hat or what ??? Well if he fooled the sorting > hat , then it?s really easy to fool James Potter. > > Helena. > A person's character *can* change over the course of time. There's no doubt in my mind that Pettigrew was a perfectly loyal bloke when he was sorted at age 11. You also should take into consideration that we do not know the circumstances of Peter's betrayal. All we know is that he was the secret-keeper and Voldemort got the secret out of him. What exactly happened is something we do not yet know. Anyway, I believe whole-heartedly that Peter was a Gryffindor. We know for a fact that James and Remus were, and I can safely conclude that Sirius was as well. I doubt that a Slytherin would be accepted into a group of Gryffindors. Calypso [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bookraptor11 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 1 20:14:40 2002 From: bookraptor11 at yahoo.com (bookraptor11) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 20:14:40 -0000 Subject: what if JKR were a member of our group? In-Reply-To: <3C31F773.2A51F5E4@erols.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32499 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Margaret Dean wrote: > jrober4211 wrote: > > > I had not thought of the potential for law suites when I originally > > posted my supposition. Actually , most of you understood that I only > > hoped we could influence her writing so that story lines and > > characters would develope the way each of us wants to see them > > mature. > > Natural as this desire is, I would hope that we would not be able > to do any such thing, even if JKR were watching this group! From > what I've heard of her, JKR has a very firm idea of how her story > will go and how her characters will develop. That's a sign of a > good writer. An over-willingness to adapt one's own ideas to > other people's desires, um, isn't. > > > --Margaret Dean > Just as a matter of curiosity, did anyone ever put together a coherant list of the major speculations and predictions of this group on GOF before it came out, and which ones proved to be true? I've been following this thread and keep getting a picture of an infinate number of monkeys with typewriters turning out Shakespeare! No offense meant, I just wondered if, with all of the active group members thinking and analyzing over and over, reacting and refining with each other, what the chances were of us getting a pretty acurate picture of what the next book(s) hold? Donna Sorry for the run on sentence, couldn't find a way to break it up. From Calypso8604 at aol.com Tue Jan 1 20:24:25 2002 From: Calypso8604 at aol.com (Calypso8604 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 15:24:25 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Untackled (?) Questions Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32500 > In book 3, Quidditch Final, Lee comments on the > beater > work of George Weasley. How could he have known it > was > HIM (not Fred)? I mean, flying at top speed and > everything, he recognized George. Perhaps George wore something different than Fred that would identify him. Assuming that you can tell what's under the Quidditch robes, of course > Where are the dead bodies of James and Lily? Well, morbid as it sounds, I always assumed that since the house seemingly burned to the ground with the spells that their bodies did too. Of course, their house didn't really burn now that I think about it, but that's how I always thought. > If house elves don't want pay the Weasleys could get > one anytime. Why don't they? Molly wants one. It's stated that house elves only come in big, rich manors Calypso > > What's the use of the first two tasks if the > > champion > > who reaches the Triwizard Cup first wins? > Three tasks are traditional, (read any fairytale). > And the first two tasks determined what order the champions would begin in. << Why do wizards still use owls for messages? Frankly, > phones are faster; they should at least try to adapt > to muggle ways>> Well, if electricity goes haywire because of all the magic at Hogwarts I'm sure the same thing would happen with telephons [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From margdean at erols.com Tue Jan 1 21:02:07 2002 From: margdean at erols.com (Margaret Dean) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 16:02:07 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Untackled (?) Questions References: Message-ID: <3C3223CF.1C667BDF@erols.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32501 Calypso8604 at aol.com wrote: > > > In book 3, Quidditch Final, Lee comments on the > > beater work of George Weasley. How could he have known > > it was HIM (not Fred)? I mean, flying at top speed and > > everything, he recognized George. > > Perhaps George wore something different than Fred that would identify him. > Assuming that you can tell what's under the Quidditch robes, of course Maybe the robes themselves have names and/or numbers on the back, like Muggle sports uniforms. --Margaret Dean From margdean at erols.com Tue Jan 1 21:06:40 2002 From: margdean at erols.com (Margaret Dean) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 16:06:40 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: what if JKR were a member of our group? (speculation on epilogue) References: Message-ID: <3C3224E0.AE8F1840@erols.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32502 Elena Del Moral wrote: > If Harry and friends , finally get rid of Voldemort forever , then there would > be no aurors , because they would have nothing to fight against. Oh ho, don't kid yourself! Before Voldemort (just as an example) there was Grindelwald, and after Voldemort there will be other Dark Wizards, you can bet. Voldie's just the latest and greatest. Wizards are, after all, only human . . . --Margaret Dean From Elizabeth.Dalton at EAST.SUN.COM Tue Jan 1 21:01:42 2002 From: Elizabeth.Dalton at EAST.SUN.COM (Elizabeth Dalton) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 16:01:42 -0500 Subject: Happy-enough endings, children's lit References: Message-ID: <3C3223B6.1DD733B8@sun.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32503 Well, I read posts by Penny, Tabouli, Cindy, Katze, and a host of others about how happy or tragic they thought the ending could or should be, and then browsed through all the discussion about children's vs. adult literature over the past couple of days. I eventually realized that these two topics are very related, for me. Last night I was talking with my seven-year-old daughter, who was going through some pretty severe post-holiday blues. I was trying to explain "mature perspective" to her (though not using that specific term). We ended up examining the mosaic tile floor of our bathroom at very close (nose nearly touching) range, at which we could see about 10 tiles, then standing up and looking again, from her eye level and then mine, noting how many more tiles we could see. I tried to explain that adults are able to see/think about more things at a time than young children. I was trying to make a point about how yesterday had been a pretty good day, despite some sad things that happened at the end. I was able to think about the whole day, on balance, and see it as a good day. She was having trouble looking past the events of the last hour or so. This exercise didn't completely cheer up my daughter, but she seemed to get the point. And I think this is related to the difference between what counts as a "happy" ending in a child's story vs. an adult story, at least for me. I prefer stories in which pain or suffering is eventually outweighed by some good accomplished, generally as a result. Sacrifice doesn't hold value for me unless, at some level, it is successful-- the goal for which the sacrifice is made is reached, at least in part. (Not everyone agrees with me, I'm well aware. One of my best friends is quite impressed with sacrifice, even when it's completely unsuccessful. And some members of this list might really like reading about tragedy, whether there is some good that comes of it later or not. I say, there are plenty of books out there for all of us. The question is, what kind are the later HP books?) As an adult, I'm willing and able to allow the relationship between pain and sacrifice and the greater good to be delayed, obscure, and/or complex. The main character may never know of the good that is accomplished. Sometimes the goal can even be reached outside the confines of the story itself -- "The Diary of Anne Frank" was like that, for me. But the good has to be there. Someone has to recognize it, and some relationship has to be present between the pain and the benefit. The "payoff" in the first two books, SS/PS and CoS, was pretty simple and immediate. That's a big part of why I classify them as children's books (though I like Tabouli's overall explanation). Stone saved from Voldemort, Ginny saved from the Basilisk, Lockhart made harmless, things like that. The connections were more complex and abstract in PoA. Some of the "good" was hard for Harry to understand. Fortunately (and in part because PoA is still really a children's book), Dumbledore is available as the wise adult to tell Harry that all will be well, and he was right to let Pettigrew live. GoF crosses the line to YA (young adult) fiction, I think. Dumbledore explains a lot to Harry at the end, but doesn't try to make everything seem all right. Everything is not all right. The world is a much bigger place than Harry as a child had thought, and he can't remain a child any longer. And the reader is forced to grow up a little with him. But on reflection, I think my real problem with GoF is simply that it's a "middle" book. The real nature of the fight with Voldemort is revealed, but not resolved. In fact, very little is resolved in GoF. Barty Crouch (both of them, actually) is eliminated as a threat, but this almost raises more problems than it solves. Voldemort is out there, *something* happened with the blood that has Dumbledore excited, but we don't know what, Snape is more mysterous than ever, Sirius has had to leave again.... what kind of an ending is that??? Of course, it *isn't* an ending. It's almost the real beginning of the story. In future years, it wouldn't surprise me if the series is generally considered in two parts, with books 1-3 considered "children's" literature, and books 4-7 considered YA literature, and almost a separate arc, for which 1-3 provide the setup. But I won't know until all 7 books are out. In any case, I think the overall ending to the series will be satisfying from my perspective-- at least I hope so-- because that's the kind of story Rowling seems to tell. I just think the later books are going to make one wait longer for the payoff... probably right until the end of book 7, at this point. There will be minor successes along the way, but I don't think there will be another big payoff ending until the last book. Here's the kind of ending I think likely (Elizabeth puts on her Trelawney shawl): Most of the older characters that we know will die or be severely incapacitated before the end of book 7. This is because I think, true to YA tradition, Harry will have to take on Voldemort by himself. Any older characters who could help him will have to be out of the way for this to happen. Dead, imprisoned, or away on a critical mission and unreachable (and this is the *best* hope I can think of for Sirius or Lupin). By formula, Snape is likely to die in some significant, tragic way, but he's defied formula so far, so I'm hoping. ;) I think Ron and Hermione are likely to survive to the end, but will be Harry's "generals," busy with some major part of the action against Voldemort's minions when he has to face down Voldemort himself. Ron may get to be a strategist again-- we haven't seen any of that since the end of PS/SS, which has been kind of disappointing. Hermione will continue in the role of "research specialist." As in the first book, Harry will have to leave them at some point to go on alone. Either or both could be severely wounded, but I'd give them overall pretty good odds of survival. (I'm completely agnostic about any shipping predictions.) I don't give Harry better than 50-50 odds for surviving the last book. But I hope and trust that if he does give his life, it will be for a significant goal. Not just defeating Voldemort-- something toward making it harder for another Voldemort to come into being, or preferably something that changes the balance of power in the wizard world, so that muggles, muggle-born, house-elves, werewolves, etc. have an easier time of it going forward. If Harry lives, he may lose his wizard powers (though we have no precedent for that), or possibly his memory. I don't see how he can come through any meaningful confrontation with Voldemort unscathed. I don't give the current status quo of the wizard world very good odds of surviving, either. By this I mean that presently the wizard world is an almost separate extension of our own, but not quite separate. New wizards are being born all the time, and they are invited to enter this secret world, but the existance of the whole wizard world his hidden from the rest of the population. In a children's book, this situation could go on forever, but in a YA (or even "adult") book, I'd expect it to be unstable, and probably either the wizard world would be completely exposed to the muggle world or completely hidden from it. Exposing the wizard world may very well weaken it, as I've speculated previously, by "diluting" the magic in the larger muggle world. And technology seems to disrupt magic, as well. by A complete separation might not be possible, unless there is some way to stop muggle-born wizards from popping up. But I expect something significant to change here, especially given the unattractive details Rowling keeps adding about the prejudices and other flaws in the wizard world. Maybe it's just because Rowling reminds me of Dianna Wynne Jones, and I'm thinking of the end of "Witch Week," which was the first book of hers that I read.... Anyway, if we get some significant positive outcomes, for muggles and other "have-nots" as well as wizards, I'll accept quite a bit of tragedy along the way. Enough to keep Cindy happy, even. :) But I want that "happy" ending-- I need all the pain to have been for a purpose, and the good to be worth the cost. And I need whatever characters are left to be able to recognize that, as they survey whatever is left of the world when Rowling is done with it. Or I really will bundle up the books, drop them off at whatever library is willing to take them at that point, and walk away. Elizabeth (who has been asked to appear as Trelawney at her young nephew's Harry Potter themed birthday party-- but only accepted because the part of McGonnagal was already spoken for) From Elizabeth.Dalton at EAST.SUN.COM Tue Jan 1 21:07:59 2002 From: Elizabeth.Dalton at EAST.SUN.COM (Elizabeth Dalton) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 16:07:59 -0500 Subject: Character concordances References: <3C3224E0.AE8F1840@erols.com> Message-ID: <3C32252F.CD4AD0C2@sun.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32504 Have "concordances" quoting all the canon descriptions and dialogue of certain significant lesser characters been created, as far as anyone knows? Snape would be the most obvious one, I would think, but it would be interesting to do this for McGonnagal, as well, or perhaps Dumbledore. Scabbers/Pettigrew could be fascinating, too. And Neville probably needs this treatment the most. My reasoning is that bundling all the canon details of some of these characters together in one place might help us to see some of them more clearly. (Canon would here include both the books and interview transcripts.) This makes less sense for Sirius or Lupin, as they are primarily described and appear in large cohesive sections of one or two books, but might make more sense going forward. Elizabeth (who keeps wanting to think Snape is really better at heart than he seems, or McGonnagal more significant, but keeps coming up against descriptions otherwise in canon) From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Jan 1 21:35:50 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 21:35:50 -0000 Subject: Untackled Questions Myrtle Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32505 Ronald asked: How did Myrtle die if she wears glasses (Colin was petrified using the camera)? We know Myrtle tears up easily . She might have pushed her glasses out of the way to wipe her eyes as she came blundering out of her stall. I like the irony of supposing that Tom was telling the truth to some extent when he told Hagrid how she must have died: "I don't think you meant to kill anyone. But monsters don't make good pets." ie, Myrtle's death was not part of his plan, and his intention was to Petrify her. Pippin From hollydaze at btinternet.com Tue Jan 1 21:50:43 2002 From: hollydaze at btinternet.com (Hollydaze) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 21:50:43 -0000 Subject: Lily + James' Bodies were in the house. Message-ID: <001a01c1930e$5f09fd80$894201d5@j0dhe> No: HPFGUIDX 32506 A while ago people were discussing whether James and Lily's Bodies had been found in their house ad Godric's Hollow. I don't remember if anyone actually commented on this but I have found a quote that proves they were. Book 3, Pg 268 (UK) Sirius is telling Harry about switching secret keeper: " And when I saw their house, destroyed, and their bodies - I realised what Peter must have done. What I'd done." That would imply that they were still "whole" (so to speak) and that they could be seen in Godric's Hollow. HOLLYDAZE!!! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com Tue Jan 1 21:56:40 2002 From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 15:56:40 -0600 Subject: V - the end of bad wizards?/Harry's fate References: <3C3224E0.AE8F1840@erols.com> Message-ID: <3C323098.7493EB98@kingwoodcable.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32507 Margaret Dean wrote: > > Elena Del Moral wrote: > > > If Harry and friends , finally get rid of Voldemort forever , then there would > > be no aurors , because they would have nothing to fight against. > > Oh ho, don't kid yourself! Before Voldemort (just as an example) > there was Grindelwald, and after Voldemort there will be other > Dark Wizards, you can bet. Voldie's just the latest and > greatest. Wizards are, after all, only human . . . I have to agree...there will be more bad wizards. I'm a person who would like to see Harry survive relatively undamaged, and I'm constantly trying to find a light at the end of the tunnel. I know that people are going to tease me that he might die, but trust me, Rowling does a fine job by herself getting me worked up into a frenzy. So I'm sitting here, trying to figure out if there is a way for Harry to survive, and I think I found a way. Dumbledore defeated the great wizard Gindelwald, and he seems to be relatively unscathed, so why can't Harry have this too? I don't expect Harry to come out undamaged, but he certainly could be content in the end. I can also accept a little lunacy for Harry as I think this is what makes Dumbledore much more endearing. He's perfectly functional, rational, and powerful, yet he hums to himself and takes delight in little things. I'd love this for Harry. But Harry can't be this if D is still around. Therefore...D must die. ;-) On that note...I shall go eat some chocolate. -Katze From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Jan 1 22:07:24 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 22:07:24 -0000 Subject: HP and the Happy Ending Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32508 It occurs to me that WB probably asked some very pointed questions about the planned ending of the series before committing to make movies of all seven books. Big money producers don't like unhappy endings. (Further discussion of this should go to HP_Movie) I think the most powerful ending would be bittersweet: enough sadness to move us but enough joy to console us. For example, Harry finds love and defeats Voldemort, but forfeits his magical powers. Since JKR has said she invented the wizarding world around Harry (the reverse of Tolkien who came up with Middle-earth long before he thought of Hobbits) that would explain why she says she isn't planning to write about it after Book 7. It wouldn't be that interesting to her if Harry isn't a wizard anymore. Some on this list are saying they would reject the series if the ending is too dark. That of course is exactly what WB would be afraid of. The normal human reaction to loss is denial, which is the opposite of what a world-creating fantasy author is trying to achieve. Dark endings invoke denial, which is necessary to the cautionary tale (don't let this happen) , or the horror story (thank goodness there's no such thing as ...) but is out of place where the author's aim is to create a world we want to believe could or did exist. Pippin From gwynyth at drizzle.com Tue Jan 1 22:38:22 2002 From: gwynyth at drizzle.com (Jenett) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 16:38:22 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Untackled (?) Questions In-Reply-To: <20020101173013.32864.qmail@web21101.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20020101173013.32864.qmail@web21101.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32509 At 9:30 AM -0800 1/1/02, Ronald Rae Yu wrote: >Hi! I'm Ronald Yu, and I'm new here. > >And since I'm new, forgive me if I ask questions >already discussed before. I've searched these already >in HP sites but none seem to tackle them (or maybe I >didn't search well). Well, I'm sure somebody somewhere >have asked himself some of these before. And I'm sure >there are other newbies here as well. If you haven't taken a look at the FAQ essays, some of them might be handy here... http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/faq/ (Also http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/ for lots of other resources) > >What's the use of the first two tasks if the champion >who reaches the Triwizard Cup first wins? As was said, three tasks is sort of traditional. It's also worth noting that the three tasks test very different sets of skills. The first really should have tested quick thinking (but didn't, so much, because everyone knew in advance what they were fighting). The second, loyalty and the ability to work out the puzzle. The third, an ability to use a wide variety of charms/spells/etc in quick succession. (All of them tend to test bravery, mind.) It's also explicitly in the text (in my case, I'm looking at page 551 of the US hardcover edition) that the first two tests set up the entrance order for the final test. Bagman says: "Now, the champions who are leading on points will get a head start into the maze." Bagman grinned at Harry and Cedric. "Then Mr. Krum will enter... then Miss Delacourt. But you'll all be in with a fighting chance, depending on how well you get past the obstacles." Thus, the first two give you an advantage at the third one - but not a complete advantage, just handicap the people who'd done less well. >Why do the Hogwarts electives have such impossible >schedules? I mean, if you have the option of taking as >much classes as you can, they should make the schedule >possible to follow without time-turners. I think it's pretty clear that most people don't choose to take more electives than fit into the class day. Hermione's an exception, but everyone else seems to be in the same basic position I know *I* was in high school - I had my required courses, and then I could pick one or two on my own, but that was about it, if I wanted to have time for anything else. Hermione partly gets away with it, I think, not just because of the Time Turner, but because there's a fair bit of evidence she's not just bright, but a quite fast worker, even given how much time she devotes to her studies. (there're a number of references to her having had a very easy time completely or exceeding assignment lengths, for example.) > >Why not Snape go for DADA? What's stopping him? This one's been discussed a bit - and quite recently on here, as well. You might go take a look at the archives and read those messages. You might go look for the thread around December 20th-22nd of 2001 entitled "Snape and DADA", for example. >Why do wizards still use owls for messages? Frankly, >phones are faster; they should at least try to adapt >to muggle ways. Phones also require wiring and such. It may well be that wiring intereferes with magic (this is a pretty standard theory in fantasy literature in various places.) And, of course, using phones would mean explaining to the nice muggle phone company representative exactly what was going on. There also isn't anything that makes adaptation *necessary*. New is not necessarily better. It's just new. There's floo powder. Adult wizards can apparate - even faster than picking up the phone, unless you're trying to get into Hogwarts or probably a few other locations. They also have the head-in-the-fire thing. Phones wouldn't add anything to that - and might well add a level of inappropriate distraction. (Imagine how you'd feel if you were trying to deal with a potion, and people kept calling you up to chat...) Phones are also not an umittigated success. Some people (*waves* leave ours off almost all of the time. Most of the communication I do, other than internet stuff, I'd be just as happy to do by mail as anything else, particularly if it were much easier to visit distant friends without getting on a plane/train/car. >No one ever seems to mind or at least notice (even >Harry) that Oct. 31 is not only Nick's deathday but >also James's and Lily's. I'm trying to remember if Harry actually *knows* the day they died. I honestly don't recall, and I'm not going to hunt for references now, but does anyone know if Harry's been told explicitly? As for him not asking, I still think it's in the bounds of reasonableness. It sometimes takes people a long time to come to grips with the *details* of trauma. If all the people you might ask keep not wanting to talk about it, you might also not really want to talk about it to them, if it wasn't really *that* important to you. A possible side example here is people whose parents were Holocaust survivors, particularly if most of their family didn't survive. My mother's family were refugees from Hitler, but trying to get information out of her or my grandmother (my grandfather died before I was born) was pretty darn near impossible for me. My grandmother would talk to fellow refugees about it, but she had a very hard time talking to her own family about it. I'm told this is in some cases because it's very hard to explain trauma to someone who wasn't there, or because of the feeling that you have to reveal so much to set up the information that it's immensely painful to relive. (Never mind the tendency of people to manage to ask the questions you *really* don't want to think about, sometimes.) It's quite reasonable, in my mind, that what Voldemort did produced some of the same sorts of reactions. You talk quietly to those who were there then, on some nights. And then you go about your new life, and don't talk about it again for months. -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 morrigan at byz.org Tue Jan 1 23:05:48 2002 From: morrigan at byz.org (Vicki) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 15:05:48 -0800 Subject: Wizard and Muggle Interactions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32510 Hi all - I'm new to the list and am very much enjoying it - it's great to be around others who are as into the whole HP world as I am. :) Now, I have a question, and it may be something that's already been discussed, so I apologize if that is the case. But - how is it that there ARE muggles aware of the wizarding world? JKR makes the strong point of how muggles are not to know about magic, and we have muggles being protected by Arthur Weasley, et all, and yet we have a number of examples of muggles who are aware of magic and are left with that knowlege. First, we have Lily and the Evans, which leads directly to Harry and the Dursleys. Petunia mentions that her parents were so happy to have a witch in the family. Petunia's jealousy undoubtedly helps to form Vernon's feelings about magic; they both hate the idea and as we know, try their hardest to keep Harry out of it. But they are aware of it all the time. The second example we have is Hermione and the Grangers. We don't hear a lot about them, but it's certainly mentioned often that Hermione is "muggle-born" (or that she's a mudblood if it's Malfoy talking). We know that her parents are dentists and that she buys a special kind of magical floss as a gift for them during a trip to Hogsmeade. We know that they accompany her to Diagon Alley at least once and that they're supportive of her, although they don't want her using magic to solve everything. We also have the examples of Hagrid's father and Tom Riddle's father and their different reactions to the women they fathered children with. Hagrid's giantess mother leaves her family, but supposedly his father loved her, accepted her and didn't want her to leave. Riddle's father kicked his mother out when he found out she was a witch. So, the ultimate question is, how is all this possible? Why are some muggles allowed knowlege of magic while most are not? Do I just need to stop thinking so much? ;) Vicki From rainbow at rainbowbrite.net Tue Jan 1 21:13:30 2002 From: rainbow at rainbowbrite.net (Lily Potter) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 16:13:30 -0500 Subject: Grindewald? References: <3C3224E0.AE8F1840@erols.com> Message-ID: <002f01c19309$2a076140$4b07000a@711> No: HPFGUIDX 32511 Margaret Dean said: > Oh ho, don't kid yourself! Before Voldemort (just as an example) > there was Grindelwald, and after Voldemort there will be other > Dark Wizards, you can bet. Voldie's just the latest and > greatest. Wizards are, after all, only human . . . Who is Grindewald? I don't recall that name. But you're right - evil will always exist and have to be fought. .. )) -::- . .)) ((. .. -::- Lily -::- -::- ((.* From boggles at earthlink.net Wed Jan 2 00:05:53 2002 From: boggles at earthlink.net (Jennifer Boggess Ramon) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 18:05:53 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Untackled (?) Questions In-Reply-To: <20020101173013.32864.qmail@web21101.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20020101173013.32864.qmail@web21101.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32512 At 9:30 AM -0800 1/1/02, Ronald Rae Yu wrote: > >How did Myrtle die if she wears glasses (Colin was >petrified using the camera)? She was crying at the time. Speaking as a person who wears glasses, when you're crying, you have to periodically remove the glasses and clean them off or you can't see anything. Given her history of ill luck, she must have been cleaning them when she opened the stall door to tell off the boy who was talking in her bathroom. >How did ghosts take their clothes and glasses with >them when they died? Morphic resonance. They expect to appear clothed and accessorized, and their visible forms are composed completely of their self-images. >In book 3, Quidditch Final, Lee comments on the beater >work of George Weasley. How could he have known it was >HIM (not Fred)? I mean, flying at top speed and >everything, he recognized George. Either Lee really knows the twins that well (maybe one of them wears his hair slightly shorter than the other), or perhaps the Quiddich robes have their names on the backs like the Irish World Cup team's robes do. >What's the use of the first two tasks if the champion >who reaches the Triwizard Cup first wins? Their point totals from the first two tasks determine their handicap on the third task - who gets a head start. >Why not use Veritaserum or the Pensieve as evidences >for Harry's account at the end of book 4? And to clear >Sirius as well. They never used it on Sirius because he never got a trial. No one will take the idea of his innocence seriously enough to try it on him now. (Although, now that he and Snape are 'on the same team,' it wouldn't suprise me if Snape demands that Sirius submit to it privately to convince him.) >Why do the Hogwarts electives have such impossible >schedules? I mean, if you have the option of taking as >much classes as you can, they should make the schedule >possible to follow without time-turners. One would imagine that it's not recommended that students take more than two or three electives, and that the schedule would not be arranged in such a way as to make it easy to do so. There appear to be only four classes per day (maybe as few as three); it would be very difficult, even if their schedule is in alternating blocks, to have more than eight classes, and Hermione seems to be taking ten or more. >And since you have options of electives they should >not be scheduled by house (Care of Magical Creatures >with the Slytherins). I would have thought that the electives would be open-enrollment, rather than divided by house; it might be that no Hufflepuffs or Ravenclaws signed up for CoMC. >With Arithmancy and Divination taking place >simultaneously, is Hermione the only Gryffindor (in >her year) in Arithmancy? Everyone else is in >Divination. Given how common math phobia is, she may well be the only Gryffindor in her year taking it. I have images of her in a room full of Ravenclaws. >Why not Snape go for DADA? What's stopping him? I don't think he really wants it; I think he just thinks all the DADA teachers so far are complete incompetents. >Why do wizards still use owls for messages? Frankly, >phones are faster; they should at least try to adapt >to muggle ways. Well, if Hermione is correct, they wouldn't work at Hogwarts anyway. Presumably the same is true of other loci of magical energy - the other two schools, Azkaban, the Ministry offices, and perhaps even dwellings like the Burrow and the never-seen Malfoy manor. Besides, the owls serve as a replacement for the postal service; the face-in-the-fire rick seems to be used when an emergency phone call would be necessary. 99% of all non-Muggle-born wizards seem to be far too proud to pay any attention at all to Muggle ways of doing things, anyway. >Quirrell could have just said 'Accio, Philosopher's >Stone!' when he wanted it out of Harry's pocket. Good one - perhaps the Stone, being a Powerful Magical Artifact (TM), can't be Accio'd? (OTOH, perhaps Quirrell isn't any good that that particular spell - he didn't strike me as being terribly competent.) >Why are there 4-5 quidditch players in Fred and >George's batch (them, Alicia, and Angelina, and likely >but not positively, Katie)? Is their year really that >good? Why not? >What's the big fuss in not being able to apparate or >disapparate within Hogwarts? One could make a portkey >anytime and portkey himself in or out of the grounds. I got the impression that the Triwizard trophy was a special case, that originally it ported the winner from the center of the maze (where Harry and Cedric leave) to the entrance (where Harry lands with Cedric's body) and that an exception to Hogwarts' normal "rules" had been made for it - all Moody/Crouch had to do was modify an existing permitted spell. >No one ever seems to mind or at least notice (even >Harry) that Oct. 31 is not only Nick's deathday but >also James's and Lily's. It's the wizarding world; these things happen. Harry's birthday is on Lammas Eve, too. >Where are the dead bodies of James and Lily? We're never explicitly told, but they're probably buried in Godric's Hollow. >If house elves don't want pay the Weasleys could get >one anytime. Why don't they? Molly wants one. House-elves are almost always attached to impressive manors (or, presumably, insitutions, like Hogwarts). One would have to be looking for a master for her to pick one up. I got the impression from the scene in which Crouch dismisses Winky that it's not a common occurrence. >If you live in Hogsmeade it would make perfect sense >NOT to take the Hogwarts Express to Hogwarts. Do all >students need to ride it to school? Probably not if you live in Hogsmeade itself, no. >If Voldie couldn't kill Harry with his wand he could >have done so anytime with a gun or something. What? The Greand High Evil Muggle-Hating Wizard use a Muggle way of killing someone? How gauche! Now, if there's a properly enchanted sword or bow and arrow out there somewhere, then perhaps Harry has cause to worry . . . >Do Quaffles move on their own? There's at least one >instance when it fell, but in the World Cup it >rocketed upwards when it was released. _Quiddich Through the Ages_ says that the quaffle has some enchantments on it to make it easier to grip and to keep it from falling normally if fumbled. I wouldn't be suprised if there were some "cinematic" enchantments on it at the World Cup for a dramatic start. But normally they're not self-propelled. >Why could they talk to paintings and not to photos? It >is more likely to be the other way around, since >photos are based on real people. Because the people in the photos are alive and doing something else. I suspect teh paintings don't become fully interactive until the subject dies - they're sort of two-dimensional ghosts. -- - 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 ickle_ronniekins at yahoo.com Tue Jan 1 17:51:23 2002 From: ickle_ronniekins at yahoo.com (Ronald Rae Yu) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 09:51:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: Sybill could be right, you know Message-ID: <20020101175123.30698.qmail@web21109.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32513 No one takes our dear Trelawney seriously, but it COULD be possible that Harry will face death soon (hey, we knew this all along). I mean, how can 80 death predictions be wrong? Then again, it's just Trelawney. By the way she's one of my favorite characters... "Ronald Rae Yu" __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send your FREE holiday greetings online! http://greetings.yahoo.com From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com Wed Jan 2 00:15:05 2002 From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 18:15:05 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Grindewald? References: <3C3224E0.AE8F1840@erols.com> <002f01c19309$2a076140$4b07000a@711> Message-ID: <3C325109.D436A86A@kingwoodcable.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32514 Lily Potter wrote: > > Margaret Dean said: > > Oh ho, don't kid yourself! Before Voldemort (just as an example) > > there was Grindelwald, and after Voldemort there will be other > > Dark Wizards, you can bet. Voldie's just the latest and > > greatest. Wizards are, after all, only human . . . > > Who is Grindewald? I don't recall that name. But you're right - evil will > always exist and have to be fought. > Dumbledore defeated "the great wizard Grindelwald" in 1945. You can find this reference on the first chocolate frog that Harry finds on the train to Hogwarts in SS/PS. You can also find a reference to him through Dumbledore on the Lexicon. Some folks speculate that Grindelwald may have been Hitler. -Katze From tracym255 at aol.com Wed Jan 2 00:20:22 2002 From: tracym255 at aol.com (mullsym255) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 00:20:22 -0000 Subject: Lupin's relationship with Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32515 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grandisiowa" wrote: > Does Lupin care as much as Sirius? Absolutely. It might be a > difference > in the characters' personalities. > I would agree with that. Lupin does seem reserved, but the relationship always bothered me because I've always wanted to feel that Lupin did care as much, considering he seems like such a great guy. grandisiowa wrote: > Another factor involved is the teacher element. I know that there > are > extenuating circumstances in this teacher student relationship, but > there are certain obligations about being a teacher, and how you > should > behave. > I did think of that after posting. It makes sense that his teacher relationship with Harry would make him even more reserved. It seems like Harry understands this too, because he has no qualms about calling Sirius by his first name, but still adresses Lupin as "Professor". grandisiowa continued: > Sirius sends > Harry birthday presents and invites Harry to live with him, so > why > doesn't Lupin? I understand that the latter would probably be > impossible considering the werewolf problem, but would it be so > hard > to send Harry a present? > > Money. Lupin hasn't had any money. > Hadn't thought of that at all, but it does make sense. grandisiowa again: > From a pragmatic viewpoint, there's that werewolf thing again. I > can > imagine that James and Lily would like Remus to be involved in > Harry's > life, but to have Remus take care of Harry should something happen > to > them might not be wisest for both Harry and Remus. > I guess I hadn't really realized all the responsibilities that the Godfather would take. And it seems pretty obvious that Remus isn't the best choice for someone to take care of baby Harry, so it would seem right for it to be Sirius instead. But as far as the best man thing.. is it possible for James to have had more than just one? I know that's not typical but I'd still like to believe that Lupin wasn't completely ignored. :) grandisiowa again: > Thank you for such a thought provoking message. > No problem. :) Tracy From UcfRentLuvr at cs.com Wed Jan 2 01:30:06 2002 From: UcfRentLuvr at cs.com (UcfRentLuvr at cs.com) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 20:30:06 EST Subject: Green and red symbolism again (WAS Happy-enough endings) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32516 About two weeks ago, my family went on vacation (this is on-topic, I swear ) and because the car ride was to be 10 hours long, I bought myself GoF on tape. It's actually amazing what you notice when you're hearing the story versus when you read it. Anyways.... Elizabeth Dalton wrote: As an adult, I'm willing and able to allow the relationship between pain and sacrifice and the greater good to be delayed, obscure, and/or complex. The main character may never know of the good that is accomplished. >>> I was at the part of the Quidditch World Cup when a thought struck me. We talk about the symbolism of green and red in the story and about how they can mean "good" and "evil" and we've also discussed how some of us think Harry might die in the end. At the Quidditch World Cup, Ireland's colors are green and Bulgaria's are red. We all know that Fred and George bet Bagman that Ireland will win but Bulgaria will get the Snitch. Now, this might be a bit far out, but what if, because of the green and red colors, the teams symbolize kind of what will happen at the end of the books? Ireland, the green, symbolizes the "good" side, Harry's side. Bulgaria, the red, is Voldemort and the Death Eaters. The good side wins, but at the cost of losing the Snitch--Harry (who, whether by coincidence or not, we all know to be the Seeker of his own team.) That would mean that Voldemort might be defeated, but Harry would still die. So....anyone (somewhat) agree or was I partying too much last night? ;) ***Dixie Malfoy*** ~who must go get a jacket because her room is freezing!~ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lhale at niu.edu Wed Jan 2 00:30:40 2002 From: lhale at niu.edu (Laura Hale) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 18:30:40 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Grindewald? References: <3C3224E0.AE8F1840@erols.com> <002f01c19309$2a076140$4b07000a@711> <3C325109.D436A86A@kingwoodcable.com> Message-ID: <00d901c19324$b66c9680$cb73d73f@yourl4vt9q703u> No: HPFGUIDX 32517 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Katze" To: Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2002 6:15 PM Subject: Re: [HPforGrownups] Grindewald? > Lily Potter wrote: > Dumbledore defeated "the great wizard Grindelwald" in 1945. You can find > this reference on the first chocolate frog that Harry finds on the train > to Hogwarts in SS/PS. You can also find a reference to him through > Dumbledore on the Lexicon. Some folks speculate that Grindelwald may > have been Hitler. > > -Katze Didn't JK once say she named people after places she has been too such as Snape, Dudley and Dursley? Grindelwald is an actual place in Switzerland. http://www.grindelwald.net/Grindelwald_live.htm Perhaps this is just another place she can't go (assuming it's evil since Dumbledore defeated Grindelwald.) Laura Hale http://writersu.s5.com/ From amlibug at hotmail.com Wed Jan 2 01:09:24 2002 From: amlibug at hotmail.com (fontaine609) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 01:09:24 -0000 Subject: Untackled (?) Questions In-Reply-To: <20020101173013.32864.qmail@web21101.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32518 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Ronald Rae Yu wrote: What's the use of the first two tasks if the champion > who reaches the Triwizard Cup first wins? > Hi Ron, well this is the only question I have a real answer for so I think I'll leave the rest to smarter people. But the reason they have the other two contests is because the person who aquires the most points in those two gets a considerable head start in the maze, giving them an advantage to reach the cup first. "fontaine609" > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Send your FREE holiday greetings online! > http://greetings.yahoo.com From Wiccagrrl313 at aol.com Wed Jan 2 02:06:25 2002 From: Wiccagrrl313 at aol.com (Wiccagrrl313 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 21:06:25 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Green and red symbolism again (WAS Happy-enough endings) Message-ID: <176.1a2aadd.2963c521@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32519 In a message dated 1/1/02 5:31:27 PM Pacific Standard Time, UcfRentLuvr at cs.com writes: << At the Quidditch World Cup, Ireland's colors are green and Bulgaria's are red. We all know that Fred and George bet Bagman that Ireland will win but Bulgaria will get the Snitch. Now, this might be a bit far out, but what if, because of the green and red colors, the teams symbolize kind of what will happen at the end of the books? Ireland, the green, symbolizes the "good" side, Harry's side. Bulgaria, the red, is Voldemort and the Death Eaters. The good side wins, but at the cost of losing the Snitch--Harry (who, whether by coincidence or not, we all know to be the Seeker of his own team.) That would mean that Voldemort might be defeated, but Harry would still die. >> It's an interesting possibility. Of course, green and red have usually been associated with Slytherin and Gryffindor in the books, so the red has tended to have a more positive connotation than the green. Wonder what that does to the theory? It does kind of imply a "win the battle but lose the war" scenario, though. Tracy From morrigan at byz.org Wed Jan 2 02:21:48 2002 From: morrigan at byz.org (Vicki) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 18:21:48 -0800 Subject: Green and red symbolism again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32520 Dixie Malfoy wrote: >I was at the part of the Quidditch World Cup when a thought struck me. >We talk about the symbolism of green and red in the story and about >how they can mean "good" and "evil" and we've also discussed how some >of us think Harry might die in the end. At the Quidditch World Cup, >Ireland's colors are green and Bulgaria's are red. We all know that >Fred and George bet Bagman that Ireland will win but Bulgaria will get >the Snitch. Now, this might be a bit far out, but what if, because of >the green and red colors, the teams symbolize kind of what will happen >at the end of the books? Ireland, the green, symbolizes the "good" >side, Harry's side. Bulgaria, the red, is Voldemort and the Death >Eaters. The good side wins, but at the cost of losing the Snitch-- >Harry (who, whether by coincidence or not, we all know to be the >Seeker of his own team.) That would mean that Voldemort might be >defeated, but Harry would still die. >So....anyone (somewhat) agree or was I partying too much last night? ;) Well, I'm sure that others have mentioned this before, but how then do you explain that one of Slytherin's colors is green, and one of Gryffindor's is red? Sorry to go poking a big hole in your theory. :) Vicki, who's favorite color is red and was proud to be sorted into Gryffindor :) From englishmajor26 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 2 02:40:53 2002 From: englishmajor26 at yahoo.com (englishmajor26) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 02:40:53 -0000 Subject: Literary references, etc. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32521 (Newbie.) I'd like to know if anyone has found any interesting / unusual literary references in the HP books -- for example, I had to laugh when Hermione turned to stone in Chamber of Secrets -- it seemed to me like a miniscule nod to Shakespeare's The Winter's Tale in which a character named Hermione is somehow resurrected after dying and then having her likeness made into a stone statue. I was wondering if anyone else had caught any references like this. I do catch them occasionally, but I forget to mark them in the books. "englishmajor26" From lhale at niu.edu Wed Jan 2 02:42:57 2002 From: lhale at niu.edu (Laura Hale) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 20:42:57 -0600 Subject: Sirius Black, God father Message-ID: <010001c19337$31623a90$2c853841@yourl4vt9q703u> No: HPFGUIDX 32522 Hey, I know JK Rowlings religious references are usually secular references (Christmas, Easter Break, the Fat Friar) but the God Parent one kinda makes me want to speculate as there is generally some sort of religious accompanient to being made a god parent. If this was true, than Harry Potter's parents could have indeed been practicing some sort of religion (and it would show kind of obviously that religion and magic are not in conflict.) The only two religions I can think of where people get god parents are Judasim (God parents are involved in the circumcision ceremony if I understand correctly) and Catholicism (where god parents are denoted during the baptismal ceremony). Are there other faiths that have god parents attached to them? Laura Hale http://writersu.s5.com/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From richasi at azlance.com Wed Jan 2 01:48:25 2002 From: richasi at azlance.com (Richasi) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 20:48:25 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Wizard and Muggle Interactions (Part Deux) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c1932f$91b097a0$e6d51b18@cfl.rr.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32523 > From: Vicki [mailto:morrigan at byz.org] > Dursleys. Petunia mentions that her parents were so happy to > have a witch in the family. Petunia's jealousy undoubtedly Regarding this, I have a question to add myself. I'm going on the aspect that Lily is Muggle-born (which, correct me, I think was mentioned in one of the books). Anyway, why would Lily and Petuna's parents be so proud about getting a letter from Hogwarts if they were Muggles themselves? Wouldn't you be a little taken aback if you gotten a letter saying your daughter was a witch? > The second example we have is Hermione and the Grangers. We Speaking of them, how did THEY handle the news about Hermione? We see they can go do Diagon Alley, but can they get on to the Platform to say goodbye to their daughter? If so, how? If not, why? "Richasi" From Chelsea2162 at aol.com Wed Jan 2 03:19:53 2002 From: Chelsea2162 at aol.com (Chelsea2162 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 22:19:53 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Literary references, etc. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32524 hermine turned into stone? Ah, i think I must go read the book again! *Chelsea (slightly confused, but smiley as ever) From rainbow at rainbowbrite.net Wed Jan 2 02:53:08 2002 From: rainbow at rainbowbrite.net (Lily Potter) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 21:53:08 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] RE: Green and red symbolism again References: Message-ID: <00ee01c19338$9d3914e0$4b07000a@711> No: HPFGUIDX 32525 Vicki said: > Well, I'm sure that others have mentioned this before, but how then do you > explain that one of Slytherin's colors is green, and one of Gryffindor's is > red? > Sorry to go poking a big hole in your theory. :) Plus, the curse that killed Harry's parents produced green smoke. AND the "mark" that they shot into the sky was surrounded by green smoke as well if i remember correctly. Green seems the more evil color to me... .. )) -::- . .)) ((. .. -::- Lily -::- -::- ((.* From nonconformist594 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 2 03:29:05 2002 From: nonconformist594 at yahoo.com (Etha Williams) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 19:29:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: Message not approved: HP and the Happy Ending In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020102032905.64898.qmail@web14907.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32526 --- pippin_999 wrote: > > > Some on this list are saying they would reject the series if > the > > > ending is too dark. That of course is exactly what WB would be > > > afraid of. The normal human reaction to loss is denial, which is > > > the opposite of what a world-creating fantasy author is trying to > > > achieve. Dark endings invoke denial, which is necessary to the > > > cautionary tale (don't let this happen) , or the horror story > (thank > > > goodness there's no such thing as ...) but is out of place where > > > the author's aim is to create a world we want to believe could or > > > did exist. > > > > > > Pippin Personally, I would have the opposite problem than this -- I might reject the series if it ended in a way which was to sappy/sweet/happy. A dark ending would serve to convey the message that even in places we want to believe could or did exist, perfection and complete goodness is unattainable. There needs to be enough realism in the unreal world for it to seem like something for which I can "suspend my disbelief," and if the world is perfect or ends up being for the ultimate good, this aspect of realism is missing for me. -Etha __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send your FREE holiday greetings online! http://greetings.yahoo.com From zoehooch at yahoo.com Wed Jan 2 03:30:51 2002 From: zoehooch at yahoo.com (zoehooch) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 03:30:51 -0000 Subject: Wizard and Muggle Interactions (Part Deux) In-Reply-To: <000001c1932f$91b097a0$e6d51b18@cfl.rr.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32527 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Richasi" wrote: > Speaking of them, how did THEY handle the news about > Hermione? We see they can go do Diagon Alley, but can they > get on to the Platform to say goodbye to their daughter? > If so, how? If not, why? I've always had the impression that the Granger's are quite proud of Hermione and are supportive of her studies at Hogwart's. I would doubt that they would be able to get to Platform 9 3/4, though. I have always assumed that the Grangers and Lily's parents were progressive and interesting people, who would be quite happy for their child to follow the path, as long as that's what the child wanted to do. Zoe H. aka Suzanne From pennylin at swbell.net Wed Jan 2 04:16:24 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny & Bryce) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 22:16:24 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Sirius Black, God father References: <010001c19337$31623a90$2c853841@yourl4vt9q703u> Message-ID: <3C328998.90807@swbell.net> No: HPFGUIDX 32528 Hi -- Laura Hale wrote: > I know JK Rowlings religious references are usually secular references > (Christmas, Easter Break, the Fat Friar) but the God Parent one kinda > makes me want to speculate as there is generally some sort of religious > accompanient to being made a god parent. If this was true, than Harry > Potter's parents could have indeed been practicing some sort of religion > (and it would show kind of obviously that religion and magic are not in > conflict.) > > The only two religions I can think of where people get god parents are > Judasim (God parents are involved in the circumcision ceremony if I > understand correctly) and Catholicism (where god parents are denoted > during the baptismal ceremony). Are there other faiths that have god > parents attached to them? FYI, many Protestant denominations require or permit godparents to be named in connection with a baptism or christening ceremony (Lutheran, Episcopal, Methodist ... just to name a few). We've discussed this topic before. I did a quick search of the Message Archives & discovered threads related to this topic on April 17 - 22, 2001; August 22, 2001; and November 6, 2001. You might be interested to read those past messages, Laura. To summarize my own thoughts: the term "godparent" in the UK does not necessarily denote a religious spiritual guidance role in all cases. It is a term, as I understand it, that can often be used interchangeably with "guardian" (as in legal guardian). It's quite clear from PoA that Sirius is Harry's legal guardian per the Potters' wishes. It is not clear that he also holds any sort of spiritual mentor role in the form of a godparent. Since Black is the legal guardian (and unless he was married at the time & his wife was also named godmother), it doesn't seem terribly likely to me that Harry has a godmother lurking out there somewhere. You wouldn't give 2 unmarried individuals (who didn't otherwise have a relationship that is) guardianship rights for your child or children without specifying custody arrangements & the like. I think it's most likely that Black is his "godfather" in a strictly legal guardian/secular sense & that there is no godmother. Penny > > Laura Hale > http://writersu.s5.com/ > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor > ADVERTISEMENT > > > > ________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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service > . From jtichon at yahoo.com Wed Jan 2 04:26:42 2002 From: jtichon at yahoo.com (jtichon) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 04:26:42 -0000 Subject: Green and red symbolism, gleam of triumph In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32529 >That would mean that Voldemort might be defeated, > but Harry would still die. > > So....anyone (somewhat) agree or was I partying too much last night? ;) > This was just a theory I once posted a long time ago on a different board. I haven't been following this one too much so excuse me if some one by chance has had the same thought as me previously. This combines, the Harry dying and Dumbledore's "gleam of triumph in his eyes". What if the triumph was an side effect that Voldemort never expected to occur from taking Harry's blood. What if now they are bonded in such a deep way by Voldemort's rebirth spell that Voldemort can't kill Harry without Harry dying himself. It also goes with the "Choosing what is easy and what is right". Harry has to decide to make the ultimate sacrifice to save the people. Kill Voldemort but inturn sacrifice himself. But on the side, I've always been very curious as to why in the world Fred and George would put so much money on such a strange bet. They must've known somehow that, that was going to happen. I don't believe that they could be that stupid as to take such a serious risk with their money without having some sort of reassurance their bet would win. But this is just me and my thoughts. I have a tendency to think too much as well and make connections that don't exist. Anyways, just an idea. From Whirdy at aol.com Wed Jan 2 06:14:41 2002 From: Whirdy at aol.com (Whirdy at aol.com) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 01:14:41 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Untackled (?) Questions Message-ID: <5a.44e5cbb.2963ff51@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32530 In a message dated 1/1/02 2:45:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, ickle_ronniekins at yahoo.com writes: > What's the use of the first two tasks if the champion > who reaches the Triwizard Cup first wins? > > It determines who gets in first, second or last. Sort of handicapping the losers. whirdy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lucy at luphen.co.uk Wed Jan 2 08:03:01 2002 From: lucy at luphen.co.uk (Lucy Austin) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 08:03:01 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Werewolf Appearance References: <00ec01c192e2$c1e921f0$68a1dec7@rainbow> Message-ID: <003901c19363$e9fb7220$11ae1e3e@stephen> No: HPFGUIDX 32531 >Rainbow Brite said: >Their clothes must transform with them. You can see that in book #1 when Professor McConnagal transforms from a cat to her human form in front of her entire class. I'm sure she would not have done that if she turned out naked. I agree that the clothes must transform with them, but I'm afraid you're getting confused with the film - in the book, McGonnagal only transforms in Privet Drive - the class doesn't see it until PoA. Lucy, getting very picky I know (must be having to go back to work today!) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tabouli at unite.com.au Wed Jan 2 09:25:43 2002 From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 20:25:43 +1100 Subject: HP character costumes, end of the HP series Message-ID: <001701c1936f$866b0ca0$ef35c2cb@price> No: HPFGUIDX 32532 Elizabeth >(who has been asked to appear as Trelawney at her young nephew's Harry Potter themed birthday party-- but only accepted because the part of McGonnagal was already spoken for)< I personally think that Trelawney would be **much** more fun than McGonagall... McGonagall has her moments, but she's altogether too prim and stern and conservative to be a good character for a party costume. Trelawney, on the other hand, is a wonderful caricature: hours of fun draping gauzy scarves and jingling jewellery and sequins around one's body, not to mention putting on that gloriously silly spooky voice and predicting tragic fates for everyone at the party... yeahhh, that's the stuff! I could even be persuaded to do a Lockhart impression in drag if I was feeling silly enough, and could find an appropriately awful coiffed blond wig (though I still think Trelawney would be more entertaining). I am a firm believer in getting into the spirit of things when it comes to dress-up parties. People who turn up in normal clothes... pah! What are people's thoughts? Which HP character would you dress as for a party, and why? (Tabouli peeks nervously over her shoulder at the Mods, wondering if this is canonical enough for the main list) As for how the series will end (adjusts the focus of her Inner Eye), I think my current best guess is the ol' Lord of the Rings trick... Voldemort is defeated, Harry survives but at terrible cost. All indications so far suggest that at the very least this cost will include the deaths of several people he cares for, leaving him empty and grief-stricken. Perhaps also something worse. To counterbalance the tragic damaged Harry limping into a grim future, JKR will probably need to give him a lot of consolatory small blessings. Pick your favorite ship, perhaps... I suspect a survivor-Harry will be in need of a strong supportive woman to soothe his nightmares and weep on the shoulder of (if he can bring himself to cry by then... perhaps this would be a poignant note to sound near the end of the series... Harry finally develops the strength to show weakness). So far, risks Tabouli, I think the best candidate for the job would have to be Hermione (which rather shifts the Grim onto Ron): Ginny would need to grow a *lot* more oomph to take this job on. I also strongly suspect that Harry will finally put the Dursleys in their place, not angrily and resentfully, as he is doing in his early teens (age-appropriately enough), but coolly and calmly, having diminished them at last to the pitiable creatures they are, in the face of far darker and more powerful foes. Given JKR's hint that Dudley might undergo a radical change, by then Dudley might have matured and gained enough perspective to respect and understand Harry's actions... who knows? Now. Why do I suspect a LOTR-style win-but-at-terrible-cost? Mostly writerly instinct, I must admit. The overall style of the series to date would not, IMO, allow for Harry to lose. It just would not work. (for a start, Voldemort hardly seems up to much as a foe in encounters to date, on-stage he's a comic book villain, another marker which says "children's series" to me). It might allow for him to die, but only if he wins in the process and the death occurs right near the end of the series (my odds on Harry surviving Book 7 are higher then Elizabeth's... 70% or so). On the other hand, the tone of the four existing books is definitely darkening. For JKR to suddenly swing the series around and have a triumphantly happy glorious ending with all ends neatly tied off and everyone running into the sunset with their beloved would be jarring and implausible (besides which, she's already directly said she'll be darkening further and killing off some important characters). That's fairy tale land, not coming-of-age series. Which leaves us with the default option... somewhere between catastrophic loss and glorious victory. There needs to be a balance of loss and gain: maturity and self-knowledge comes at a cost. Like Cindy, I have a bloodthirsty streak... the complete destruction of the secret Wizarding World and the compulsory repatriation of all wizards into Muggledom... yeah! Now *that* would be fascinating, though quite a feat for JKR to accomplish in one book (though she did say that Book 7 will be the longest of all...). You'd probably have to balance it with all of the Trio surviving, and the tables being turned on Ron: Hermione and Harry lead him into the Muggle world to help him forge a new life in the world he has always despised. OK, so long odds, but it would certainly make for an epic conclusion! Conversely, if Harry were to die, the victory has to be more complete to justify the sacrifice (e.g. thanks to Harry, the Death-Eaters are disbanded, the Dursleys are reformed, the Dementors are slain, the House-Elves are liberated, the Wizarding World is saved, Hermione and Ron stumble sadly into the sunset together, and Hogwarts names their new wing after him and replaces the Fat Lady with a portrait of Harry, etc.etc.), unless JKR is really going for the jugular in the death and devastation stakes. Possible, but I'll wait to see the tone of Book 5 the Eternally Delayed before making any commitments to odds. Thoughts? Tabouli. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ffionmiles at hotmail.com Wed Jan 2 10:46:49 2002 From: ffionmiles at hotmail.com (ffimiles) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 10:46:49 -0000 Subject: Lily + James' Bodies were in the house. In-Reply-To: <001a01c1930e$5f09fd80$894201d5@j0dhe> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32533 Hollydaze talked about Lily & James' bodies being in the house, after they died - whcih makes sense, as the body is left basically uninjured after the avada kadavra curse [as said in ~book 4, when discussing the Riuddles appearing to have been 'frightened' to death]. JK Rowling has spoken of Harry finding out a great deal more about his parents in Book 5 - and surely she must answer this question - where are they buried/what happened to them? She also said that Harry will ask some questions which we shoudl feel he should have asked ages ago - like where is godric's Hollow, has James got any family... Ffi From ffionmiles at hotmail.com Wed Jan 2 10:59:24 2002 From: ffionmiles at hotmail.com (ffimiles) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 10:59:24 -0000 Subject: Lupin's relationship with Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32534 In reply to Grandisova's thoughts on the relationshipb etween harry and Lupin - it would appear that the relationship hadn't developed as swiftly as that of Harry/Sirius - because throughout PofA, Lupin was trying to keep secret the closeness of his relationship with James from Harry and therefore probably extended as much special considerationt woards Hary as he could without Harry being suspicious and asking questions - thereby bringing up the whole secret-keeper issue - he had to remain just a kind teacher to Harry. JKR has said that Lupinw ill feature in future books, and so I think he will become an important ally to Harry. Ffi P.S. Did anyone see the JKR BBc programme over Christmas? And I guess we now know why Book 5's taking so long - congratulations to her on her marriage! From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Wed Jan 2 11:03:27 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 11:03:27 -0000 Subject: Voldy's scope of power, pre-downfall (was Pre-Godric's Hollow) In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.20011219100914.00a3bcf0@mail.mcn.org> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32535 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Catherine Keegan wrote: The one that my feeble brain recalls is necromancy. Any other disciplines? > Catherine in California ----------------- I'd discount necromancy in the HP world. JKR (now married, so by that strange English custom, should change her surname, but probably won't) has stated that there is a major limit to magic: it cannot bring people back from the dead. Necromancy is, basicly, raising the dead (toghether with a few other categories, depending on who you read, like dead spirit interrogation), so I assume that that discipline in non-existant. The only thing I can imagine that has some connection is theory of ghost: why wizards and witches become ghosts. Grey Wolf (He who wonders why the Fat Friar, if he's so cheerful, became a ghost) From corrie71 at aol.com Wed Jan 2 04:15:17 2002 From: corrie71 at aol.com (corrie71 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 23:15:17 EST Subject: HP and the Happy Ending Message-ID: <165.6218484.2963e355@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32536 Hi all, Happy New Year! Hope that 2002 brings us all health, happiness and BOOK FIVE!:-) On to my point, regarding the recent discussion regarding the classification of the HP book as children's/young adult/adult books, I think Pippin makes an excellent point. When JKR was originally a young powerless author shopping the HP books around to the publishers, she would have had to present a synopsis of the entire series (including the projected ending). The publishers chose to classify the books as children's lit. I think it exceptionally unlikely that they would have bought a series that ended unhappily (meaning the title character dead and the evil prevailing). I don't think this means the series ending will necessarily be Pollyanna-esque and don't doubt that there are more deaths planned. But I think we can rest easy that Harry will not be dying. JMO. Thanks. Courtney Pippin writes: > It occurs to me that WB probably asked some very pointed > questions about the planned ending of the series before > committing to make movies of all seven books. Big money > producers don't like unhappy endings. (Further discussion of > this should go to HP_Movie) From IAmLordCassandra at aol.com Wed Jan 2 11:51:14 2002 From: IAmLordCassandra at aol.com (IAmLordCassandra at aol.com) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 06:51:14 EST Subject: Voldemort's power of possession Message-ID: <115.a479b54.29644e32@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32537 First off, I must state the oath of the newbie: "I'm sorry if this has been discussed to death. I looked in the archives, but far too many posts came up and I couldn't go through them all." Now...I've been curious about Voldemort's power to possess another's body. Mainly because in GoF he says it was the one power that _remained_ to him. I can see LV being able to possess someone in his smoke/vapor form, but how did he do it when he was in a body? Was he able to assume some kind of form that would allow him to enter someone else's body? Or did he use telepathy, maybe? Or perhaps he could leave his body in some kind of spiritual form? This would also explain the "I was ripped from my body." thing he says. Maybe he had left his body so many times to go possess people that it was easy for him to leave his body in a spirit form and his body was destroyed. My theory for the "pain beyound pain." thing is that, even in this form, he had some connection to his body and could feel it being destroyed by the AK curse. I'm also wondering *who* he decided to possess. He could've obviously just used the imperius curse if he wanted to control someone. Unless, of course, he wanted to live vicariously through someone. Ok, I have an idea that adds what I hope are new theories to some old topics. Maybe Voldemort was infactuated with Lily. Infactuated enough to want her physically. However, he couldn't do that (Why? I don't know...maybe all those evil transformations and whatnot made him impotent or something. Plus he was what, 50+ years older than her?). So what does the dark lord do? He uses his powers of possession! And who does he possess? Someone Lily Potter would trust and that he could trust as well. His own Death Eater, Severus Snape. Of course, I don't know how much/if Lily would trust Snape or even if they had any contact-I just added that line to help with dramatic effect. Here's where it gets tricky, folks. Voldemort, as Snape, has-his-way-with-Lily. Lily never tells James though. Or maybe *is bursting with ideas* Voldemort used Polyjuice potion to change Snape's body into James and gained Lily's trust that way. Snape remembers this, and is protective over Harry because he feels *he* was the one who wronged Harry's mother. Ok, so this is really out of the blue, but it is something to ponder about I think. And if Voldemort didn't use this possession powers for this or a similar reason, what do you guys think he used it for? ^-^ ~Cassie-who just realized this would defeat her whole 'Severus is a virgin' theory~ From nonconformist594 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 2 05:59:42 2002 From: nonconformist594 at yahoo.com (Etha Williams) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 21:59:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Green and red symbolism again (WAS Happy-enough endings) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020102055942.92103.qmail@web14904.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32538 --- UcfRentLuvr at cs.com wrote: > Ireland, the > green, symbolizes the "good" side, Harry's side. Bulgaria, the red, is > Voldemort and the Death Eaters. The good side wins, but at the cost of losing > the Snitch--Harry (who, whether by coincidence or not, we all know to be the > Seeker of his own team.) That would mean that Voldemort might be defeated, > but Harry would still die. > > So....anyone (somewhat) agree or was I partying too much last night? ;) A bit far flung -- to me it appears that the fact is that J.K.R. chose these colors not because of their symbolic value but because they were the national colors of each country. Not as exciting as the original theorey, to be sure, but a likely reason for the choice. I've learned not to read into colors to much after I got into a big frenzy about how Lily was probably in Slytherin because her eyes are green and the Slytherin color is green, only to read an interview with J.K.R. and find out that 'tisn't so. However, I still find the fact that the color of Hagrid's knitting was canary yellow very indicative that he was a Hufflepuff, especially considering that the house traits go along well with Hagrid's personality traits. Anyone else think that the color of Hagrid's knitting suggests something? -Etha __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send your FREE holiday greetings online! http://greetings.yahoo.com From richasi at azlance.com Wed Jan 2 04:36:14 2002 From: richasi at azlance.com (Richasi) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 23:36:14 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Wizard and Muggle Interactions (Part Deux) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c19347$03820be0$e6d51b18@cfl.rr.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32539 > From: zoehooch [mailto:zoehooch at yahoo.com] > I've always had the impression that the Granger's are quite proud of > Hermione and are supportive of her studies at Hogwart's. I would > doubt that they would be able to get to Platform 9 3/4, though. Yes, but why are they supportive? Is witchcraft and wizardry something that is well known that it is indeed deemed an honor to receive the letter from Hogwarts? What would their reaction be? I know mine would be one of skepticism at first, then curiosity and maybe even trepidation. And we see a little bit of that from the Grangers... but from the Evans? According to Petunia they were "Proud the day she got her letter". Again, though, I have to wonder WHY were they proud? Had they known about the school? Had they known about witchcraft and wizardry beforehand? > I have always assumed that the Grangers and Lily's parents were > progressive and interesting people, who would be quite happy for > their child to follow the path, as long as that's what the child > wanted to do. Progressive and interesting only go so far in determining their mindset though. Sure, one has to have an open mind to accept what has been lain before them, still though, I find it hard to believe the Evans' as well as the Grangers' would just say "Oh, lookie here... isn't this great? You're going to learn witchcraft." Just something on my mind :) "Richasi" From nonconformist594 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 2 04:18:24 2002 From: nonconformist594 at yahoo.com (Etha Williams) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 20:18:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Wizard and Muggle Interactions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020102041824.62329.qmail@web14903.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32540 --- Vicki wrote: > Hi all - > > I'm new to the list and am very much enjoying it - it's great to be around > others who are as into the whole HP world as I am. :) > > Now, I have a question, and it may be something that's already been > discussed, so I apologize if that is the case. But - how is it that there > ARE muggles aware of the wizarding world? JKR makes the strong point of how > muggles are not to know about magic, and we have muggles being protected by > Arthur Weasley, et all, and yet we have a number of examples of muggles who > are aware of magic and are left with that knowlege. > > First, we have Lily and the Evans, which leads directly to Harry and the > Dursleys. Petunia mentions that her parents were so happy to have a witch > in the family. Petunia's jealousy undoubtedly helps to form Vernon's > feelings about magic; they both hate the idea and as we know, try their > hardest to keep Harry out of it. But they are aware of it all the time. > > The second example we have is Hermione and the Grangers. We don't hear a > lot about them, but it's certainly mentioned often that Hermione is > "muggle-born" (or that she's a mudblood if it's Malfoy talking). We know > that her parents are dentists and that she buys a special kind of magical > floss as a gift for them during a trip to Hogsmeade. We know that they > accompany her to Diagon Alley at least once and that they're supportive of > her, although they don't want her using magic to solve everything. > > We also have the examples of Hagrid's father and Tom Riddle's father and > their different reactions to the women they fathered children with. Hagrid's > giantess mother leaves her family, but supposedly his father loved her, > accepted her and didn't want her to leave. Riddle's father kicked his > mother out when he found out she was a witch. > > So, the ultimate question is, how is all this possible? Why are some > muggles allowed knowlege of magic while most are not? Do I just need to > stop thinking so much? ;) > > Vicki I would assume that some muggles are allowed to find out about magic because it would be rather akward, for example, to see your husband randonmly disappearing in the middle of a casual conversation, or for a bunch of strange people dressed in robes to just suddenly come and yank your daughter away to a place about which you have no clue, and then leave you, still with no clue. So probably for the sake of maintaining normalcy in situations where muggle-magical contact is inevitable (i.e., marriages and parenting) the nuclear family is allowed to know -- but no other muggles. I suppose that wizards could continually be putting memory charms on the muggles parenting/marrying a magical person, but not only would this be highly impractical, but it would also probably be considered unethical -- after all, being so unaware of one's spouse or child can't make for a good relationship. -Etha __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send your FREE holiday greetings online! http://greetings.yahoo.com From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Wed Jan 2 13:23:47 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 13:23:47 -0000 Subject: Arithmancy (was: JKR's priorities ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32541 In HPforGrownups at y... At 4:55 PM -0500 12/20/01, Elizabeth Dalton wrote: Gramatica is more obscure. There's something nagging in the back of my mind about this term. It may be just some of JKR's pseudo-Latin terminology, but maybe not. But under this spelling the only references I can dig up, online or in my own references, seem to be to the surname of a football player. ---------------- If it's any help, "Gram?tica" means grammar in Spanish. OK, so the Spanish word has a typographical accent, but most English people I know can't get their accents on their places (and when you get right down to it, neither can lots of Spanish people). Since I never heard of JK knowing Spanish, she could have picked it up somewhere, and forgot about the accent on the "a". Grey Wolf From Joanne0012 at aol.com Wed Jan 2 13:30:05 2002 From: Joanne0012 at aol.com (joanne0012) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 13:30:05 -0000 Subject: HP and the Happy Ending In-Reply-To: <165.6218484.2963e355@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32542 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., corrie71 at a... wrote: > When JKR was originally a young powerless author shopping > the HP books around to the publishers, she would have had to present a > synopsis of the entire series (including the projected ending). > > > It occurs to me that WB probably asked some very pointed > > questions about the planned ending of the series before > > committing to make movies of all seven books. Big money > > producers don't like unhappy endings. (Further discussion of > > this should go to HP_Movie) Neither WB nor Rowling's original publisher (Bloomsbury) made commitments to produce all 7 of the stories (either books or films). Even though WB has the rights to produce all 7 films, this does not oblige them to follow through -- they will do whatever makes sense financially. Hollywood is always buying up rights that are never used -- the advantages are that (usually) rights bought far in advance of a hit are cheaper (this was certainly the case for WB) and furthermore then if something does become a bestseller, nobody else can buy it at any price! The decision to publish HP/PS was based on the first ms and the premise of others for Hrry's later school years, not on a revealing synopsis of the entire series. http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/faq/faq_rowling.html#Origin%20of%20t he%20Harry%20Potter From william.truderung at sympatico.ca Wed Jan 2 14:42:20 2002 From: william.truderung at sympatico.ca (mongo62aa) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 14:42:20 -0000 Subject: Literary references, etc. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32543 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Chelsea2162 at a... wrote: > hermine turned into stone? Ah, i think I must go read the book again! > > *Chelsea (slightly confused, but smiley as ever) Well, the literal meaning of 'petrified' is 'turned to stone', as for example petrified wood, which is wood which has had all of the organic matter replaced by silica (stone). William From ickle_ronniekins at yahoo.com Wed Jan 2 14:11:25 2002 From: ickle_ronniekins at yahoo.com (Ronald Rae Yu) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 06:11:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: Electives and The Harry Potter Day Message-ID: <20020102141125.13290.qmail@web21110.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32544 Thanks to all who answered my questions. I'm sorry I haven't read yet at that time the Netiquette thing on burning questions of newbies, luckily I stated that I am a newbie. About my electives question, particularly on Arithmancy and Divination, is it really impossible to take those two classes as courses? Is it a case of if-you're-good-at-this-I-don't-think-you-should-be-bothering-with-this-other-one? Maybe you can set up a feasible schedule, I don't know, but it would then be pretty confusing sorting elective students by house, by year, and what times they have classes. By the way it has been mentioned that James and Lily died on Oct. 31st, and apparently everybody knows it when it happened. If they do not bother with the deathdays of James and Lily they should be at least celebrating that day as a day of Voldie's disappearance. Even McGonnagall said that that day could be known as Harry Potter day in the future. --- About my What's the use of the third task question, I guess I haven't given that question much thought. Sorry! And thanks for answering that one for me. I just have lots of questions that I wanted to join this group. I'm really a great HP fan (who isn't?) and I enjoyed the discussions here. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send your FREE holiday greetings online! http://greetings.yahoo.com From Elizabeth.Dalton at EAST.SUN.COM Wed Jan 2 14:54:30 2002 From: Elizabeth.Dalton at EAST.SUN.COM (Elizabeth Dalton) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 09:54:30 -0500 (EST) Subject: Snape, Sirius, and veritaserum Message-ID: <200201021454.JAA29592@gaea.East.Sun.COM> No: HPFGUIDX 32545 > From: Jennifer Boggess Ramon > >Why not use Veritaserum or the Pensieve as evidences > >for Harry's account at the end of book 4? And to clear > >Sirius as well. > > They never used it on Sirius because he never got a trial. No one > will take the idea of his innocence seriously enough to try it on him > now. (Although, now that he and Snape are 'on the same team,' it > wouldn't suprise me if Snape demands that Sirius submit to it > privately to convince him.) > I bet it would cut both ways. Neither of them trusts the other, and after all, Snape *was* a DE. I can just see them both "drunk" on veritaserum, telling each other *exactly* what they think, with Dumbledore trying to referee and McGonnagal trying to keep her straight face.... Elizabeth (very much wishing Rowling would write about the teacher's lives after she's done with Harry, but knowing she probably won't....) From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Wed Jan 2 15:19:36 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 15:19:36 -0000 Subject: David Eddings' Belgariad series in relation to Sorceror's Stone In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32546 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "acci0firebolt" wrote: > A friend gave me the first book in David Eddings' Belgariad series > for Christmas (by the way, the first 70 pages are very good), and I > was struck by a certain quote in the Prologue because it reminded me > so much of the Sorceror's Stone. > Here it is: "'I may not touch it [the Orb of Aldur, which Torak has > stolen],' he said, 'lest it destroy me. Once it welcomed the touch > of man or God, but its will hardened when Torak raised it against its > mother. It will not be used so again. It reads our souls. *Only > one without ill intent, who is pure enough to take it and convey it > in peril of his life, with no thought of power or possession, may > touch it now.*" > Maybe it's just because I was reading the Sorceror's Stone last > night, but the resemblance, to me at least, is uncanny. Anyway, I > just thought I'd bring that up for discussion. And if anyone's > finished the series and noticed other things like that, feel free to > bring it up ... just don't give away too much of the plot. :) > > - Irene > "That girl has got to get her priorities straight!" Well, since D&L Eddings are my favourite authors (please don't flame me over this, JK-holics), I'd better answer. The Belgariad has strong paralels to tLotR, and it is considered by some people to be the first truly modern fantasy story (modern in the sense of post-60's modernism). The plot develops very much like the LotR, but it's characters are quite different: for one, women exist below the neck (and are capable of joining the adventure), and the morality and education of the main and secondary characters agrees more with the sort of thinking that has been prevalecent in 80's and 90's (and 00's). However, I don't quite recall similarities between the Belgariad and HP. The quoted lines are very similar to lots of other religious stuff you can find in almost every religion (real or fictitious), and if you read long enough into the Belgariad series (specifically, to book 11: Belgarath the Sorcerer), you'll discover that "The book of Alorn" is montly the ravings of the Bear-cult. The differences between HP and Eddings, are more or less the sames as the ones between HP and LotR: Belgariad is a travel adventure, with one purpose in mind (which I won't tell, since Garion doesn't yet know in the part where you are), whilst HP is the life of HP at school (with interesting background things going on-such as V return), but he isn't working to achieve any other goal that's not finishing school (alive). Anyway, hope that helped, and I hope you like Eddings as much as I do. However, this board is probably not the place for Eddings discussion, so I better cut it here. Grey Wolf (He who has given enough clues here for others to guess why he calls himself that) From Elizabeth.Dalton at EAST.SUN.COM Wed Jan 2 15:38:28 2002 From: Elizabeth.Dalton at EAST.SUN.COM (Elizabeth Dalton) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 10:38:28 -0500 (EST) Subject: HP character costumes, end of the HP series Message-ID: <200201021538.KAA29714@gaea.East.Sun.COM> No: HPFGUIDX 32547 Tabouli wrote: > I personally think that Trelawney would be **much** more fun than > McGonagall... McGonagall has her moments, but she's altogether too prim > and stern and conservative to be a good character for a party costume. > Trelawney, on the other hand, is a wonderful caricature: hours of fun > draping gauzy scarves and jingling jewellery and sequins around one's > body, not to mention putting on that gloriously silly spooky voice and > predicting tragic fates for everyone at the party... yeahhh, that's the > stuff! I could even be persuaded to do a Lockhart impression in drag > if I was feeling silly enough, and could find an appropriately awful > coiffed blond wig (though I still think Trelawney would be more > entertaining). I am a firm believer in getting into the spirit of > things when it comes to dress-up parties. People who turn up in normal > clothes... pah! Oh, absolutely. My other offered choice was Hooch. Can you imagine? I'd rather be handing out chocolate as Mdm. Pomfrey... (my mom gets that part.) I did a quick demo of my Trelawney for my nephew yesterday, to show him how much fun it would be, but it really weirded him out. Guess he wasn't prepared to have me grab his hand, stare aghast at his palm, tell him he has the shortest lifeline I've ever seen, and then freak out about seeing an imaginary Grim over his shoulder my mom's kitchen. Maybe I overdid it. :) McGonnagal is the one I'm probably more like, though. In fact, my brother, who is the one organizing the party (it's for his 7-year-old son) told me I'd be a *perfect* McGonnagal. But he's letting his best female friend take the part, because she asked for it first. > What are people's thoughts? Which HP character would you dress as for a > party, and why? (Tabouli peeks nervously over her shoulder at the Mods, > wondering if this is canonical enough for the main list) > Quick, before they shut us down! Er... it's part of character analysis, yeah, that's it.... we're furthering our understanding by imagining what it would be like to *be* them for an afternoon. Right. (Elizabeth is also peering around nervously.) Actually, if you can be Lockhart, I'd like to try Snape. Now *there's* a part with scope. ;) (My dad gets that part, and he's going to completely muff it. He hasn't read the books, nor even seen the film, and he has completely the wrong personality for it. If we're lucky, he'll come off as a hacked Scrooge.) Getting back to our canon-based predictions: > I suspect a survivor-Harry will be in need of a strong supportive woman > to soothe his nightmares and weep on the shoulder of (if he can bring > himself to cry by then... perhaps this would be a poignant note to sound > near the end of the series... Harry finally develops the strength to > show weakness). I sort of see what you mean, but I don't buy it. I think Harry is destined to be alone (if he survives at all). And so is Snape, IMO. (If *he* falls in love, call the coffin-maker.) I agree with you about the Dursleys, though. > > Conversely, if Harry were to die, the victory has to be more complete to > justify the sacrifice (e.g. thanks to Harry, the Death-Eaters are > disbanded, the Dursleys are reformed, the Dementors are slain, the > House-Elves are liberated, the Wizarding World is saved, Hermione and > Ron stumble sadly into the sunset together, and Hogwarts names their new > wing after him and replaces the Fat Lady with a portrait of Harry, > etc.etc.), unless JKR is really going for the jugular in the death and > devastation stakes. Possible, but I'll wait to see the tone of Book 5 > the Eternally Delayed before making any commitments to odds. I like naming the wing after him. I can't see the portrait. When he's gone, he's gone, and that's it. (Somehow I've always had the impression that the real "personable" portraits were of fictional people, unlike the photos-- otherwise it would be too much like being able to bring dead people back.) I could easily see Hermione teaching at Hogwarts, though. They should force Binns into retirement; she easily knows as much history as he does. Though there may be no shortage of positions, as we'll probably lose McGonnagal in the upcoming fight, and maybe several other teachers as well. Bizarre irony... can you just see Neville teaching Potions? (Actually, Gred or Forge might be a better choice.) Elizabeth (Who, like many others on this list, earnestly wishes she could think of a good reason that *she* could be teaching at Hogwarts....) From blpurdom at yahoo.com Wed Jan 2 15:48:53 2002 From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 15:48:53 -0000 Subject: Wizard and Muggle Interactions In-Reply-To: <20020102041824.62329.qmail@web14903.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32548 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Etha Williams wrote: > I suppose that wizards could continually be putting memory charms > on the muggles parenting/marrying a magical person, but not only > would this be highly impractical, but it would also probably be > considered unethical -- after all, being so unaware of one's > spouse or child can't make for a good relationship. I wouldn't suppose anything of the sort. We know for a certainty that the Grangers were in Diagon Alley with Hermione, because Harry sees them in Gringott's exchanging Muggle money for wizarding gold. Harry was taken shopping by Hagrid, but they used his own money. Harry is somewhat unique among first year Hogwarts students in that he seems to be independently wealthy (or at least, he has a source of funds that doesn't depend on the good will of the Dursleys). Most students who are Muggle born would HAVE to have parents who accepted the situation, or they wouldn't be able to attend. OTOH, if a student received a Hogwarts letter and the family refused to let him or her go or if the family refused to pay for it, I don't know what would happen. There are two alternatives, neither one particularly desirable. Either the student would not study magic and the family would have memory charms put on them (and then you have a person who could be performing accidental magic quite a lot and wreaking havoc in the Muggle world); or it's possible that the student could be taken into custody by the Ministry of Magic and made a kind of ward of the wizarding state so that they would be properly trained as a witch or wizard. This kind of heavy- handedness doesn't seem like a good idea either, though. So far we only know of Tom Riddle, Sr. reacting poorly to finding out his wife is a witch and the Dursleys reacting negatively to Lily and Harry. Everyone else whose child, sibling or spouse turns out to be magical is fine with it. It would be interesting to see whether JKR will ever introduce some sort of secret society of Muggles (they have to worry about being memory-charmed) who are aware of and dislike magic (the Dursleys could find out about it and join) and who are actively but covertly plotting to bring back witch hunts... --Barb Get Psyched Out! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HP_Psych http://schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb From heathernmoore at yahoo.com Wed Jan 2 16:35:50 2002 From: heathernmoore at yahoo.com (heathernmoore) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 16:35:50 -0000 Subject: Sirius Black, God father In-Reply-To: <3C328998.90807@swbell.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32549 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Penny & Bryce wrote: > > We've discussed this topic before. I did a quick search of the Message > Archives & discovered threads related to this topic on April 17 - 22, > 2001; August 22, 2001; and November 6, 2001. You might be interested to > read those past messages, Laura. > > To summarize my own thoughts: the term "godparent" in the UK does not > necessarily denote a religious spiritual guidance role in all cases. It > is a term, as I understand it, that can often be used interchangeably > with "guardian" (as in legal guardian). It's quite clear from PoA that > Sirius is Harry's legal guardian per the Potters' wishes. It is not > clear that he also holds any sort of spiritual mentor role in the form > of a godparent. Since Black is the legal guardian (and unless he was > married at the time & his wife was also named godmother), it doesn't > seem terribly likely to me that Harry has a godmother lurking out there > somewhere. You wouldn't give 2 unmarried individuals (who didn't > otherwise have a relationship that is) guardianship rights for your > child or children without specifying custody arrangements & the like. > > I think it's most likely that Black is his "godfather" in a strictly > legal guardian/secular sense & that there is no godmother. > > Penny > It would seem to me that Sirius can't possibly be Harry's legal guardian as of the 1990s, no matter what the Potters' original intentions were. Sirius is a convicted felon who spent twelve years in solitary confinement in prison (and is now a wanted fugitive), and the Dursleys have during this time been responsible for Harry's medical care and education. (In fact, it always seemed odd to me that the Dursleys didn't simply put the infant up for adoption or at least seek a legal injunction for kidnapping or such to keep Harry away from Hogwarts.) Surely they couldn't have had Harry schooled without being his legal guardians. If there is a magical component to guardianship, surely Dumbledore would have severed it at the time that everyone believed Sirius was an unreformed Death Eater, spy, betrayer, and mass murderer. Heather (uma) From dmsreg at hotmail.com Wed Jan 2 16:42:40 2002 From: dmsreg at hotmail.com (dmsreg) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 16:42:40 -0000 Subject: Sirius Black, God father In-Reply-To: <3C328998.90807@swbell.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32550 Penny wrote: > To summarize my own thoughts: the term "godparent" in the UK does not necessarily denote a religious spiritual guidance role in all cases. It is a term, as I understand it, that can often be used interchangeably with "guardian" (as in legal guardian). It's quite clear from PoA that Sirius is Harry's legal guardian per the Potters' wishes. It is not clear that he also holds any sort of spiritual mentor role in the form of a godparent. > I think it's most likely that Black is his "godfather" in a strictly legal guardian/secular sense & that there is no godmother. --- I would tend to disagree with this. Godfather is a very specific undertaking that an adult friend or relation makes at a baptism service that they will be accountable for the religious upbringing of a child until they come to confirmation, normally as a teenager. A Godmother (if there is one) is not necessarily related to any Godfathers or other Godmothers. That said, the UK is now a pretty secular country but its traditions are tied in with the sort-of-protestant Church of England (or Scottish/Welsh equivalent); there are many people who take on the role of Godfather "because of tradition" but have no particular religious feeling. Since the Wizarding world celebrates Christmas and Easter, one would assume that membership of it does not preclude Christianity, so we can't really know how seriously (siriusly?) he took this undertaking. The role of legal guardian is something rather different, in that Sirius clearly takes this responsibility and his friendship of the Potters very seriously, to the point of risking a horrible un-death to fulfil his obligations. For Sirius to have legal Guardian status, effectively adopting Harry, James and Lily surely would have had to have signed something specific to that effect. Since Sirius says that his parents appointed him legal guardian if something should happen to them, can we assume that they went through whatever official process was necessary to make it bona fide? Since all the teachers knew that Sirius was Harry's Godfather, obviously someone other than himself and J&L knew about it. Reg From aromano at indiana.edu Wed Jan 2 16:50:04 2002 From: aromano at indiana.edu (Aja) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 11:50:04 -0500 (EST) Subject: Hagrid in Hufflepuff? In-Reply-To: <20020102055942.92103.qmail@web14904.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32551 Etha wrote: > However, I still find the fact that the color of Hagrid's knitting was canary yellow very > indicative that he was a Hufflepuff, especially considering that the house traits go along well > with Hagrid's personality traits. Anyone else think that the color of Hagrid's knitting suggests > something? I for one don't buy it. :) Hagrid always seemed, from what we've seen, far too attached to the Gryffindor house--always sitting in their section at Quidditch matches, for example, for me to believe he was a Hufflepuff, so when I heard JKR had verified that he was one I was very surprised and a little disappointed--(how stereotypical that the one wizard we've seen who got expelled from the school turns out to be from the house traditionally considered the weakest.) Also, if you're extending that theory, it means Neville, who turns *into* a canary at one point during GOF, was put in the wrong house--and I sincerely hope that wasn't the case. Aja (finding the color discussion fascinating all the same) From hp_lexicon at yahoo.com Wed Jan 2 16:57:34 2002 From: hp_lexicon at yahoo.com (hp_lexicon) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 16:57:34 -0000 Subject: Hagrid in Hufflepuff? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32552 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Aja wrote: > > I for one don't buy it. :) Hagrid always seemed, from what we've seen, far > too attached to the Gryffindor house--always sitting in their section at > Quidditch matches, for example, for me to believe he was a Hufflepuff, so > when I heard JKR had verified that he was one I was very surprised and a > little disappointed--(how stereotypical that the one wizard we've seen who > got expelled from the school turns out to be from the house traditionally > considered the weakest.) Hagrid was in Gryffindor, according to JKR in an interview. If you need to check out that kind of factual information, I heartily suggest that you look it up in the Lexicon. It's there, along with the reference. I'm about to head out the door to take my wife out for lunch, so I don't have time to go look it up for you, but it's simple to find. Steve Vander Ark The Harry Potter Lexicon http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon From moongirlk at yahoo.com Wed Jan 2 17:15:04 2002 From: moongirlk at yahoo.com (moongirlk) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 17:15:04 -0000 Subject: Green and red symbolism, gleam of triumph In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32553 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jtichon" wrote: > But on the side, I've always been very curious as to why in the > world Fred and George would put so much money on such a strange bet. > They must've known somehow that, that was going to happen. I don't > believe that they could be that stupid as to take such a serious > risk with their money without having some sort of reassurance their > bet would win. > I think it is more or less in keeping with the twins' personalities to make a far-out bet, because the odds would be so great if they won. Think about it - just betting on one team over the other might be a winning bet, but the return wouldn't be too great, even if that team was the underdogs, but I'm guessing that of all the possible bets they could make, betting that one team would win even though the other caught the snitch would have the biggest possible return on their investment. The money they bet may have been all they had with them at the QWC, but it wasn't enough that the loss of it would hurt them all that substantially. They live with their parents and at school, in both cases room and board are taken care of. The worst it would mean is less pocket money for Hogsmeade trips, as it clearly wasn't even a substantial start on their joke shop. kimberly, who would be far more likely to risk, say, $50 on a return of thousands than on a return of another $50. From curry at megsinet.net Wed Jan 2 16:44:54 2002 From: curry at megsinet.net (Amanda Robert-Curry) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 10:44:54 -0600 Subject: Celebrating Voldemort's Disappearance References: <1009985965.2515.25045.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <004901c193ac$e443ef80$482f28d0@megsinet.net> No: HPFGUIDX 32554 Ronald said- "By the way it has been mentioned that James and Lily died on Oct. 31st, and apparently everybody knows it when it happened. If they do not bother with the deathdays of James and Lily they should be at least celebrating that day as a day of Voldie's disappearance. " IMHO, Death Days appear to be only celebrated by ghosts, as they are the only beings that have much use for them. As far as celebrating Voldemort's disappearance yearly... Voldemort's reign of terror left deep scars. Plus, it wasn't clear whether he has dead, altered, or in hiding after the events in Godric's Hollow. Given that, it makes sense to celebrate his downfall once, but then back off from an annual event. Sort of a "speak not the name lest you invoke the demon" thing. arcurry From pennylin at swbell.net Wed Jan 2 17:58:52 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny & Bryce) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 11:58:52 -0600 Subject: Sirius Black, Godfather Message-ID: <3C334A5C.4080805@swbell.net> No: HPFGUIDX 32555 Hi -- heathernmoore wrote: > It would seem to me that Sirius can't possibly be Harry's legal > guardian as of the 1990s, no matter what the Potters' original > intentions were. Sirius himself says he is Harry's guardian. Actually he doesn't say that he *is,* but he does say that the Potters appointed him as Harry's guardian in the event something should happen to them. We have Sirius telling Harry that he is his godfather. Then, in the very next breath, he says, "Well....your parents appointed me your guardian ...If anything happened to them." > the Dursleys have during this time been responsible for Harry's > medical care and education. (In fact, it always seemed odd to me that > the Dursleys didn't simply put the infant up for adoption or at least > seek a legal injunction for kidnapping or such to keep Harry away > from Hogwarts.) Surely they couldn't have had Harry schooled without > being his legal guardians. They may have had some sort of muggle proceeding where they had themselves appointed his legal guardians. They would have had to attest that after due diligence & searching, no will or other legal document granting legal custody of the Potters' issue to any other adult could be located, blah, blah, blah. I don't imagine though that as far as the wizarding world is concerned, the muggle proceeding would have any legal effect. I imagine as far as the wizarding world is concerned, Sirius Black is still Harry's godfather unless Dumbledore or someone in the Ministry to steps to annul the Potters' will. If there is a magical component to > guardianship, surely Dumbledore would have severed it at the time > that everyone believed Sirius was an unreformed Death Eater, spy, > betrayer, and mass murderer. Possibly. But since he placed Harry with the Dursleys, he may not have gone to the trouble. Reg wrote: > I would tend to disagree with this. Godfather is a very specific > undertaking that an adult friend or relation makes at a baptism > service that they will be accountable for the religious upbringing of > a child until they come to confirmation, normally as a teenager. A > Godmother (if there is one) is not necessarily related to any > Godfathers or other Godmothers. Yes, it *can* be the above. It can *also* be a more general secular term used interchangeably with guardian. In the past discussions on this topic, our British members have agreed that JKR might well have used the term godfather in a non-religious sense. > The role of legal guardian is something rather different, in that > Sirius clearly takes this responsibility and his friendship of the > Potters very seriously, to the point of risking a horrible un-death > to fulfil his obligations. Yes, but see above. Sirius tells the readers & Harry that he *is* Harry's *guardian.* He says this in the very next breath after mentioning that he is Harry's godfather. This says quite strongly to me that the two functions are one & the same. > For Sirius to have legal Guardian status, effectively adopting Harry, > James and Lily surely would have had to have signed something > specific to that effect. Yes, in the muggle world. Presumably they did so in the wizarding world as well. Sirius says that they appointed him Harry's guardian in the event of their deaths. Adoption is a separate legal concept from legal guardianship though, just fyi. Penny From caliburncy at yahoo.com Wed Jan 2 18:10:59 2002 From: caliburncy at yahoo.com (caliburncy) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 18:10:59 -0000 Subject: On the Classification of Age Ranges in Literature Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32556 Returning from my bout of silence, I begin by sadly challenging the assertions of many of my favorite people on list. I trust they will still love me in the morning, right? :-) NOTE: Throughout this entire post, especially the essay at the bottom, I will use "children's book/literature" to also include (without distinction) those books that are considered YA (Young Adult), simply because this is most efficacious and seems to be in keeping with the way previous discussion here has treated these terms. --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > If she pulls [an effective tragic ending] off, her work will stand > apart from a great deal of other fiction I've read, and no one > could ever make the claim that HP is a children's book. Hmm . . . why is that? A tragic ending and children's books are not mutually exclusive. I can think of some counter examples. We need to be extremely careful how we make our categorical deductions here. In order for something to be a *reason*, it must be more than simply statistically supported: it must show INHERENCY. Whatever standard you use to determine the age range for a book, it must show that that standard really does have some inherent bearing upon the age range. I know of only one standard that might be able to do this for age ranges. More on that later. --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "rachelrenee1" wrote: > Hummm, so assuming this is a regular children's book (as I > didbefore The Man With Two Faces chapter) I just take the bait and > figure, sure, why not? It must be Snape and he *is* Voldemort. > Then, bang, it is Quirrel. > The biggest red herring [HP] has going for it is that it is > labeled "Childern's Fiction." Same thing as above. Can we really say that HP is "too advanced" or "too good" with its plot twists to be a children's book? Isn't that a tad patronizing to children's literature? We probably have stastical support that the plot twists in adult fiction are more advanced than those of children's fiction, but we will always have exceptions. Where there are exceptions, there cannot be inherency. --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Tabouli" wrote: > Voldemort hardly seems up to much as a foe in encounters to date, > on-stage he's a comic book villain, another marker which > says "children's series" to me Though it pains me to have to argue with one of my fellow Staunch Defenders of the Merits of Children's Literature, I must take issue with this statement as well. The nature of the villain is a flawed determinator for the age range of a book. If it were not, the entire James Bond series would be designed for children. There's no inherency here that I am aware of. *** So it seems to me that there are a lot of misconceptions floating about: and perhaps not so much about children's literature itself as about the standards we can use to determine it. Too often we analyze things with certain standards, but forget to analyze those standards *themselves*. Sometimes our standards are flawed for objective uses (though they still work fine for subjective use), but we've never looked close enough at them to notice. Which brings me to Penny's comments: --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Penny & Bryce wrote: > For those who are subjectively inclined to view the HP books as > childrens' books, I'd be curious to hear your reasons. Is it the > age of the main characters (and if so, at what age would a later > book cross the bridge into something other than childrens' lit for > you)? Is it the fact that the books are marketed to children? > Something else? No, no, and therefore by default yes. I wrote an essay on this quite a while back (during one of the earlier debates on age ranges) that has been sitting on my hard drive ever since. I was reluctant to post it then, and I'm reluctant to do so now. But here it is. I hope everyone can overlook when it gets a bit pedantic--I have not had opportunity to rewrite it. In any case it was not and is not my intention to play teacher or be insulting, only to foster discussion. If I failed in this, please forgive me. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- On the classification of age ranges in literature: An overblown and ridiculous analysis courtesy of yours truly First off, I would like to make the point that all classification regarding creative works is ultimately an act of folly. The intended purpose of such categorizing is simply to serve as one element in the understanding of a work's greater place, but (like the Mirror of Erised) it can "give us neither knowledge nor truth" about the work itself. For example: genre. The existance of genre is the outgrowth of two things: 1) the inherent drive of the human consciousness when given two things to compare them and 2) marketing, plain and simple. The reason classifications such as "Fantasy" exists is basically on a false premise: If you like Book A, which is a member of Genre 1, you might also like Book B because it belongs to Genre 1 as well. In my experience, this is hardly a firm case. For every book you like, there exist two in that same genre that you wouldn't touch even after borrowing someone else's ten-foot pole, let alone using your own. Why? Because all genre is ultimately a superficial imposition and the factors that cause you to enjoy or despise a particular book have more to do with those things that are common to all of our favorite fiction, regardless of categorization of any sort: a compelling story with characters that we can identify with or that we are fascinated by; themes that resonate strongly with us or cause us to consider a new perspective; escapism into the world of homo fictus rather than the world of homo sapiens, where life is simply a great deal more concentrated and poetic. We very well might find patterns in our preferences that point toward particular genres, but that does not in the end make that genre in literal alignment with our own sensibilities. Also, the books within that genre are often written with little to no consideration given by the author to the genre in which it will appear, except as practical matters of publishing and the like demand. The same is ultimately true of age ranges in literature. Books may be written with particular audiences in mind and they may not. But to deem a work to apply to this age range or that is such an inordinate waste of time when it comes to actually understanding that work that I think it is best left to the folks at marketing, who are at least getting paid for it. Whether Harry Potter is a children's book or an adult's book or a cross-age book is a point that is rendered moot when used in an attempt to garner any truly *meaningful* information about the books whatsoever. "That which we call a rose/By any other name would smell as sweet" and all that Shakespearean jazz. Nevertheless, it is a good question of what kind of standards we can use to classify a book's age range when practical matters demand it. For example, what kind of standards were available to the publishers when they classed Harry Potter? And not just which ones were available, but which ones are most telling? Of course, deciding which ones are most telling will ultimately be a matter of my interpretation and opinion, so take it for what it's worth and no more. The possible standards that I thought of are: 1) Readability and complexity of syntax 2) Appropriateness of content 3) Author's intention 4) Worldview and thematic complexity 5) Thematic relevancy There are some other standards that I intentionally did not include, such as "The age of the protagonist" and other such things, because I feel these are very, very fallible and fundamentally misapplied. So let's examine each of the standards in turn: 1) Readability and complexity of syntax This standard holds that the age range of a book can be determined to some extent by how difficult it is to read. There is logic in this . . . up to a point. For example, books which are written for very young children have simpler language just because it is a prohibition of legibility: very young children would not understand books written for adults from a *mechanical* point of view. They can't sound out the more complex words or comprehend the more difficult sentence structure. But the older the age of the child, the hazier this distinction becomes, until the prohibition no longer exists. There are many books written for adults that could easily be understood by ten year olds from a mechanical point of view--that doesn't mean the book isn't an adult book. So what does that mean about this standard? It only works one way. We can class a book's *lower* age limit based on readability and complexity of syntax, but no upper limit. A true classification would need boundaries on both sides--not because people who exceed the upper limit can't read and appreciate the book, but because it does not hold them as the target audience. Otherwise, "The Little Engine That Could" might just as well be considered an adult book as a children's book, simply because adults are capable of reading it--and while many people might say that it is worthwhile for an adult to read "The Little Engine That Could", I know of no one who has ever argued against the idea that it is, at heart, intended primarily for children. So we need an upper limit, too, for the classification to function--one that this standard does not provide us. And besides, this standard can't work in exclusion anyway. If we looked at John Grisham's writing style, it's probably legible to an older child. That doesn't necessarily mean I would make the lower age limit for that book a ten year-old--there are other prohibitions that might need to be considered that would up the lower age limit a bit. So, personally, I never bother with this standard at all. It makes sense, but it doesn't pan out, in my opinion. It's a little too muddled, and I think there are better. 2) Appropriateness of content This standard holds that the age range of a book can be determined to some extent by what ages are old enough to be exposed to the subject matter contained therein. Although I am against general censorship, I am also in favor of letting parents make their own decisions about what their child reads, so I think this standard is useful to them for that purpose, and they should make their own personal opinions about where the line is drawn. But I don't think this holds out as an objective standard, because like the standard of readability and complexity of syntax it only imposes a lower age limit, not an upper one. And where to draw the line in any event? Personally, I was surprised out of my mind to see people claiming that GOF was too dark for children. I've seen much darker books intended for about the same age range. I suspect this came about as the result of some parents realizing, "Oops! Whether it's a kid's book or not, it was certainly never designed for SIX YEAR-OLDS, which is who I was trying to read it to." Indeed not. In terms of appropriateness alone, the books probably have a lower age limit of eight or nine, though it depends *heavily* upon the individual child. But again, where's the upper limit? Otherwise, we're not talking classifications, we're talking ratings. Star Trek: The Motion Picture was originally rated G--is it a children's movie, just because there is nothing objectionable in it? Doubtful. Most kids would be Bored To Tears watching that film (most adults too, because it's not very good, but that's another story), because it really isn't something they will understand or have any reason to show interest in. It wasn't designed with them in mind. So while appropriateness of content is an important factor for parental decision-making, I'm not personally convinced that it can be used as an accurate and objective standard of classification. 3) Author's intention Ah, now we're getting into the interesting stuff. Is the author's word on his/her intended audience the final one? Perhaps in a perfect world, it should be. Perhaps even in this *imperfect* one, it still should be. I'll be honest: I'm not sure. On the one hand, it appears to be a good, even seemingly infallible standard to use when it's available. On the other hand, getting at the author's intentions through his/her statements can be surprisingly difficult. For example, take Philip Pullman and the "His Dark Materials" trilogy. On the one hand, Philip Pullman wrote an entire acceptance speech for the Carnegie Medal talking about "The Golden Compass" (the first book in the trilogy) as if it were a children's book. On the other hand, he has also said in interviews that he did not write the trilogy with a particular audience in mind, or rather, he wrote it imagining an audience that included a little bit of everyone. So which is right? Probably it works like this: he really did write it with a general audience in mind, but was quite aware that from a pragmatic publishing perspective he would have to put it in the children's market. Okay, fine. But that doesn't really help us classify it at all, in those (thankfully rare) circumstances when practicality really does demand it. Now take "Harry Potter". JKR has said that she wrote "Harry Potter" for herself. And people have extrapolated from this and similar statements that JKR, being an adult, therefore wrote Harry Potter for adults. Which may or may not be true in conclusion, though the evidence strikes me as counterintuitive. But anyway, there's complications. Notice she says in the Houston Chronicle: "I write for myself. I did not write for imaginary children: 'What would they need to learn now?'" She doesn't even acknowledge the existence of adults in her intended audience in this statement, though context may be responsible. Later in this same article is the following quote: "Rowling says that if she should ever write an adult novel, it will not be because she thinks she has to do so to be taken seriously. 'I've never seen writing for children as second-best,' she says." This last statement again seems to indicate that she might identify "Harry Potter" as a children's book. In the Scholastic interview she says, "I really wrote it entirely for myself; it is my sense of humour in the books, not what I think children will find funny, and I suppose that would explain some of the appeal to adults." Again, there's alternate interpretations here, but it looks to me like she considers the adult appeal more unintentional and secondary. Later in the same interview she says, "I didn't write with a target audience in mind. What excited me was how much I would enjoy writing about Harry. I never thought about writing for children - children's books chose me." Notice that in the statement "children's books chose me" she doesn't deny "Harry Potter" as a children's book. There are all sorts of little implications like this throughout her statements, and also the fact that she appears to generally prefer her child fans to her adult ones. But none of this is conclusive either way. It doesn't prove that she thinks of "Harry Potter" as a children's book or as an adult book. So the most likely truth is that JKR, as she has stressed several times, considers a good book a good book, and age ranges are a non- factor. I concur with this very much. But again, that's not helping us classify it in those rare instances that it has to be classified one way or the other. 4) Worldview and thematic compexity This standard holds that the age range of a book can be determined to some extent by how complex and realistic its portrayal of themes, morality, worldview, etc. is. Okay, I will reveal to you all straightaway that I am heavily biased against this standard, because it sounds very patronizing to children, probably to a greater degree than they deserve to be patronized. But, doing my best to take bias out of this equation, let me explain why I'm not sure it works. The problem with measuring the complexity of a worldview is: what do you compare it to? There's no fully objective standard for Absolute Truth (whatever you call it), and anyone that thinks they possess it in entirety exposes themselves as, well, a fool. So, while it is my opinion that a view of the world in a uniform shade of gray is superior to a view of the world in shades of gray, which is in turn superior to a view of the world in black and white, I really don't know any of that for sure. I can't prove it. So who am I to condemn a book that has a black and white portrayal of good and evil, and exalt one that has a gray one? I may *Strongly Prefer and Agree With* the gray perspective, but I can't prove that it's superior and more correct. Therefore it seems to me that this standard is highly subject to the individual person's own beliefs, which is perfectly fine for the purposes of that one person deciding what is and is not appropriate for a certain age range, but like the use of appropriateness of subject matter, it cannot really hold up as an objective standard that applies to everyone. And therefore, it doesn't work as a standard for our classification system here. 5) Thematic relevancy Exposing my bias again: let me say that this is the standard I use and therefore I obviously prefer it. But it's not like I've been using it forever--I decided to use it because I found it more revealing than any of the above standards. Still, even though I may give this one the "hard sell", you are certainly at no obligation to adopt it yourself. This standard uses the themes that the book espouses and determines what audience they are most relevant to, in order to classify a book's age range. The quick and dirty example being that a book about children may have themes about growing up, in which case it is primarily targeted at people who are growing up (mostly children)--or it may have a nostalgic or otherwise retrospective look at childhood, in which case it is primarily targeted at people who have already grown up. This seems to work for just about everything: I have never seen a book for which it failed to make logical sense. Every book that becomes questionable in light of the above four standards becomes instantly clear when viewed in light of this one--and that's why I prefer it so heavily. Notice that this standard, unlike the others above, also holds some promise of possible inherency. We can explain, beyond and without statistical support, exactly what it is about these themes that makes them inherent to certain audiences. It works to identify the cause, rather than the symptoms, and that's why it is less fallible. Notice it also exposes and explains the shortcomings of other flawed systems. For example, some people try to determine the age range of a book using the age of the protagonist. This is so obviously a flawed system that I eliminated it immediately, rather than explaining why it is not an objective determinator. But using themes we can explain: 1) why it appears to be statistically supportable 2) why there are exceptions. The reason the age of the protagonist is often comparable to the age of the intended audience is that those themes are usually applied via the main character. To recycle that earlier example, the book with themes about growing up will almost inevitably require a protagonist who is (gasp!) growing up. So you can see why this standard *appears* to have some validity from a statistical point of view. But you can also see why it is inherently flawed and why there are exceptions. Again, recycling the example, the book with a nostalgic or otherwise retrospective look at childhood will also require a young protagonist in order to function, but unlike the book with themes about growing up, it will be targeted at an older audience. So how does this thematic relevancy apply to Harry Potter? Well, if you believe the Alan Jacobs article (http://antithesis.com/reviews/potter.html) where he explains his view that "the Harry Potter books are of course a multivolume 'Bildungsroman'--a story of education, that is to say, of character formation" then you must also acknowledge that these sorts of themes hold as their primary relevant audience none other than children, who are still having their character formed. This is NOT to say that the themes hold no relevancy to adults, but that their relevancy is secondary to that of children. There are other overarching themes that apply to just about anyone, however, such as the struggle between "good" and "evil", which is an additional reason why the books hold such a universal appeal beyond their audience in terms of thematic relevancy. *** So, bringing it all together: the final verdict. For 99% of circumstances, it seems to me perfectly reasonable to not bother classifying the age range of "Harry Potter" at all--what difference does it make? For 0.9% of circumstances, we can probably stick to the idea that it has, in practice, strong CROSS-GENERATIONAL appeal-- something that, to my extreme disappointment, the folks at the New York Times Book Review seemed quite happy to ignore just because it suited their purposes. It is this standard of cross-generational appeal that I would like to stick to whenever possible, simply because it has proven itself to be true in practice (take a look at the book sales), and if something has cross-generational appeal, why not acknowledge it as such? But in those 0.1% of circumstances that we have to draw a line one way or the other, children vs. adult and no other options: assuming you agree with my assessment of the above five possible standards, then we must use the fifth standard most heavily, and by this standard "Harry Potter" intends children as its primary audience (and, by default, adults as its secondary). But again, that's purely for the somewhat objective analysis--for subjective purposes you may use whatever standard you wish and I don't see what difference it makes. In the meantime, "Harry Potter" is "Harry Potter" and whether we call it this, that or the other doesn't change the things that make it what it is. -Luke From Elizabeth.Dalton at EAST.SUN.COM Wed Jan 2 19:04:28 2002 From: Elizabeth.Dalton at EAST.SUN.COM (Elizabeth Dalton) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 14:04:28 -0500 (EST) Subject: On the Classification of Age Ranges in Literature Message-ID: <200201021904.OAA00424@gaea.East.Sun.COM> No: HPFGUIDX 32557 Luke, I like your essay well enough, and I have no trouble with your conclusions, but doesn't it seem that you're setting up a strawman argument on your criteria considerations? That is, you're demanding that each criteria under consideration be capable of being used *in isolation* to determine whether a work is "intended" for adults or children, when it seems that a constellation might be more useful in generally categorizing what we think of as "children's" vs. "adult" literature. Standards 1-4 might easily still play a part in this categorization process (along with other characteristics such as overall length), even if they are one-sided or not sufficient unto themselves. I do agree that thematic relevancy is likely to be the most important component of a useful standard, however. Given that the general purpose of any marketing-oriented "genre" categorization *is* simply the grouping together of books that are more likely to be enjoyed by an easily definable audience, books that have themes which are relevant to children are most likely to be books that will be enjoyed by children. (If predicting who will be likely to enjoy the book is not the reason for the creation of categories, what would be the point? A post-hoc definition would be sufficient: both adults and children enjoy these books, therefore they are suitable for both.) Elizabeth (Another adult who was bored by Star Trek: The Motion Picture) From muridae at muridae.co.uk Wed Jan 2 19:07:49 2002 From: muridae at muridae.co.uk (Muridae) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 19:07:49 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sirius Black, God father In-Reply-To: References: <3C328998.90807@swbell.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32558 dmsreg wrote: >The role of legal guardian is something rather different, in that >Sirius clearly takes this responsibility and his friendship of the >Potters very seriously, to the point of risking a horrible un-death >to fulfil his obligations. > >For Sirius to have legal Guardian status, effectively adopting Harry, >James and Lily surely would have had to have signed something >specific to that effect. Since Sirius says that his parents appointed >him legal guardian if something should happen to them, can we assume >that they went through whatever official process was necessary to >make it bona fide? Since all the teachers knew that Sirius was >Harry's Godfather, obviously someone other than himself and J&L knew >about it. I've always thought that the two jobs - godfather and legal guardian - were entirely separate in this case, even though they were coincidentally embodied in the same person. Sirius was James's closest friend, which made him the person he thought of to ask to be his best man, and later the godfather of his firstborn. (To those concerned that this leaves Remus Lupin out of the loop, may I suggest that it's entirely possible that if James and Lily had lived long enough to have more children, they might well have asked *him* to play godparent to one of them?) But they lived in dangerous times. With Voldemort after the Potters to the extent that they were obliged to go into hiding, they were probably also forced to face the possibility that they might not survive long enough to bring up their child to adulthood, long before possibility became reality. It's entirely likely that the process of going into hiding was accompanied by a tidying up of their affairs "just in case" - making their wills, putting their finances in good order (and giving Dumbledore custody of the key to their Gringotts vault), and appointing a guardian for Harry. And if Sirius was around at the time and already had an interest in Harry's future and upbringing in his role of godparent, he would have been the obvious person to ask to take on the second job as well. Godparent and guardian are complimentary roles in this context, but they're not actually the same thing. What Sirius says in POA backs that up. Broaching the subject, he first tells Harry that he is his godfather, and *then* tells him that his parents appointed him Harry's guardian in case something ever happened to him. Harry has known about the godfather aspect for some time, and it seems to have been used to explain away part of the reason why Sirius the dangerous escaped convict felt so obsessive about getting to him. The mention of guardianship has entirely different connotations, those of laying legal claim to him. It's an entirely new idea to him, although it probably helps that he's now convinced enough of Sirius's innocence for it to be a welcome one! I'm sure that James and Lily would have hoped that none of those precautions were necessary. Had they anticipated betrayal and death, they might have sent Harry away from them to safety elsewhere - assuming that he wasn't as much a target as they were. They undoubtedly hoped to survive, but they lived in a time of such horrors that it makes a certain amount of sense that they would have hedged their bets and made arrangements for their son in the event that they didn't. -- Muridae From nonconformist594 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 2 19:15:48 2002 From: nonconformist594 at yahoo.com (Etha Williams) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 11:15:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Sirius Black, God father In-Reply-To: <010001c19337$31623a90$2c853841@yourl4vt9q703u> Message-ID: <20020102191548.1082.qmail@web14903.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32559 --- Laura Hale wrote: > If this was true, than Harry Potter's parents could have indeed been > practicing some sort of religion (and it would show kind of obviously that > religion and magic are not in conflict.) Wouldn't it be a bit hard to be a witch/wizard and be Jewish/Christian since there are parts of the Old and New testaments decrying magic and witchcraft? How would a witch/wizard explain that s/he was practicing a religion which stated that s/he was doomed to hell? > Are there other faiths that have god parents attached to them? I'm not sure if any other religions have God parents strictly attached to them, but I do know that my parents gave me a God mother even though they were not practicing any religion at the time, so God parents can be a secular thing as well as a religious thing. Etha From christi0469 at hotmail.com Wed Jan 2 18:50:43 2002 From: christi0469 at hotmail.com (christi0469) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 18:50:43 -0000 Subject: LV's speach to the DEs/Priori Incantatem Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32560 In part of his speech to the DEs, LV states: "And here we have six missing Death Eaters...three dead in my service. One, too cowardly to return...he will pay. One, who I believe has left me forever...he will be killed, of course...and one, who remains my most faithful servant, and has already reentered my service." The way I read this, the one who LV believes has left him forever must be Snape. This would mean the LV intends to kill Snape, and I believe sets up an interesting "alliance" between Snape and Harry. This, of course, assumes Dumbledore is correct in trusting Snape. I also wonder if Harry remembered this particular snippet of LV's speech when he recounts his experience to Dumbledore and Sirius. If so, I hope Dumbledore passes this bit of information to Snape. Personally I would like to read about Snape and Harry having to overcome their animosity and cooperate to do battle with LV, or at least of Harry saving Snape's life. Also, I found the bit about Harry forcing the light beads back into LV's wand. To me it seems that this is yet another hint that Harry is becoming much more powerful as a wizard, and may even be a stronger wizard than LV is an that particular scene. Of course, LV has just been returned to his body and my not be up to full strength yet, but Harry may just turn out to be the stronger of the two wizards. "christi0469" P.S. Since LV is the most powerful Dark Wizard in more than a century, he would have to be more powerful than the wizard that Dumbledore defeated in 1945. From fallenhunter at neo.rr.com Wed Jan 2 18:32:10 2002 From: fallenhunter at neo.rr.com (Fallenhunter) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 13:32:10 -0500 Subject: Q: I am Confused on the time frame of the books. Message-ID: <3C330BDA.17721.5506E7E@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 32561 My first post here( so forgive me if its been answered before), I am unsure of the time frame of the books. Anyone have any idea? I seem to get the feeling that its rather late 50s or 60s, but mention of some of the gifts given to Harry's cousin, leaves me a bit confused (I seem to remember something about a Playstation video game). I have seen the movie, read the first three books, and are about half done with the 4th. Should finish it sometime soon, I hope, time allowing. Thanks, Dwayne Miller AKOA: Fallenhunter From k_wayment at hotmail.com Wed Jan 2 19:49:13 2002 From: k_wayment at hotmail.com (Kyli Wayment) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 19:49:13 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Q: I am Confused on the time frame of the books. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32562 "Fallenhunter" Wrote: >My first post here( so forgive me if its been answered before), I am >unsure of the time frame of the books. >Anyone have any idea? I seem to get the feeling that its rather late >50s or 60s, but mention of some of the gifts given to Harry's cousin, >leaves me a bit confused (I seem to remember something about a >Playstation video game). >I have seen the movie, read the first three books, and are about half >done with the 4th. Should finish it sometime soon, I hope, time >allowing. >Thanks, >Dwayne Miller >AKOA: >Fallenhunter Welcome to HPfGU! The time frame in the books starts in 1991 with Harry going to Hogwarts for his first year. We know that Harry was born in 1980, therefore, if he went to Hogwarts when he was eleven, it would be 1991. ~Kyli (who will be like many others and go back to lurking) _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com From cindysphynx at home.com Wed Jan 2 19:49:31 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 19:49:31 -0000 Subject: On the Classification of Age Ranges in Literature In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32563 Interesting essay, Luke, and welcome back. That said, I can't say I'm completely on board with the essay on whether HP is a children's book. I reach the same conclusion (that the books are cross-generational) but for different reasons, which I'll get into later. But here is a question for everyone, to which Luke alluded to in his excellent essay. Why do we collectively spend so much time debating this issue? If the NY Times hadn't yanked HP off of the main best seller list, would we still care? I always wonder about that as I type out my long boring posts on the subject. OK, on to specifics. Luke wrote: > NOTE: Throughout this entire post, especially the essay at the > bottom, I will use "children's book/literature" to also include > (without distinction) those books that are considered YA (Young > Adult), simply because this is most efficacious and seems to be in > keeping with the way previous discussion here has treated these >terms. I am having a bit of trouble with the framework for this analysis. I think a children's book (age up to 12) is very different from a YA book (teens). It doesn't have to be, but it often is. I'll admit that the whole age debate really is a continuum, so the line between children's books and YA books can get blurry. But my experience with YA books (that is, those books marketed as YA) is that they are much more likely to have darker themes. In other words, it isn't necessarily the complexity of the writing so much as the themes and subject matter that make the difference, but there does seem to be a difference. Cindy wrote: > > If she pulls [an effective tragic ending] off, her work will stand > > apart from a great deal of other fiction I've read, and no one > > could ever make the claim that HP is a children's book. > Luke questioned: > Hmm . . . why is that? A tragic ending and children's books are not > mutually exclusive. > Uh, oh. Let me backpedal a minute and clarify. My thinking was (IIRC) that if JKR wrote a hideously tragic ending (like total destruction of the wizarding world), she would be far outside of what is normally seen in a children's book, and still a bit outside of what is usually seen in a YA book. I suspect there are exceptions, but I think it is highly unusual for a children's book to have the hero die tragically. (Although I will allow for the possibility that I simply selected lighter kids' books growing up and had not yet developed my more bloodthirsty tastes.) :-) I wouldn't say that tragedy and children's books are always mutually exclusive (although I did pretty much say that in my prior post), but tragedy on the scale I am contemplating would be rare in children's literature, I think. So maybe you would see a children's book where Betsy and the reader is crushed when she isn't picked to be a cheerleader in the end, but you usually don't see the school burned to the ground and the entire football team perish (to use an outlandish example). Luke again: > The possible standards that I thought of are: > > 1) Readability and complexity of syntax > 2) Appropriateness of content > 3) Author's intention > 4) Worldview and thematic complexity > 5) Thematic relevancy > I agree that these standards make sense. There may be others, but as I can't think of any, I'll go with these. Well, maybe we can throw Length into the mix, as I can't think of many 700 page kids books or 25 page adult books. But maybe Length is a subset of readability. I think I would apply these standards a bit differently, though. For instance, I think that Luke is correct that using readability alone makes a poor determinant of what is children's literature. Same thing for author's intent and content. Where I differ, I think, is in the application of the standard. I wouldn't automatically allow Thematic Relevance to outweigh the other four. Instead, I would probably use certain combinations of standards as determinative and then, in close cases, I would resort to reliance on Thematic Relevance as the tiebreaker. Put differently, regardless of how simply written a book is, no matter what the author's intent is, no matter how unrealistic its portrayal of worldview, Appropriateness of Content is probably the gatekeeper for what can be considered children's literature. If the subject matter is not appropriate for children, the analysis may have to stop and the book may have to be classified as YA or adult. (I'll admit, however, that whether the subject matter is appropriate for children in turn depends on how it is presented, so maybe my thinking is just hopelessly circular). This is a hard concept to try to describe, but I'm trying to say that I agree that some of the five standards Luke listed are poor standards when viewed in isolation. But some of them are very useful for narrowing the issues before we use Thematic Relevance as the final test. As I've said before (but clearly said very badly in my post about a tragic ending for HP), I think the series will probably be viewed as an adult series overall: PS/SS = children's book CoS = children's book PoA = YA (I think PoA is YA because kids can read and enjoy it, but I think they'll understand it in only the most superficial way) GoF = adult Books 5, 6, 7 = probably adult based on the trend so far and on what JKR has said she intends to do Luke again (giving his verdict): >[We] can probably stick to > the idea that it has, in practice, strong CROSS-GENERATIONAL appeal- >snip> > [We] must use the fifth standard most heavily, and by this > standard "Harry Potter" intends children as its primary audience > (and, by default, adults as its secondary). The question of cross-generational appeal is an interesting one. PoA is a good test case. Kids probably enjoy PoA because they understand it, they are surprised by the plot twist, and the character development is good. Adults probably enjoy it for those same reasons, but also because they can appreciate the sophistication of the plot devices, the enormity of the task of writing so many sub- plots that work together, and the foreshadowing in a way that children cannot. So perhaps PoA has cross-generational appeal not because people of all ages can read it, but because they enjoy it for different reasons. Assuming that the last three books are written like GoF, I think it is a tough sell to say that the series overall is a children's series. I think that four of the seven books will be adult books, so if we have to pull the trigger and make a decision, I would classify the entire series as adult because most of it is. If we look only at the books to date, then I'd say they are predominately children's books (with a nasty shock in GoF for those expecting a children's book). So my verdict is that we've all been enjoying children's books, but the adults on this list will all be vindicated when the final three books are released. Cindy (going on record that she will still love Luke in the morning) From hollydaze at btinternet.com Wed Jan 2 19:53:25 2002 From: hollydaze at btinternet.com (Hollydaze) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 19:53:25 -0000 Subject: What to do with the Quidditch team? (WAS Untackled (?) Questions) References: <20020101173013.32864.qmail@web21101.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <015b01c193c7$3c8e0580$9072073e@j0dhe> No: HPFGUIDX 32564 Un-named wrote: > Why are there 4-5 Quidditch players in Fred and > George's batch (them, Alicia, and Angelina, and likely > but not positively, Katie)? Is their year really that > good? This actually brings me onto a point I was thinking about just last night. What is the Gryffindor Quidditch team going to do in Harry's 6th year? They have already lost Wood their keeper (and their captain) who will (presumably) be replaced by a student between the 2nd year and Fred/George's year (more likely an earlier year as then they won't leave so soon) but what do they do in book 6? We know that Fred, George, Alicia and Angelina are in the same year (and it seems very likely that Katie is too) which means that they will be loosing ALL their beaters and ALL their chasers (and IMO their new Captain too - would make sense to be one of the older players) That means they have to replace more than half their team with people who (likely as not) will be (relatively) inexperienced. They only old players who will be left on the team will be Harry and whoever the new Keeper is (as long as s/he is not in the same year as FGAAK). Does this mean that due to the war with LV there will be no Quidditch (I can't see the school accepting that, even in WW I and WW II there was some sport, especially for the second time in three years) and if there is Quidditch, will there be any chance of Gryffindor winning? Yes Harry is an exceptionally talented seeker but he has been backed up by the best team in the school for the last three seasons (they have played) and I can not see the team winning with only one exceptional player, a (by then) good player and a few inexperienced ones (no offence to the new players but it takes time for a team to jell and understand one another). This also applies to Harry and the new keeper as they will have to jell with their 4/5 new team mates. One other Question regarding Quidditch. In book one Dumbledore mentions that anyone interested in being on their house Quidditch team should talk to Madam Hooch and that trials will be held in the second or third week of term. How come then, in the second and third books, ALL the same people seem to AUTOMATICALLY be on the Gryffindor team -we don't know about the other houses, other than Cedric is Huff's new seeker in book 3-(there is no mention of Harry going to Trials). Also, it mentioned Alicia as being a new player and "a good find of Wood's, only a reserve last year" (Lee Jordan's commentary on the first (?) Quidditch match in book 1) Well doesn't that contradict what Dumbledore said about trials and Madam Hooch at the Sorting Feast if she is a "find of Wood's", surely she should have been selected by Hooch if she was a new player (even if she was a reserve last year). Sorry, just me being picky and this has probably been discussed but I haven't seen the discussion so please direct me to it if it exists. HOLLYDAZE!!! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From christi0469 at hotmail.com Wed Jan 2 19:42:01 2002 From: christi0469 at hotmail.com (christi0469) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 19:42:01 -0000 Subject: On the Classification of Age Ranges in Literature In-Reply-To: <200201021904.OAA00424@gaea.East.Sun.COM> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32565 To me the classifiaction of books by genre and age range serves mainly to enable librarians and book seller to place the books on the currect shelves. As to books being appropriate to one age group or another, this is highly subjective. Parents should determine what is or is not appropriate for their children, based upon their own value structure. I also believe that parents should read books before making that determination, instead of relying upon classification or media hype(book burnings, inflamatory "literature", etc.). As a child I read many books that were classified as adult literature, and as an adult I enjoy many books that are classified as children's literature. I find that a lot of the children's classics are much more appealing to me as an adult than they were as a child, especially the older classics. I find it unfortunate that marketing often determines how a book will be classified, based on maximizing sales. Christi From Whirdy at aol.com Wed Jan 2 20:00:07 2002 From: Whirdy at aol.com (Whirdy at aol.com) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 15:00:07 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Green and red symbolism, gleam of triumph Message-ID: <176.1a95c90.2964c0c7@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32566 In a message dated 1/1/02 11:27:32 PM Eastern Standard Time, jtichon at yahoo.com writes: > But on the side, I've always been very curious as to why in the > world Fred and George would put so much money on such a strange bet. > They must've known somehow that, that was going to happen. I don't > believe that they could be that stupid as to take such a serious > risk with their money without having some sort of reassurance their > bet would win. > > They bought a Super-Duper Code Book from an ice cream vendor outside the Stadium or else they are just great handicappers, that probably did well in Prof. Trelawney's classes. whirdy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From feycat at feycat.net Wed Jan 2 20:05:38 2002 From: feycat at feycat.net (Gabriel Edson) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 15:05:38 -0500 Subject: Lupin's relationship with Harry / Hagrid Hufflepuff? / Quidditch reserves References: Message-ID: <00bd01c193c8$d9913900$0b01a8c0@enet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32567 >>The best friend is almost always chosen to be the best man/maid of honor at weddings, so the choice of Sirius seems obvious. And wouldn't you expect that Remus and Peter would have been in the wedding party as groomsmen? << Exactly... so what I have long wondered is why does Lupin not appear in the wedding photo? Or Pettigrew, for that matter, if they were all close friends, they would most likely have been ushers/groomsmen, and wedding pictures are often taken with the whole wedding party. I wonder if Lupin contributed that picture to the album when Hagrid sent his owl 'round looking for pictures to give to Harry? >> Hagrid a Hufflepuff? In PS/SS Hagrid says that it's most people's opinion that Hufflepuffs are "a bunch of duffers" (pardon the inexact quote, don't have my books at work with me.) I doubt he would mention that, even in passing, without defending them if that were his house. And, of course, JKR clarified "off-page" for us that Hagrid was a Gryffendor. Does anyone else find it a little too convenient that everyone and their brother was in the Lion House?? >> only a reserve last year" The whole question of the entire team graduating in Harry's sixth year would be solved if there WERE reserves. But in four years we haven't seen anyone try out for, or become, a reserve. Why? When Harry was injured, they had to forfeit a match because they had no Seeker. Wouldn't it be better to field a substandard "reserve" Seeker (say, hypothetically, Ron) than to forfeit?? Gabriel Pack House Quidditch Team Keeper "Twitchy little ferret, aren't you Malfoy?" [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From theo_kestrel at yahoo.com Wed Jan 2 20:12:26 2002 From: theo_kestrel at yahoo.com (theo_kestrel) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 20:12:26 -0000 Subject: Harry's Intelligence Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32568 I apologize if this has already been discussed, as I'm a relative newbie to this group and to this point have merely lurked in the shadows. I'm curious to know what people's thoughts are on the subject of Harry's intelligence. Harry is often described as being eerily similar to his father in many ways, in regards to looks, Quidditch skill, and even personality traits. Being the son of his father, who was Head Boy in his time, and his mother, the Head Girl, I'm curious why his own academic achievements seem to be less than impressive when compared to his parents. Is he simply not as intelligent as his parents? Is it because of his upbringing, when he had the Dursleys to worry about instead of school? Why wouldn't he seek the shelter of books like others often do when trying to escape the harshness of reality? Do you seem him blossoming academically as he gets older, or will the weight of his eventual confrontation with Voldemort further put him off his studies-or will he take the opposite tack, and apply himself more than he has in the past to arm himself with the knowledge necessary for victory? Some questions to ponder... -kestrel From Whirdy at aol.com Wed Jan 2 20:14:45 2002 From: Whirdy at aol.com (Whirdy at aol.com) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 15:14:45 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Q: I am Confused on the time frame of the books. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32569 In a message dated 1/2/02 2:41:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, fallenhunter at neo.rr.com writes: > Anyone have any idea? I seem to get the feeling that its rather late > 50s or 60s, but mention of some of the gifts given to Harry's cousin, > leaves me a bit confused (I seem to remember something about a > Playstation video game). > > Look in CoS for Nearly Headless Nick's 500th Deathday Anniversary of 1492. whirdy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cindysphynx at home.com Wed Jan 2 20:22:32 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 20:22:32 -0000 Subject: What to do with the Quidditch team? (WAS Untackled (?) Questions) In-Reply-To: <015b01c193c7$3c8e0580$9072073e@j0dhe> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32570 Hollydaze wrote: > > This actually brings me onto a point I was thinking about just last night. What is the Gryffindor Quidditch team going to do in Harry's 6th year? > > They have already lost Wood their keeper (and their captain) who will (presumably) be replaced by a student between the 2nd year and Fred/George's year (more likely an earlier year as then they won't leave so soon) but what do they do in book 6? > Hopefully, Quiddich in Books 5 and 6 will be a useful distraction from the fight against Voldemort. I hope, however, that future Quiddich becomes "dark" just like the rest of the future books. My personal view is that Harry has been the Quiddich hero for long enough. I'd like to see him take it on the chin a few times in OoP. It would be great if JKR introduces another (Ravensclaw?) character who just is a better flyer and seeker than Harry. Compounding Harry's misery could be the fact that he (1) is also the captain, therefore has a conflict of interest as to whether he should replace himself while enduring criticism when he does not, and (2) has to deal with the expectations associated with having won the Quiddich cup twice now (or was it three times?). If Harry and the Gryffindors continue to stomp on their rivals, even when the rivals have superior brooms, well . . . then I will insult the series by calling it (gasp!) children's fiction. Cindy (whose dad always said losing builds character, but he may have just said that to avoid calling her a loser) From beene at fiberia.com Wed Jan 2 20:29:08 2002 From: beene at fiberia.com (haruspica23) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 20:29:08 -0000 Subject: Snape?... A question... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32571 Hi... If this idea has already been dicussed just let me know... anyway... Snape was a DE (no suprises there) but when he become a spy for the "old crowd," would he not reasonably have revoked his ties and friendly associations with the DE's?... Yet, as is so often brought up, Draco is his favorite student... Though it is mentioned that the DE's were sometimes unaware of their own fellow members, isn't Lucius Malfoy a confirmed DE (even if he was cleared). Why would Snape, already having the guilt for being a former DE, be so biased towards Malfoy?... I would assume that Snape would distance himself from any interaction or associations with DE families... It just seems sort of odd... From Whirdy at aol.com Wed Jan 2 20:36:19 2002 From: Whirdy at aol.com (Whirdy at aol.com) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 15:36:19 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lupin's relationship with Harry / Hagrid Hufflepuff? / Qu... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32572 In a message dated 1/2/02 3:10:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, feycat at feycat.net writes: > so what I have long wondered is why does Lupin not appear in the wedding > photo? if the wedding took place in the evening, probably the bride's mother's idea, then Remus might have excused himself as "lupus non grata." whirdy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From pennylin at swbell.net Wed Jan 2 20:48:12 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny & Bryce) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 14:48:12 -0600 Subject: On the Classification of Age Ranges in Literature References: Message-ID: <3C33720C.6070705@swbell.net> No: HPFGUIDX 32573 Hi -- Ah, a topic I always enjoy! I'm supposed to be working (:::cough, Nancy, yes, I'm working on it:::) but ... cindysphynx wrote: > > But here is a question for everyone, to which Luke alluded to in his > excellent essay. Why do we collectively spend so much time debating > this issue? If the NY Times hadn't yanked HP off of the main best > seller list, would we still care? I always wonder about that as I > type out my long boring posts on the subject. I agree with Cindy: excellent essay, Luke! And I still like you too. As for the "why do we care" question: well, first I cared because of the NY Times. Their decision to yank the books from the bestseller list made me really angry. I also tend to react poorly to snidey academic types who take a condescending view of the books, strictly because they are supposedly "just childrens' books" and/or because of their mass popular appeal. That sits badly with me. I also must say that I tend to care about this topic because it bothers me that people short-sell JKR and the series as a whole by saying, "Well, they *are* after all *just* childrens' books; therefore, you won't see [xxxxx]." That's, I'm afraid, one reason I disagree with Pippin's assessment that WB and/or Bloomsbury would have asked questions about the grand finale: to be assured that the child audience(s) wouldn't be disappointed. I will note as a sidenote that insofar as I know WB only has the rights to the first 2 films (that's the last official pronouncement I've seen). I believe JKR wanted to see what they did with the first film before negotiating the rights to the further books, esp. the as-yet published ones. However, since Kloves is reportedly hard at work on a screenplay for PoA, it is possible that this has changed. In any case, I don't think that WB (and certainly not Bloomsbury) conditioned their rights in the wildly-popular HP franchise on knowing that the ending would be happy. Bloomsbury for sure wouldn't have done this because they simply agreed to publish the first book, not knowing really how well it might or might not do (so there'd have been no reason to see where JKR was headed...right?). WB more possibly might have had some questions, but then again, they might have just been happy to secure the rights to the wildly popular franchise since there were other studios in negotiations. If the books end in a way that disappoints the children the world over & they think this will cause the final film(s) to be box office failures (yeah, right), they don't have to make the final films after all. JMHO though. Back to literature: > I am having a bit of trouble with the framework for this analysis. I > think a children's book (age up to 12) is very different from a YA > book (teens). It doesn't have to be, but it often is. I'll admit > that the whole age debate really is a continuum, so the line between > children's books and YA books can get blurry. I think one of my problems with classing the books as YA is that I think the YA classification is just silly. By the time a kid reaches age 13, he is probably not going to be caught dead anywhere near the childrens' section if he is a reader, and the YA section is always part of the childrens' sections. Maybe part of my problem too is that I skipped into adult fiction at a very early age. I was probably reading adult stuff pretty exclusively well before age 13. I wasn't entirely sure what gets classed as YA these days so I did a quick perusal of Amazon's offerings. Here's the deal: back when I was a teen, a good bit of what is now called YA was shelved in the adult sections of bookstores (Forever by Blume, Flowers for Algernon, A Separate Peace, Catcher in the Rye, etc.). I know. I worked at Waldenbooks all through high school. YA must not have really existed per se when I was a teen. So ... I'm a bit prejudiced against the entire YA concept. > Luke again: > > > The possible standards that I thought of are: > > > > 1) Readability and complexity of syntax > > 2) Appropriateness of content > > 3) Author's intention > > 4) Worldview and thematic complexity > > 5) Thematic relevancy > > > > I think I would apply these standards a bit differently, though. For > instance, I think that Luke is correct that using readability alone > makes a poor determinant of what is children's literature. Same > thing for author's intent and content. > > Where I differ, I think, is in the application of the standard. I > wouldn't automatically allow Thematic Relevance to outweigh the other > four. Instead, I would probably use certain combinations of > standards as determinative and then, in close cases, I would resort > to reliance on Thematic Relevance as the tiebreaker. Agreed. Author's intention can be more important I think than Luke gives it credit for; however, I take his point that it's not crystal clear what JKR's intent was or is. I think it's possible too that she would view her earlier books differently than the series as a whole or the later books individually. She seems to have the idea that she's writing for an aging audience. But, I've pointed out before what I think the flaw with that philosophy is: at some point in say 2010, my then 9 yr old daughter will be able to pick up all 7 HP books and read them one after another if she wants (and if I okay it). It's safe to say it probably won't take her 8 yrs to accomplish this task. So, you no longer have the cushion of burgeoning maturity as the books progress. See? > > As I've said before (but clearly said very badly in my post about a > tragic ending for HP), I think the series will probably be viewed as > an adult series overall: > > PS/SS = children's book > CoS = children's book > PoA = YA (I think PoA is YA because kids can read and enjoy it, but I > think they'll understand it in only the most superficial way) > GoF = adult > Books 5, 6, 7 = probably adult based on the trend so far and on what > JKR has said she intends to do I agree with this as a likely outcome. > Assuming that the last three books are written like GoF, I think it > is a tough sell to say that the series overall is a children's > series. I think that four of the seven books will be adult books, so > if we have to pull the trigger and make a decision, I would classify > the entire series as adult because most of it is. If we look only at > the books to date, then I'd say they are predominately children's > books (with a nasty shock in GoF for those expecting a children's > book). So my verdict is that we've all been enjoying children's > books, but the adults on this list will all be vindicated when the > final three books are released. Ah, bravo! Yes, my point exactly. It's not so much that I'd argue for PS/SS being regarded as adult fiction. I just think the series is definitely trending toward adult (I might concede YA if I believed in YA but since I don't recognize it as a legitimate classification, I'll say adult). It's also hard to say precisely where JKR is going ... but I think it's reasonably clear from her interviews that it would be hard for her to back-pedal & suddenly go back to a PS/SS innocence. I think Harry et al are on a slope toward adulthood, and the books are as well. I also think it's just going to be plain silly for the NY Times & people to be talking about these books as "kids' books" when Harry is 16/17 in the 6th book and 17/18 in the final one. Maybe it's just me though. And, most importantly, I think the broad unprecedented cross-appeal of the series negates any attempt to throw these books into any particular classification really (which I think was Luke's overall point perhaps). Penny From Whirdy at aol.com Wed Jan 2 20:53:28 2002 From: Whirdy at aol.com (Whirdy at aol.com) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 15:53:28 EST Subject: Literature: Easy Rules Message-ID: <7b.20d57701.2964cd48@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32574 All this endless palaver about what catagory HP et al fall into should be sent to the Book Editor at the NY Times (by the way, has anyone seen a list of best sellers containing HP lately?). At the time, my spouse and I had developed a simple means of guiding our children's selection of "age-proper" material. First, we read it (an important adjunct in helping your kids). Then we put in on the shelf. The rule was "if you can reach it without help, you can read it." Let the librarians, academicians, catagorizers, labelers, etc. argue how many Potters can seek on the tip of a wand. I read and re-read HP because JKR is a great storyteller and it is an added treat to tweak her on anamolies or paradoxes in the narrative. I would also suggest that it is equally instructive to hear HP read (just the Dale tapes; must write to UK for Fry). So unless there is some great new insight or revelation, can we loose the Three Fates on this thread? With due apology to those who find the discussion relevant and yes, I do use the Subject: to by pass many, but you are a fecund group when it comes to writing things down. from deep in the forbidded forest whirdy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ftah3 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 2 20:55:54 2002 From: ftah3 at yahoo.com (ftah3) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 20:55:54 -0000 Subject: What to do with the Quidditch team? (WAS Untackled (?) Questions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32575 cindysphynx wrote: > Hopefully, Quiddich in Books 5 and 6 will be a useful distraction > from the fight against Voldemort. I hope, however, that future > Quiddich becomes "dark" just like the rest of the future books. > > My personal view is that Harry has been the Quiddich hero for long > enough. I'd like to see him take it on the chin a few times in OoP. > It would be great if JKR introduces another (Ravensclaw?) character > who just is a better flyer and seeker than Harry. Compounding > Harry's misery could be the fact that he (1) is also the captain, > therefore has a conflict of interest as to whether he should replace > himself while enduring criticism when he does not, and (2) has to > deal with the expectations associated with having won the Quiddich > cup twice now (or was it three times?). Hmm, well, they've only won the Quidditch Cup once, in PoA. In PS/SS, Harry was in the hospital wing during the last game, and Gryff. got stomped. In CoS, the last game was cancelled (I think). But that was why Wood was so freaked out in PoA about winning the cup that year ~ it was his last year, Gryff. hadn't yet won the cup, he was desperate to win. (And you know, it seems like any time Gryff. lost once Harry made the team, he felt like it was his fault. Something kept him from playing, so the team lost. And I'm thinking, so why can't the *other* players step up, eh?) The thing I don't get about the Quidditch games is why Gryff. gets stomped without Harry around. It sounds almost as if the Seeker is the *only* player that matters ~ whoever has the best Seeker automatically wins. In the school version, at least; because we saw in the World Cup that a cracking good Seeker does not the game win. Harry is used to being the loser (guilt trips galore!), so I don't really feel a bloodlust to see Harry get trounced. I guess what I *would* like to see is the whole team improve. So that it's not that Harry isn't the hero of the game, but that the whole team is damn good. On the other hand, if Gryff. does get trounced, it'd be nice if it wasn't so much 'neener neener our Seeker is better than Haaaa- rry' as the fact that the whole challenging team was better. Right, so I get bored with the one-on-one pissing contests. LOL. :-P On the other hand, I rather liked Book 4 for the fact that Quidditch had a very small role. And it might be neat for Harry to be faced with the fact that, like many kids who star in school sports, that he's probably not going to leave school and be picked up as national league's star Seeker. I don't expect he would suddenly become a bookworm or a top student, but I've always gotten the feeling that he has some latent natural talent, other than being good on a broomstick, that Harry hasn't explored. Being so new to the wizarding world, and having been told all his life he's good-for- nothing, it doesn't really surprise me that he hasn't taken many risks in terms of exercising his power; and since he has had Quidditch as the 'only thing he's good at,' he hasn't needed to. But, if Quidditch became less Harry's strong point, I wonder what he'd find to fill the void? I hope we would finally see some of those elusive magical talents which make him a supposedly "great wizard." Would he discover that he's particularly good at charms, or maybe discover to his great horror that he is (eek! gasp! heaven forfend!) a natural at potions? ;-) Who knows! Mahoney From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com Wed Jan 2 21:00:34 2002 From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 15:00:34 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] What to do with the Quidditch team? (WAS Untackled (?) Questions) References: <20020101173013.32864.qmail@web21101.mail.yahoo.com> <015b01c193c7$3c8e0580$9072073e@j0dhe> Message-ID: <3C3374F2.E37ED136@kingwoodcable.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32576 Hollydaze wrote: > They have already lost Wood their keeper (and their captain) who will (presumably) be replaced by a student between the 2nd year and Fred/George's year (more likely an earlier year as then they won't leave so soon) but what do they do in book 6?< > > We know that Fred, George, Alicia and Angelina are in the same year (and it seems very likely that Katie is too) which means that they will be loosing ALL their beaters and ALL their chasers (and IMO their new Captain too - would make sense to be one of the older players) That means they have to replace more than half their team with people who (likely as not) will be (relatively) inexperienced. They only old players who will be left on the team will be Harry and whoever the new Keeper is (as long as s/he is not in the same year as FGAAK).< For year 5, I suspect (no...I hope) that Ron will become the new Keeper and take Wood's place. My feeling is that Angelina will become the new captain. When year 6 comes around, they'll just have regular old try-outs like they do every year and fill up the team. I suspect this is where Harry will become Captain, since he'll have the more experience over the new Keeper. I figure the team might be ok, but that's just a guess. I'm hope that JKR give Ron a little bit of glory in the next book, and make him the new keeper. We only heard about him playing Quidditch with is brothers in the first book, so we have no gauge to how good he really is. But some of his other brothers were great players, and I'd like to see another Weasley on the team in book 5. -Katze From Elizabeth.Dalton at EAST.SUN.COM Wed Jan 2 21:03:34 2002 From: Elizabeth.Dalton at EAST.SUN.COM (Elizabeth Dalton) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 16:03:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: Lupin's relationship with Harry, classification again Message-ID: <200201022103.QAA01430@gaea.East.Sun.COM> No: HPFGUIDX 32577 Gabriel wrote: > Exactly... so what I have long wondered is why does Lupin not appear in > the wedding photo? Or Pettigrew, for that matter, if they were all close > friends, they would most likely have been ushers/groomsmen, and wedding > pictures are often taken with the whole wedding party. > > I wonder if Lupin contributed that picture to the album when Hagrid sent > his owl 'round looking for pictures to give to Harry? > Well, there you go. Lupin was the one holding the camera. :) If Hagrid had been able to get a picture from Sirius, it would've had Lupin in it. The formal wedding photos (if they stood for them -- we didn't) were probably blown up with the house in Godric Hollow. And if you don't like that explanation, maybe werewolves in the Potterverse don't show up on film? ;) Penny wrote: > I wasn't entirely sure what gets classed as YA these days so I did a > quick perusal of Amazon's offerings. Here's the deal: back when I was a > teen, a good bit of what is now called YA was shelved in the adult > sections of bookstores (Forever by Blume, Flowers for Algernon, A > Separate Peace, Catcher in the Rye, etc.). I know. I worked at > Waldenbooks all through high school. YA must not have really existed > per se when I was a teen. You're right, now that I think of it-- I don't remember those shelves existing when I practically lived in a bookstore as a kid. And some "YA" stuff is still filed in the regular SF&F section (e.g. Harper Hall of Pern stories, Heinlein's "juveniles," etc.) I think of YA books as "Adult books, but shorter, and no graphic sex." Other than that, little or no difference. Elizabeth (who is also supposed to be working....) From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com Wed Jan 2 21:12:42 2002 From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 15:12:42 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's Intelligence References: Message-ID: <3C3377CA.5A7D4505@kingwoodcable.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32578 theo_kestrel wrote: > > I apologize if this has already been discussed, as I'm a relative > newbie to this group and to this point have merely lurked in the > shadows. > > I'm curious to know what people's thoughts are on the subject of > Harry's intelligence. Harry is often described as being eerily > similar to his father in many ways, in regards to looks, Quidditch > skill, and even personality traits. Being the son of his father, who > was Head Boy in his time, and his mother, the Head Girl, I'm curious > why his own academic achievements seem to be less than impressive > when compared to his parents. I have some thoughts on this... > Is he simply not as intelligent as his parents? I think he's quite intelligent and succeeds when he puts his mind to it. The books have stated a few times that both he and Ron passed with good marks. > Is it because of his upbringing, when he had the Dursleys to > worry about instead of school? This and that someone is always out to kill him. Perhaps he has a little more stress that the average child? > Why wouldn't he seek the shelter of > books like others often do when trying to escape the harshness of > reality? Not everyone goes to the books to escape. Harry uses Quidditch as his distraction. I think in book 3, he was happy to have the extra practices that Wood enforced to keep his mind off of Black and the dementors. He used to stay outside and play while at the Dursleys to stay away from the house as well. I just think he's more active, and books might not pre-occupy his mind like they would with Hermione. > Do you seem him blossoming academically as he gets older, or > will the weight of his eventual confrontation with Voldemort further > put him off his studies-or will he take the opposite tack, and apply > himself more than he has in the past to arm himself with the > knowledge necessary for victory? I believe they'll be getting their OWLs this year, and I think he will do very well. He may not become Head Boy (I really don't think he will be appointed that position...I'd prefer him be Quidditch captain), but that doesn't mean he's not intelligent. His parents didn't exactly have his life to contend with (maybe they did...but we don't know). I think Harry will always do fine academically, even if he doesn't have straight A's. -Katze From aromano at indiana.edu Wed Jan 2 21:11:53 2002 From: aromano at indiana.edu (Aja) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 16:11:53 -0500 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] What to do with the Quidditch team? (WAS Untackled (?) Questions) In-Reply-To: <3C3374F2.E37ED136@kingwoodcable.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32579 On Wed, 2 Jan 2002, Katze wrote: > For year 5, I suspect (no...I hope) that Ron will become the new Keeper > and take Wood's place. My feeling is that Angelina will become the new > captain. When year 6 comes around, they'll just have regular old > try-outs like they do every year and fill up the team. My money's on Dean Thomas for the new Keeper thanks to the fact that he's already such a die-hard soccer fan; I'm sure JKR wouldn't have emphasized his sports love as one of the only things we're shown about his personality if he weren't bound to be an athlete in the wizard world as well. > I'm hope that JKR give Ron a little bit of glory in the next book, As for Ron, I believe Ron's battle with jealousy and insecurity is just going to intensify in Book 5, and his place on the team will either be as a chaser--sharing the role with two others, and ultimately secondary to Harry as the seeker in the glory department, or still as a member of the audience, frustrated either way because of his inability to steal attention away from Harry. (Note--I don't want Ron to die, but I'm definitely in the Ron-betrayal camp for future books, and I believe JKR will set that up clearly in Book 5) As for future Harry defeats, I'd stake my money on Malfoy, who's a good flyer in his own right, and who as far as we know will be one of the only 5th year players to have had a major role on his team for more than a couple of years. It'd be interesting to see him defeat Harry once for the Snitch--perhaps just as tensions between the Dumbledore-camp and the Death-eaters are at their most intense--nothing better than a little symbolic rivalry! :) Aja From k_wayment at hotmail.com Wed Jan 2 21:12:44 2002 From: k_wayment at hotmail.com (Kyli Wayment) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 21:12:44 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape?... A question... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32580 From: "haruspica23" >Hi... If this idea has already been dicussed just let me know... >anyway... Snape was a DE (no suprises there) but when he become a spy >for the "old crowd," would he not reasonably have revoked his ties >and friendly associations with the DE's?... Yet, as is so often >brought up, Draco is his favorite student... Though it is mentioned >that the DE's were sometimes unaware of their own fellow members, >isn't Lucius Malfoy a confirmed DE (even if he was cleared). Why >would Snape, already having the guilt for being a former DE, be so >biased towards Malfoy?... I would assume that Snape would distance >himself from any interaction or associations with DE families... It >just seems sort of odd... Snape's not supposed to let other people on that he's a spy. With Draco Malfoy being at Hogwarts and keeping his eye on Snape, he has to make a good performance. If Snape did something suspicious (such as giving points to a Gryffindor, or being nice to Harry), Draco would surely tell his father, who's a major supporter of the Dark Lord. With Snape pretending to be a DE, he has to keep his act up at all times, so none of the Slytherin's whose parents are DE's will come on to him. Make sense? ~Kyli _________________________________________________________________ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com From k_wayment at hotmail.com Wed Jan 2 21:21:10 2002 From: k_wayment at hotmail.com (hpfan04) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 21:21:10 -0000 Subject: OoP Release date Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32581 Does anyone _really_ know the release date for Order of the Phoenix? I've heard all kinds of dates. Internet's saying January, book stores are saying late spring/early summer, other times I've heard September and on.... Does anyone know? Any possible links? Thanks! ~Kyli From aromano at indiana.edu Wed Jan 2 21:25:26 2002 From: aromano at indiana.edu (Aja) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 16:25:26 -0500 (EST) Subject: Snape & Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32582 Kyli Wayment wrote: > > From: "haruspica23" > > Why would Snape, already having the guilt for being a former DE, be > > so biased towards Malfoy?... I would assume that Snape would distance > >himself from any interaction or associations with DE families... > Snape's not supposed to let other people on that he's a spy. With Draco > Malfoy being at Hogwarts and keeping his eye on Snape, he has to make a good > performance. But Snape *isn't* a spy at the time Malfoy starts Hogwarts. At that point most of the wizarding world believes Voldemort to be dead. In CoS even Lucius Malfoy says it wouldn't be good to be enemies with Harry--certainly not an idea he would have entertained aloud in front of his son had he believed Voldemort to be alive. If Lucius doesn't know of Voldy's existence, I can't imagine that Snape would, however intelligent a spy he might be. > With Snape pretending to be a DE, he has to keep his act up at all times, so none of the Slytherin's whose parents are DE's will come on to him. I've always seen Snape's liking for Draco as genuine based on an instinctive bond and the fact that he seems to take a liking in the class--and Snape. (I can't imagine Snape gets to be on the most popular list of that many students, so it's probably a nice change for him!) However, if it turned out that Snape really doesn't like Malfoy and has only been treating him so well these 4 years as a front--imagine what that would do to Malfoy, who seems to worship Snape second only to his father. That could prove an interesting plot twist, with Draco losing the friendship of one of the few people (so far as we see) who has nurtured him through his upbringing, and then somehow seeking revenge, or lashing out in other volatile ways. Aja (always overwhelmed with the possibilities for the direction of the next 3 books) From ftah3 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 2 21:26:25 2002 From: ftah3 at yahoo.com (ftah3) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 21:26:25 -0000 Subject: how moving pictures are produced (was: Portraits again) In-Reply-To: <20011223034120.55041.qmail@web20804.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32583 Rowena Grunnion-Ffitch wrote: > It would be interesting to know exactly how the > moving paintings are produced. Judging by their vast > number it can't be a particularly arcane or difficult > spell though presumably artistic as well as magical > talent is required. Could it be something in the > paints? Didn't somebody say moving photographs were > produced by a special developing fluid? Well, in CoS, Colin Creevy, during one of his requests to take a photo of Harry, is all excited at having discovered that if he develops the film in a particular potion, the pictures will move; later, he shows Harry one of the potion-developed photos (the one in which Harry is pleased to see that his photo self is hiding behind Lockhart). I assume that a similar potion is used to make paintings move. This would, to me, explain why some wouldn't necessarily move ~ maybe the person who commissioned/painted 'potioned' it for sentimental reasons, or *didn't* because it wasn't a favorite/simply didn't want it to move. Mahoney From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com Wed Jan 2 21:41:04 2002 From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 15:41:04 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] OoP Release date References: Message-ID: <3C337E70.ED2EF34D@kingwoodcable.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32584 hpfan04 wrote: > > Does anyone _really_ know the release date for Order of the Phoenix? > I've heard all kinds of dates. Internet's saying January, book stores > are saying late spring/early summer, other times I've heard September > and on.... Does anyone know? Any possible links? > Thanks! > ~Kyli There hasn't been anything specific *at all* regarding the date. There is a subscription on amazon.com that you can sign up for which will send you any publishing information regarding the book when the date is known. If you are in a different country, you can probably still sign up and at least get notice for the when the US version will be released. I suspect the UK amazon site also has a sign up sheet. You can sign up here: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000059Z4H/104-7892450-1527124 I pre-ordered my book, but they seem to have taken down that option. I wonder if too many people were pre-ordering. I'll have to double-check my open order when the announcement comes out to make sure my order still stands. -Katze From bonnie at niche-associates.com Wed Jan 2 20:19:39 2002 From: bonnie at niche-associates.com (dicentra_spectabilis_alba) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 20:19:39 -0000 Subject: Fudge's version of the Sirius/Peter encounter Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32585 In PA, Fudge says that when he arrived on the scene, shortly after the blast that "killed" Pettigrew, Sirius was laughing. Is this an embellishment of Fudge's or was Sirius laughing (or something similar) and Fudge misinterpreted what he saw? If the former, did Fudge have an ulterior motive for making Sirius out to be the villian? Could it be linked to his refusal to take Voldemort's return seriously? "dicentra_spectabilis_alba" From fallenhunter at neo.rr.com Wed Jan 2 20:18:48 2002 From: fallenhunter at neo.rr.com (Fallenhunter) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 15:18:48 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Q: I am Confused on the time frame of the books. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3C3324D8.9414.5B211F0@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 32586 > >My first post here( so forgive me if its been answered before), I am > >unsure of the time frame of the books. Anyone have any idea? I seem > >to get the feeling that its rather late 50s or 60s, but mention of > >some of the gifts given to Harry's cousin, leaves me a bit confused > >(I seem to remember something about a Playstation video game). I have > >seen the movie, read the first three books, and are about half done > >with the 4th. Should finish it sometime soon, I hope, time allowing. > >Thanks, Dwayne Miller AKOA: Fallenhunter > > Welcome to HPfGU! The time frame in the books starts in 1991 with > Harry going to Hogwarts for his first year. We know that Harry was > born in 1980, therefore, if he went to Hogwarts when he was eleven, it > would be 1991. > Ok, than this really confuses me... why dont we see tech playing a larger role in the stories? Its geared toward kids right? who knows computers and stuff better than they? (This is my opinion biased on the fact that I am a PC tech in RL as well). The library of books, should at least have a computer index... so as making research easier... (course that would have made Harry's search for a breathing underwater spell much easier and lost some suspense). I will readily admit, that its possible that the authur simply does not want to make it too modern. But I would assume wizards are smart enough to take advantage of at least some of the modern appliances. *shrug* maybe only Dark Wizards use computers.... (would fit with my opinion of a large software company whos logo is on most of our screens everyday). Dwayne Miller Barberton, Ohio (who is still reading the Lexicon and last book) Fallenhunter "They know you have the information they want, question is, when will they find you?" Overheard in a bar in the Corbia Sector. From bonnie at niche-associates.com Wed Jan 2 20:24:37 2002 From: bonnie at niche-associates.com (dicentra_spectabilis_alba) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 20:24:37 -0000 Subject: Sirius's Motorcycle Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32587 Hagrid says in PA that Sirius yielded up the motorcycle to him, saying he wouldn't be needing it anymore. Hagrid figures later that Sirius didn't want to keep something that could so easily be traced, but obviously he was wrong. Some have speculated that it was a pre-suicidal gesture, but when Sirius recounts the events of that night, he makes no mention of planning to kill himself. Did Sirius figure he would be in jail soon because he was planning to murder Peter, or is this just one one more unknown about that night? "dicentra_spectabilis_alba" From nonconformist594 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 2 20:29:31 2002 From: nonconformist594 at yahoo.com (Etha Williams) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 12:29:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's Intelligence In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020102202931.24899.qmail@web14909.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32588 --- theo_kestrel wrote: > Why wouldn't he seek the shelter of > books like others often do when trying to escape the harshness of > reality? My guess would be that the Dursley's weren't exactly thrilled to buy Harry books, and they'd probably only take him anywhere (including the library) if Dudley wanted to go...and there's no way Dudley would want to go to the library. > Do you seem him blossoming academically as he gets older, or > will the weight of his eventual confrontation with Voldemort further > put him off his studies-or will he take the opposite tack, and apply > himself more than he has in the past to arm himself with the > knowledge necessary for victory? I see him studying considerably more in the future in order that he will be able to defeat Voldemort. Although I think he's the type that, left to his own devices, would rely more on his innate bravery and such to defeat Voldemort, Hermione would _never_ let him get away with that. I can just hear Hermione right now: "Harry, you've got to know enough magic if you want to defeat Voldemort..." And Harry likes Hermione just enough (in a platonic sense) and Hermione is just pushy enough that I think he'll do as she says... -Etha __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send your FREE holiday greetings online! http://greetings.yahoo.com From nonconformist594 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 2 21:41:41 2002 From: nonconformist594 at yahoo.com (Etha Williams) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 13:41:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] What to do with the Quidditch team? (WAS Untackled (?) Questions) In-Reply-To: <015b01c193c7$3c8e0580$9072073e@j0dhe> Message-ID: <20020102214141.9616.qmail@web14912.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32589 --- Hollydaze wrote: > They have already lost Wood their keeper (and their captain) who will (presumably) be replaced > by a student between the 2nd year and Fred/George's year (more likely an earlier year as then > they won't leave so soon) but what do they do in book 6? In PS/SS Lee Jordan says in his commentary, "...Alicia Spinnet...last year only a reserve --" Since it's clear that reserves do exist (although we haven't really see anything of them in the last four books), my guess is that a majority of these empty positions would be filled with these un-known reserves, who's Quidditch talents have probably been growing over the year(s) of being reserves. However, if there are any positions that will still be available, I'm voting for some unknown character to take it -- I'd love to meet some more characters, and none of the characters we already know seem quite suited for it. I wouldn't want Ron to take it as so many do because it would destroy the whole overshadowed inferiority complex that's been building up for the last four books. -Etha __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send your FREE holiday greetings online! http://greetings.yahoo.com From joneses at isni.net Wed Jan 2 21:25:13 2002 From: joneses at isni.net (Mrs. Figg and Her Cats) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 16:25:13 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] What to do with the Quidditch team? (WAS Untackled (?) Questions) and intro In-Reply-To: References: <015b01c193c7$3c8e0580$9072073e@j0dhe> Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.0.20020102152758.00a56420@mail.isni.net> No: HPFGUIDX 32590 (Snip) I am new here and thought I would say hello and introduce myself. I have not been a Harry Potter fan for too long. I jumped onto the bandwagon AFTER I saw the movie. I was not at all interested in reading the books when they first came out simply because I wasn't interested in "fantasy" books. I do recall my son trying to tell me about this new book he was reading, back in 1998 about a boy who lived under the stairs with mean relatives.He then proceeded to explain the rules of Quidditch and of course, being the good mother I am, I just nodded feigning interest and inserted superlatives every few minutes, whilst I thought about something else. But I digress. Fast forward to the opening of the movie, when I took my 9 year old daughter for her birthday. I have seen it 3 times now and I haven't seen a movie in the theatre on my own accord since 1996. Most movies I see are kid related , Shrek, Spykids, Monsters etc. Since then , I have read all 4 books twice each and have been collecting things that a 32 year old woman has no business collecting, ie. bookmarks, magazine articles, key chains, Bertie Bott's candy. But , that is another topic. So, for my first post, I thought I would jump in with this topic and ask someone a question regarding Quidditch. Harry was the youngest Quidditch player in 100 years. It is now the almost the 5th year and knowing of Ron't interest in playing Quidditch, why hasn't he joined the team yet? Surely he is old enough to join, Malfoy was able to even though part of it was because his dad bought his way in to the team. Why hasn't it been mentioned that Ron has tried out for the team? It can't be because he can't afford a broom, I am assuming that the school would supply them, albeit not as good as the Nimbus2001 or the Firebolt. Did I miss it in my reading? Will I be forced to read the books all over again to find this little tidbit? Thank you for your time in reading this. Mrs Figg [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zoehooch at yahoo.com Wed Jan 2 21:06:33 2002 From: zoehooch at yahoo.com (zoehooch) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 21:06:33 -0000 Subject: Harry's Intelligence In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32591 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "theo_kestrel" wrote: > > I'm curious to know what people's thoughts are on the subject of > Harry's intelligence. Harry is often described as being eerily > similar to his father in many ways, in regards to looks, Quidditch > skill, and even personality traits. Being the son of his father, who > was Head Boy in his time, and his mother, the Head Girl, I'm curious > why his own academic achievements seem to be less than impressive > when compared to his parents. Is he simply not as intelligent as his > parents? I think it's a mistake to equate native intelligence with performance at school, especially for an 11 year old boy, such as Harry. The Sorting Hat states that he has a good mind, but probably not a Ravenclaw-mind. I have come to believe that Harry is a tremendously gifted wizard and will continue to get even greater with more study. But like many people, the classroom bores him silly, but when he's faced with a real-world situation, that is, a real-wizard-world situation, he does quite well. Z. Hooch From marybear82 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 2 20:48:33 2002 From: marybear82 at yahoo.com (Mary Shearer) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 12:48:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] On the Classification of Age Ranges in Literature In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020102204833.11362.qmail@web14007.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32592 --- caliburncy wrote: > > I would like to make the point that all > classification > regarding creative works is ultimately an act of > folly. The intended > purpose of such categorizing is simply to serve as > one element in the > understanding of a work's greater place, but (like > the Mirror of > Erised) it can "give us neither knowledge nor truth" > about the work > itself. Here here! I would like to humbly submit this view: that all of the sturm and drang surrounding the age classification of these wonderful books is simply an extension of our own guilt! Otherwise, why would we be so desperate to classify them at all? Are we, as adults, trying to justify our wholesale immersion into JKR's sparkling universe? I know that I have followed this particular line of discussion intently for days, hoping to affirm that I am just interested in good literature, and not in some kind of literary mid-life crisis! For those of you with no such insecurities, I apologize for making too broad a supposition. Luke also wrote: The existance of genre > is the outgrowth > of two things: 1) the inherent drive of the human > consciousness when > given two things to compare them and 2) marketing, > plain and simple. ... all genre is ultimately a superficial > imposition and > the factors that cause you to enjoy or despise a > particular book have > more to do with those things that are common to all > of our favorite > fiction, regardless of categorization of any sort: a > compelling story > with characters that we can identify with or that we > are fascinated > by; themes that resonate strongly with us or cause > us to consider a > new perspective; escapism into the world of homo > fictus rather than > the world of homo sapiens, where life is simply a > great deal more > concentrated and poetic. There it is!!!! We don't need to justify our interest in the HP universe by categorizing the literature as children/adult, fantasy/coming of age, or anything else. As Luke said, "It is what it is." It's O.K. for adults to take HP unto themselves on their own level, because regardless of JKR's intended audience, it has struck a resonant chord for many adults. The setting is rich enough, the characters are round enough, and the story compelling enough for us to analyze them exhaustively. (What fun that is, too!) There is a branch of literary theory called "reader response." It proposes that the intent of the author is irrelevant - what matters is how a particular reader approaches a text. Each reader is free to interpret the material relevent to his/her needs, and each reader will come away with a different perspective. While I don't think this approach applies to all literature, I do think that it was tailor-made for a ground-breaking series like HP. Whether the intended reader is the child or the adult, the result is the same - we step outside the box of our own age range. Children are expected to look beyond the setting and the story to ponder some rather adult themes, while adults get the opportunity to escape into these works with a child-like wonder. When JKR says that she is writing for herself, then seemingly contradicts herself by implying that her target audience is children, I think it becomes clear that the target audience is of all ages, therefore, all ages need to be considered in terms of content. I doubt we'll see anything too hard-edged OR sugar-coated. We will not be spared the grisly details (as GoF shows us) but we won't want to slit our wrists at the end either. Because I'm writing off the top of my head, my argument may be flawed - please point said flaws out if you see them :) - but I do think I could be close to the mark, simply because every evening in my home this winter has been devoted to reading a chapter or two of HP. My husband is a working-class Joe, my son is a moody 12-yr-old and into football, my daughter is 9 and loves dogs and cats, and I am an English teacher. Yet we gather for an hour or so and come together while JKR weaves her marvelous story. When I pause and look up from the page, I see all of their faces turned to mine, their expressions rapt with attention. Now THAT'S magic! So!... Guilt-free, with no worries about whether my obsession is appropriate for one my age, I lift my glass to JKR...who, in the words of Ron Weasley, is "BLOODY BRILLIANT!" Mary - who is having a whopping good time in this group since she discovered it 3 weeks ago - Happy New Year to all! __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send your FREE holiday greetings online! http://greetings.yahoo.com From nonconformist594 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 2 20:34:25 2002 From: nonconformist594 at yahoo.com (Etha Williams) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 12:34:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lupin's relationship with Harry / Hagrid Hufflepuff? / Quidditch reserves In-Reply-To: <00bd01c193c8$d9913900$0b01a8c0@enet.com> Message-ID: <20020102203425.26772.qmail@web14910.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32593 --- Gabriel Edson wrote: > In PS/SS Hagrid says that it's most people's opinion that Hufflepuffs are "a bunch of duffers" > (pardon the inexact quote, don't have my books at work with me.) I doubt he would mention that, > even in passing, without defending them if that were his house. The exact quote is, "Everyone says Hufflepuff are a lot o' duffers, but --" The but at the end of this sentence implies that Hagrid *was* going to defend Hufflepuff -- Harry just interupted him before he could do it. -Etha __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send your FREE holiday greetings online! http://greetings.yahoo.com From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com Wed Jan 2 22:08:12 2002 From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 16:08:12 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Q: I am Confused on the time frame of the books. References: <3C3324D8.9414.5B211F0@localhost> Message-ID: <3C3384CC.529E1F31@kingwoodcable.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32594 Fallenhunter wrote: > Ok, than this really confuses me... why dont we see tech playing a > larger role in the stories? Its geared toward kids right? who knows > computers and stuff better than they? (This is my opinion biased on > the fact that I am a PC tech in RL as well). > > The library of books, should at least have a computer index... so as > making research easier... (course that would have made Harry's search > for a breathing underwater spell much easier and lost some suspense). > > I will readily admit, that its possible that the authur simply does > not want to make it too modern. But I would assume wizards are smart > enough to take advantage of at least some of the modern appliances. If I remember correctly, electricity does not work in the wizarding world, so they can't take advantage of Muggle technology. Sorry for the one liner, but I'm not sure there needs to be further explanation. -Katze From ftah3 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 2 22:09:19 2002 From: ftah3 at yahoo.com (ftah3) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 22:09:19 -0000 Subject: Harry's Intelligence In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32595 theo_kestrel wrote: > > > > I'm curious to know what people's thoughts are on the subject of > > Harry's intelligence. Harry is often described as being eerily > > similar to his father in many ways, in regards to looks, Quidditch > > skill, and even personality traits. Being the son of his father, > who > > was Head Boy in his time, and his mother, the Head Girl, I'm > curious > > why his own academic achievements seem to be less than impressive > > when compared to his parents. Is he simply not as intelligent as > his > > parents? zoehooch wrote: > I have come to believe that Harry is a tremendously gifted wizard and > will continue to get even greater with more study. But like many > people, the classroom bores him silly, but when he's faced with a > real-world situation, that is, a real-wizard-world situation, he does I also take into account that Harry has spent his life being told he's worthless. In which case, it doesn't suprise me that, upon being thrust into a brand new and strange world, he doesn't jump out and take chances in trying out his abilities, because I don't expect him to have enough self-confidence. Rather, he happened upon something that came naturally to him ~ broom-riding/Quidditch ~ and now feels that it's the only thing he's good at (which he thinks to himself at one point...can't remember where) despite the fact that he hasn't actually applied himself to his classes. On the other hand, we have seen that when he does work at his other wizarding skills, he succeeds admirably. He summons a Patronus, which Lupin admits is an extremely difficult spell to perform even for a studied wizard. He manages to summon his broomstick to him in GoF, after practicing at it. I guess it just seems that while spellcasting et al don't come as naturally to him as Quidditch, it doesn't mean he's stupid or incapable of using sophisticated wizard skills; it just means, imho, he hasn't worked at it hard enough, whether because the classes are bored or he doesn't want to try and fail, or both/neither/plus some. Er. Mahoney From aromano at indiana.edu Wed Jan 2 22:13:26 2002 From: aromano at indiana.edu (Aja) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 17:13:26 -0500 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry's Intelligence In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32596 > I have come to believe that Harry is a tremendously gifted wizard and > will continue to get even greater with more study. But like many > people, the classroom bores him silly, but when he's faced with a > real-world situation, that is, a real-wizard-world situation, he does > quite well. > > Z. Hooch Hear, Hear! And let's also not forget one of the most important skills of "great" men through the ages, often having nothing to do with booksmarts: leadership. Hermione is much smarter than Harry or anyone else--but her attempts at leadership are usually met with scorn because of her "know-it-all" tendencies. Malfoy is likewise a pretty sharp tack, but he has to provoke or bully others into following him, like his father. And Neville, a notoriously "bad" student by certain standards of intelligence, revealed a latent ability to act as a leader in standing up to the Trio in SS/PS. Harry has an amazing ability to inspire loyalty and determination in the people around him. Half of his charm IMO is failing to realize how much of his popularity and the faithfulness of his supporters is based on his own quiet natural charisma, and goodness of heart. Because of his scar, and because he's not the brightest student in school, Harry believes he hasn't *earned* his place in the wizarding world. I believe future books will show him coming to terms with this a little better, and gaining confidence that will make him truly a phenomenal wizard. Books and cleverness have little to do with that. Aja "You know you have a problem when...You start saying things like Harry Potter and coital in the same sentence." --Cathryn From Rebecca.Allen at turner.com Wed Jan 2 22:02:50 2002 From: Rebecca.Allen at turner.com (Allen, Rebecca) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 17:02:50 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape & Draco Message-ID: <759A085B4DB9AF47AD5BB22098C917280752BA@cnncex01.turner.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32597 > Aja wrote: > > But Snape *isn't* a spy at the time Malfoy starts Hogwarts. > At that point > most of the wizarding world believes Voldemort to be dead. > In CoS even > Lucius Malfoy says it wouldn't be good to be enemies with > Harry--certainly > not an idea he would have entertained aloud in front of his son had he > believed Voldemort to be alive. If Lucius doesn't know of Voldy's > existence, I can't imagine that Snape would, however > intelligent a spy he > might be. > Given that there was never any proof that Voldemort actually died, surely Dumbledore would entertain the possibility that he might come back someday (Hagrid does!), and take certain precautions in anticipation. He could have asked Snape to ingratiate himself with the Slytherin to gain their trust and thus be privy to an new information about Voldy. Also, former Death Eaters can be dangerous with or without Voldemort, and Lucius is a prime example. Dumbledore would probably want to keep Snape still a little 'under cover' and snooping on the Slytherin for that reason alone. > > I've always seen Snape's liking for Draco as genuine based on an > instinctive bond and the fact that he seems to take a liking in the > class--and Snape. (I can't imagine Snape gets to be on the > most popular > list of that many students, so it's probably a nice change for him!) (snipped for brevity) I don't see that they really have much in common -- Draco gets what he wants through his family's wealth and power -- he's really pretty spoiled -- and it's hard for me to imagine that Snape would find this really endearing. I particularly can't believe that Snape would wiling let anyone malinger in his class without an overriding tactical reason. Also, we know that Snape is giving Hermione better marks than Draco, which seems to imply his 'favoritism' is more show than substance. I don't think being liked is one of Snape's big priorities. :-) Of course future books may prove me dead wrong, and then you can all laugh at me. Thanks, Rebecca [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From voicelady at mymailstation.com Wed Jan 2 20:16:22 2002 From: voicelady at mymailstation.com (the_voicelady) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 20:16:22 -0000 Subject: Hello! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32598 Hey, can just anybody join this fish-fry, or is there a test? Hi everyone - I'm glad to be back! Jeralyn, the Voicelady From anakzaman at yahoo.com Wed Jan 2 22:36:27 2002 From: anakzaman at yahoo.com (anakzaman) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 22:36:27 -0000 Subject: Harry's Intelligence In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32599 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "theo_kestrel" wrote: > I'm curious to know what people's thoughts are on the subject of > Harry's intelligence. Harry is often described as being eerily > similar to his father in many ways, in regards to looks, Quidditch > skill, and even personality traits. Being the son of his father, who > was Head Boy in his time, and his mother, the Head Girl, I'm curious > why his own academic achievements seem to be less than impressive > when compared to his parents. Is he simply not as intelligent as his > parents? Is it because of his upbringing, when he had the Dursleys to > worry about instead of school? Why wouldn't he seek the shelter of > books like others often do when trying to escape the harshness of > reality? Do you seem him blossoming academically as he gets older, or > will the weight of his eventual confrontation with Voldemort further > put him off his studies-or will he take the opposite tack, and apply > himself more than he has in the past to arm himself with the > knowledge necessary for victory? Some questions to ponder... If I can have my two cents about Harry's intelligence... James was born a wizard and knew that he was a wizard all along. Lily, even though muggle-born, had the time to experiment with her magic (PS/SS, when Petunia was complaining about her sister). But Harry lived for 11 years without knowing that he was a wizard, and then suddenly he enters Hogwarts, befriended the most clever girl and a boy who has been a wizard his whole life. And then the fact that he was involved in mysteries etc, that must have put him out of the books for a while. He is talented at Quidditch, but he still needed to practice 5 days a week. And since he loves Quidditch more than he loved school (like any normal 12-13 yr boy would), I would assume that he studies just enough to get the grades he needs. Just look at an average schoolboy. Most of the intelligent people, they would just sit there and do just enough effort to get decent grades, while pursuing other interests. And Harry has no interest in being a Prefect/Head Boy. -indra- ps, btw, I'm a newbie, so "hi!"... From deadstop at gte.net Wed Jan 2 22:49:52 2002 From: deadstop at gte.net (Stacy Stroud) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 17:49:52 -0500 Subject: Snape? ... A question ... In-Reply-To: <1010003356.2889.5077.m11@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <4.3.2.20020102172126.00a6ba80@mail.gte.net> No: HPFGUIDX 32600 haruspica23 wrote: [snip] Snape was a DE (no suprises there) but when he become a spy >for the "old crowd," would he not reasonably have revoked his ties >and friendly associations with the DE's?... Yet, as is so often >brought up, Draco is his favorite student A couple of observations: Snape may now be anti-DE, but he is still highly pro-Slytherin, and Draco is just about the most promising Slytherin we've seen so far among the current Hogwarts students. (Many of the others, rather than "ambitious and conniving," seem to be more "thuggish and unpleasant.") Draco is also the rival of a gang of rule-breaking Gryffindors, led by a Potter, who always seem to come up smelling like roses no matter how bad their behavior -- sound familiar? Snape no doubt sees echoes of his young self in Master Malfoy. I believe I have seen elsewhere (on this list or another fan board) the suggestion that Snape may also be trying to "rescue" Draco from growing up to be a DE like Dad. What with Dumbledore and the rest of the faculty always cooing over Harry, it's left to Snape to be the best adult support figure he can for a boy who has clearly been indoctrinated from birth into believing that the DE movement is a good thing. Snape is hardly the world's best "buddy," much less surrogate father-figure, but it's possible that part of his favoritism in class is his way of letting Draco know that there's someone he can go to besides his father, should the need arise. There's also the question of how much ex-Death Eaters like the Malfoys know about Snape's treachery. During the time he was a spy, he would have kept up his DE connections and his pretenses of loyalty to Voldemort -- that's the whole utility of having him as an informant for Dumbledore's faction. Voldemort apparently knows, now, but we don't know if Snape's cover was blown before the Dark Lord's fall or not. True, he was given a teaching position by Dumbledore -- something you wouldn't expect of a loyal DE -- but then Lucius Malfoy was a school governor for awhile, and Karkaroff *ran* a wizarding school. They could easily have assumed (and Karkaroff's interactions with Snape in GoF would support this) that he was another case of a DE pretending to go straight, as they had. In that case, fawning over Lucius Malfoy's son would also be a way for Snape to hide his true colors, and thus keep himself from being assassinated in the night by other ex-DEs who at least had the decency to wait until Voldy had AKed himself before denying their master.... Stacy Stroud (deadstop at gte.net) Hex Entertainment, Inc. (http://www.hexgames.com) From anakzaman at yahoo.com Wed Jan 2 22:52:48 2002 From: anakzaman at yahoo.com (anakzaman) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 22:52:48 -0000 Subject: Snape & Draco In-Reply-To: <759A085B4DB9AF47AD5BB22098C917280752BA@cnncex01.turner.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32601 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Allen, Rebecca" wrote: > Given that there was never any proof that Voldemort actually died, surely Dumbledore would entertain the possibility that he might come back someday (Hagrid does!), and take certain precautions in anticipation. He could have asked Snape to ingratiate himself with the Slytherin to gain their trust and thus be privy to an new information about Voldy. > > Also, former Death Eaters can be dangerous with or without Voldemort, and Lucius is a prime example. Dumbledore would probably want to keep Snape still a little 'under cover' and snooping on the Slytherin for that reason alone. Now I have another question concerning Snape (hopefully this hasn't been discussed yet). In GoF, when Voldemort summoned the Death Eaters, 6 were missing. Three were dead, one too cowardly to return (Karakoff I presume), on who has re-entered his service (Barty Crouch Jr.) and one who Voldy believed has left him forever. That one should be Snape. Since Lucious Malfoy was there, he should be able to figure that out. So what is going to happen with Draco and Snape? Draco would tell his dad that Snape is a spy, or Lucious would tell his son that Snape is not faithful to Voldemort anymore. Add also to the fact that Harry saw Lucious together with Voldemort, this should bring a fresh twisting plot to the whole story. Maybe Snape is able to lure Draco away from the dark side, hence Draco and Harry will work together someday? Maybe Draco quits Hogwarts (although this one is unlikely)? Maybe Lucious will try and pull some strings in the Ministry of Magic to make Snape or even Dumbledore fall? -indra- From christi0469 at hotmail.com Wed Jan 2 23:01:41 2002 From: christi0469 at hotmail.com (christi0469) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 23:01:41 -0000 Subject: Harry's Intelligence In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32602 Mahoney wrote: Rather, he happened upon > something that came naturally to him ~ broom-riding/Quidditch ~ and > now feels that it's the only thing he's good at (which he thinks to > himself at one point...can't remember where) despite the fact that he > hasn't actually applied himself to his classes. > >I believe you are talking about the scene in which Moody/Crouch Jr overhears Harry telling Cedric about the dragons, and gives Harry hints until Harry comes up with the idea of sommoning his broomstick. I agree that Harry is going to start applying himself more, and I think he is going to realize that he has inate abililies other than flying. Christi From slytherin_belle at hotmail.com Wed Jan 2 23:15:14 2002 From: slytherin_belle at hotmail.com (Evil Flame) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 17:15:14 -0600 Subject: Death rites and such Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32603 I'm a newbie so if I've messed up or this was already addressed, just point me in the right direction and I'll get out of the way. This touches on a couple of different threads ( RE: Lily + James' Bodies were in the house and Voldie's scope of power. I'm combining them for ease.) where are they buried/what happened to them? This brings a wealth of questions to mind. What are the burial/ death traditions for the wizarding world? I can imagine that wizard cemeteries would be quite interesting places and would be unplottable or at least very remote to protect them from curious muggles. Also, it would seem to me that someone as infamous as the Potters were, they would have been laid to rest in a secret location. As morbid and dark as it sounds, would not parts of any wizards remains be at risk for the dark and unscrupulous to use in charms and potions of an extremely dark nature? It would be another facet of the dark arts dealing with the dead at the very least. I know that JKR is not likely to put this is the books, but things of that nature are common in dark witchcraft in other literature. (The only example I can remember off the top of my head comes from Mordred's Curse by Ian McDowell and a flute made out of an infant's thighbone.) Does anyone else have speculation or grounds on any of this from the books? -Evil Flame Goddess [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cindysphynx at home.com Wed Jan 2 23:28:03 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 23:28:03 -0000 Subject: Death rites and such In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32604 Evil Flame wrote (about death and burial in the wizarding world): > This brings a wealth of questions to mind. What are the burial/ death > traditions for the wizarding world? I can imagine that wizard cemeteries > would be quite interesting places and would be unplottable or at least very > remote to protect them from curious muggles. Also, it would seem to me that > someone as infamous as the Potters were, they would have been laid to rest > in a secret > location. > Interesting questions. The most significant "burial" I can recall is Crouch Jr.'s handling of his father's remains in GoF. He turned dear old dad into a bone, tossed him into the forbidden forest, then went back later and buried him in a patch of loose dirt. Very touching. Another burial was Crouch Jr.'s mother, whom the dementors buried while Sirius was in Azkaban (not to mention her second burial, which was really an empty coffin). The other instance is Cedric's murder, in which he asks that Harry take his body back to his parents. This suggests that retrieving the body is very important in the wizarding world as it is in the muggle world. I wonder why JKR chose to treat death and burial in this conventional fashion. She could have come up with any number of fanciful ways of dealing with wizard death rites, like using Transfiguration. As morbid as this idea is, wizards could do things like transfigure the dearly departed into a useful object or something related to a passion of the decedent. But then again, maybe this would lack sufficient emotional impact for the reader. :-) Cindy (thinking Fake Moody could have turned Crouch Sr. into a decorative reading lamp) From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Wed Jan 2 23:38:39 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (dfrankiswork at netscape.net) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 18:38:39 -0500 Subject: JKR priorities/characterisation - Ron's development Message-ID: <21918737.4063D98C.6E93A4F5@netscape.net> No: HPFGUIDX 32605 Me, referring to a list of HP characters that I will justify/walk away from another day: >>Do you think I am right about who is to be developed as a character in future books and who not? Amy: > I would add Dumbledore to your list. The answer to the question currently haunting Harry and us--how did Dumbledore know that Snape was trustworthy?--will probably be almost as illuminating of Dumbledore's character as Snape's. I also thought he got much more complex in GoF, so I have hopes that that trend will continue. Amy, could you say what you mean about Dumbledore's increased complexity in GoF? Amy again: > Anyway, in the basic question of what JKR puts the highest priority on, I'd be hard-pressed to say whether it's plot or character. One thing's sure: she does an amazing job of not sacrificing either to the other. I'm beginning to move away from a simple priorities view, but I still think that while characterisation details such as body language and timing of speech (someone should do a study of all the occasions when Harry 'added hurriedly' or 'quickly said') are handled very well, I'm suspicious that JKR doesn't always think through the characterisation implications of *situations* which are presented for plot purposes, particularly when she hands the reader an argument from silence as when Ron would see Hermione sitting alone. The reason I'm changing my view is that while the detailed characterisation is done within a very demanding plot framework, the ultimate plot mystery *is* character: who is Harry, why did Voldemort attack him, what sort of person was Lily. Although it is still possible that the resolution of these mysteries could turn on 'mechanical' developments (for example the Department of Mysteries concept presented in the Lexicon), I'm fairly hopeful that the ever-present theme of choices based on character and in turn shaping it will be found to underlie the events of Harry's early childhood. Me again, alluding to Penny: >>I will try to get back to characterisation another time, particularly the very deep comment that Ron is becoming more himself. Amy: >I liked the comment too, and as a loyal C.R.A.B. member, I must respond. I don't want to start a round of "I was so ____ at age ___ and then became more _____," but I am sure I'm not the only person who reflects on her life to this point and sees many past entrenchments, conversions, and slow evolutions. Ron is not terribly likeable in GoF; he is jealous, overly eager to impress, quick to judge, and hot-tempered. Why see this as an entrenchment and not, say, a crisis preceding a conversion? >One can look at any 14-year-old and say, "yep, he was just like that when he was 4," and look at that 14-year-old another 10 years hence and say "yep, he hasn't changed," but IMO, we all become more ourselves *and* change. I have two comments on this. One is that I believe that there are two crises for Ron in GOF - his fight with Harry and his fight with Hermione. After these crises he shows signs of understanding that there are aspects of his personality which he wants to change, or at least behave better on. He still struggles with feelings of jealousy towards Harry, and this is both realistic, - jealousy doesn't just disappear because it has been identified - and grounds for hope - he *does* struggle instead of giving in. He has made his decision, that Harry's friendship is worth more than his own warped perception of ideal humanity (to be the focus of attention - how JKR lambasts this desire as unmitigatedly destructive at every turn!), and that, if held to, will be far-reaching for his character. His change in attitude to Hermione is less clearly delineated, but I believe he is on the road to recovery here too, as his request for Krum's autograph (again after a struggle) suggests. Note too that he gets his brief day in the sun after the second task, and when Hermione takes him down, he does not seem to resent or resist it. It is my observation that adults dealing with children that they know well, seeing them struggle with temptation, can focus on disciplining the child for being tempted, instead of commending their efforts, however grudging or feeble, to resist it. We are impatient in wanting them to move on, and so hinder them. At least Ron, as a fictional character, is immune to reader pressure. My second comment is that for change to be meaningful, some part of the person changing must remain the same. Otherwise we are dealing not with the development of Ron, but with his replacement, lock, stock, and barrel, with a completely different, unrelated person. I feel there is more to be mined from the idea of change that is consistent with character, but my ideas run out so I will come to a . 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 foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jan 2 23:40:52 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 23:40:52 -0000 Subject: witchcraft and Judaism (was Sirius Black,godfather) In-Reply-To: <20020102191548.1082.qmail@web14903.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32606 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Etha Williams wrote: > Wouldn't it be a bit hard to be a witch/wizard and be Jewish/Christian since > there are parts of the Old and New testaments decrying magic and witchcraft? > How would a witch/wizard explain that s/he was practicing a religion which stated that s/he was doomed to hell? Since Judaism and Christianity have different teachings about both the afterflife and witchcraft, I'm not sure it makes sense to lump them together. The Hebrew scriptures do forbid sorcery, however, it is by no means clear that the subjects taught at Hogwarts would be considered "sorcery" as defined by Jewish law. No one appears to be conjuring by means of unclean spirits, or asking ghosts for knowledge of the future. Simply seeking or using hidden knowledge is not forbidden according to the verse: "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter and the glory of a King to plumb a matter" Proverbs 25:2. In so far as magic is being used to deceive others or injure them, that would be forbidden in any case, and many of the potion ingredients are clearly not Kosher (fit for consumption according to Jewish law), so an ethical observant Jew would want Rabbinic advice on whether to allow a child to attend Hogwarts. Doubtless the Rabbinic rulings on this matter were concealed after the wizarding world went into hiding. ;-) Pippin From boggles at earthlink.net Thu Jan 3 00:02:47 2002 From: boggles at earthlink.net (Jennifer Boggess Ramon) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 18:02:47 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] On the Classification of Age Ranges in Literature In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32607 At 6:10 PM +0000 1/2/02, caliburncy wrote: > >NOTE: Throughout this entire post, especially the essay at the >bottom, I will use "children's book/literature" to also include >(without distinction) those books that are considered YA (Young >Adult), simply because this is most efficacious and seems to be in >keeping with the way previous discussion here has treated these terms. Hmm. I'm not sure I agree with this, partly beacuse my solution to the whole thing would be to wave my magic wand and put the whole series firmly in the Young Adult category, with the caveat that the first two books are certainly readable and enjoyable by older children as well. Please note that a book's being in the YA category does not mean that adults won't enjoy it. Indeed, YA is a "fudge" category for things that are Too Long, Intense, and Wordy For Small Children But Don't Have Explicit Sex In Them, in large part. There's a lovely little book, _Tangerine_, by Bloor, with a middle-school protagonist. Different bookstores have incredible trouble deciding whether the book is children's lit or YA; it's often double-shelved. I have a B.A. in English from a reasonable university and I enjoyed it very much, thank you. Ditto for quite a lot of YA books. A number of bookstores around here solve the problem of where to shelve the HP books by either double-shelving them or giving them an island display of their own. >In order for something to be a *reason*, it must be more than simply >statistically supported: it must show INHERENCY. I don't think you'll find _any_ standards that consistently meet that criterion. In particular, I think I can find exceptions to your criterion 5 below, which reduces it also to merely statistical significance. >First off, I would like to make the point that all classification >regarding creative works is ultimately an act of folly. I think this is the important point, here. >The possible standards that I thought of are: > >1) Readability and complexity of syntax >2) Appropriateness of content >3) Author's intention >4) Worldview and thematic complexity >5) Thematic relevancy I think, to an extent, these serve as a constellation of "standards," any one of which can override the others in a given situation. For example: a book which meets standards 1, 3, 4, and 5 but has an explicit sex scene, even one seen through a child's innocent eyes, isn't going to be categorized as a children's book because of standard 2. If we take standard 5 as the "real" one, then _Ender's Game_ and _Huckleberry Finn_, which are also both Bildungsromans, are also children's books. I don't think either one is; in particular, I think Huck Finn fails standards 1, 2, and 3 hard enough to not be children's lit no metter what the theme is. I also think claiming that "growing up" isn't a relevant theme for an adult book is silly, to be blunt. How many of us really feel we're "grown up"? I've never finished growing, at least mentally and emotionally, and I hope I never do. Personally, I'm willing to take the author's word for it when it's available. I'm also not sure why standard 1's only being bounded on one side is a problem, although it does make the "intended age" for Faulkner a little problematic. Note also that criterion 5 fails utterly for nonfiction . . . >Notice she says in the Houston Chronicle: Speaking as a Houstonian, I'd be wary of trying to make a lit crit point by quoting anything at all they say. ;) -- - 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 Rebecca.Allen at turner.com Wed Jan 2 23:52:56 2002 From: Rebecca.Allen at turner.com (Allen, Rebecca) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 18:52:56 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Death rites and such Message-ID: <759A085B4DB9AF47AD5BB22098C917280752C2@cnncex01.turner.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32608 Evil Flame asked: > > As morbid and dark as it sounds, would not parts of any wizards > remains be at risk for the dark and unscrupulous to use in charms and > potions of an extremely dark nature? Yes! Voldemort himself uses the bone of his father in the potion which gives him to a body at the end of GoF, which is why they were at that graveyard. This seemed like it was pretty literal -- a little column of white powder rose up from the earth and into the cauldron. It does make you wonder if James and Lily's graves are protected or hidden somehow. Don't you think Harry would want to visit them at some point in the future? The fact that this hasn't occurred to him yet might be a plot convention -- maybe these graves will be really significant in future books. /Rebecca [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Thu Jan 3 00:36:30 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 00:36:30 -0000 Subject: Wizard body parts - uses of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32609 Evil Flame evilly wrote: > As morbid and dark as it sounds, would not parts of any wizards > remains be at risk for the dark and unscrupulous to use in charms and > potions of an extremely dark nature? It would be another facet of the dark > arts dealing with the dead at the very least. I know that JKR is not likely > to > put this is the books, but things of that nature are common in dark > witchcraft in other literature. Not only Dark magic: Fleur's grandma donated a hair. Did the original owner of the Hand of Glory (Knockturn Alley, COS) have any say in the use of their hand? What would be the use of those fingernails, also in Knockturn Alley? There was a rumour that Dumbledore was going to hire dancing skeletons for a feast (can't remember where) - was this just a rumour, or are skeletons Beings, or were they ex-wizards? Did Dumbledore cancel the skeletons because he realised Nearly Headless Nick would want his bones back? We have recently discussed whether polyjuice potion works with bits from dead people - inconclusively. Quite a few of the beasts in FBAWTFT have uses - this suggests that the Dark Arts might extend to the use of bits from other magical beings. I think JKR is very likely to put this sort of thing into the books, after the bone flesh blood spell. David, thinking there's nothing quite like tossing a Dementor's nose into the gravy to make a DE party go with a swing. From boggles at earthlink.net Thu Jan 3 00:57:00 2002 From: boggles at earthlink.net (Jennifer Boggess Ramon) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 18:57:00 -0600 Subject: Priori Incantatem, Harry's IQ, and the Snape/Draco thing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32610 At 6:50 PM +0000 1/2/02, christi0469 wrote: > >Also, I found the bit about Harry forcing the light beads back into >LV's wand. To me it seems that this is yet another hint that Harry >is becoming much more powerful as a wizard, and may even be a >stronger wizard than LV is an that particular scene. Of course, LV >has just been returned to his body and my not be up to full strength >yet, but Harry may just turn out to be the stronger of the two >wizards. I always saw this as evidence that Harry's will is stronger than Voldemort's, along with Harry's being able to throw off V.'s Imperius Curse. Whether this makes him a greater wizard remains to be seen, but it does seem to indicae he has potential he hasn't tapped much yet. At 8:12 PM +0000 1/2/02, theo_kestrel wrote: >I'm curious to know what people's thoughts are on the subject of >Harry's intelligence. Harry is often described as being eerily >similar to his father in many ways, in regards to looks, Quidditch >skill, and even personality traits. Being the son of his father, who >was Head Boy in his time, and his mother, the Head Girl, I'm curious >why his own academic achievements seem to be less than impressive >when compared to his parents. Harry seems brighter-than-average; he and Ron pass with "good marks" at the end of their first year, and the only subject he's worried about his third year is Potions. He does not, perhaps, apply himself academically the way Hermione does, but that's not uncommon among mildly gifted boys in their preteens and early teens. He's no genius, but he doesn't struggle like Neville does, either. At 8:29 PM +0000 1/2/02, haruspica23 wrote: >Why >would Snape, already having the guilt for being a former DE, be so >biased towards Malfoy?... I would assume that Snape would distance >himself from any interaction or associations with DE families... Snape has been publicly cleared, in that at least everyone at Karakoff's trial heard Dumbledore's testimony that Snape came back to "our" side. Presumably, Snape himself had some sort of hearing before that. Remember that most of the DEs we see other than Wormtail and Crouch Jr. have been cleared, too; presumably most of them claimed to be acting under the Imperius curse. Outwardly, there's no reason for them to be hostile to Snape, although they probably avoid being at the same social events and Severus has been permanently cut from the guest list at Malfoy manor. Snape may very well see Draco in a similar position to himself at the same age - a talented Slytherin with a knack for Potions and the Dark Arts, overshadowed and shown up by a group of troublesome Gryffindors who never seem to receive the proper consequenses for their rule-breaking, in grave danger of being drawn into Voldemort's sphere of influence. He may even be trying to ingratiate himself enough with Draco to nudge him onto his path, instead of Lucius's. IMHO, of course. -- - 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 foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jan 3 01:00:11 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 01:00:11 -0000 Subject: Death rites and such In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32611 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Evil Flame" > As morbid and dark as it sounds, would not parts of any wizards > remains be at risk for the dark and unscrupulous to use in charms and > potions of an extremely dark nature? > Does anyone else have speculation or grounds on any of this from the books? I have always thought this was one reason why Cedric was so anxious to have his body returned to his parents. The use of blood or fat from a corpse was historically thought to be used in dark magic. Voldemort, however, apparently was planning to feed his victims to Nagini. Perhaps a wizard diet affects the magical properties of her venom. The efficacy of magical ingredients might vary according to how difficult they are to obtain...nobody seems to be very concerned about keeping track of their hair or fingernail clippings. Pippin From theresai at hotmail.com Thu Jan 3 02:04:37 2002 From: theresai at hotmail.com (theresa_421) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 02:04:37 -0000 Subject: power of the weasleys Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32612 After rereading the COS I noticed (with a little help from my sister) a very odd passage. In chapter nine Ron tells Hermione about why he fears spiders. When he was 3 Fred turned his teddy bear into a spider 'cause he broke his toy broom. That would make Fred a 5 year old kid who could transfigure a stuffed animal into a spider while students in the first year at age 11 start with matches into needles. Fred sounds pretty advanced, doesn't he? Maybe that's just another indication of how powerful the Weasley line is. Any thoughts? Also, while this may seem off-topic, has anyone else considered that the Weasley sweaters made by Mrs. Weasley may afford her children some form of protection as they were created at the hands of a skilled witch? Theresa From brewpub44 at earthlink.net Thu Jan 3 02:13:51 2002 From: brewpub44 at earthlink.net (brewpub44) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 02:13:51 -0000 Subject: Accio Charm (and a bit about portkeys & apparating) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32613 First, I was astounded to see so many messages posted today! And on quite a collage of topics! I wondered if things would die off as the movie buzz settled, and am pleasantly surprised to see it taking off! Now, a while back, a newbie asked a lot of questions, and most have been answered, but this one: Why didn't Quirrel use Accio charm to get the Stone *Accio Sorcerer's Stone* Well, here's my take. Not all is canon, so bear with me. Magic requires many elements, but a prime one is *familiarity*. That is why most spells are line-of-site. The wizard must see what it is in order to charm/curse it. This has been said many times. But what about Harry and his Firebolt? Well, two points. 1) Harry knows his Firebolt inside and out, he is very 'in tune' with it so to speak; and 2) he knows exactly where it is. Now I would suppose that, even if he didn't know where it is, his familiarity with it would suffice (if he were powerful enough). I suspect that such magics have three levels of power: Any wizard worth his salt can Accio a visible object, a more powerful wizard is needed to Accio a familiar and location-known object, but not visible, and only the most powerful can Accio an object on familiarity alone. Now Quirrel did not know what the SS looked like (it's been locked up for ages), and I think more than just *seeing it* would equal familiarity for an object that was not in line-of-site. And he does not *absolutely know* where it is. So he loses on all three accounts. I think this can apply to a Portkeys and other spells. You can't create a Portkey to somewhere you do not know, you might not even be able to Apparate to a place you do not know. How did the DEs Apparate to LV? LV sent up a "flare" with the Dark Mark tattoo, a sort of DE homing beacon. Anyway, my two cents. Later! A Barkeep in Diagon Alley From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jan 3 03:09:41 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 03:09:41 -0000 Subject: HP and the Ten Commandments #2 Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32614 Hp and the Ten Commandments #2 When I started this series I was planning to do one a month...real life has intervened. For those who weren't with me for the first round, I am planning a series of essays, which explore the ways in which the Ten Commandments relate to the HP universe. I write from the perspective of a Reform Jew, but I welcome hearing other points of view. Essay #1 is at message 23737. "You shall have no other Gods besides me. You shall not make for yourself a sculptured image, or any likeness of what is in the heavens above, or on the earth below, or in the waters under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them. For I the LORD your God am an impassioned God, visiting the guilt of parents upon the children, upon the third and fourth generations of those that reject Me, but showing kindness to the thousandth generation of them that love Me and observe My commandments." -Exodus 20:3-6 Jewish Publication Society translation The second commandment seems remote from Harry's world. It's Quidditch, not worship, which unites the wizard community. Christmas and Easter celebrations at Hogwarts are as secular as Valentine's Day and Hallowe'en. The few other references to religion all evoke the past. Enchanted suits of armor sing Christmas carols, but don't remember half the words. Some monks appear in a painting. The ghost of a fat friar haunts Hufflepuff House. The Quidditch field at the World Cup match is so big that "ten cathedrals would fit comfortably inside it." The details are sketchy, but it seems that religion is not something that modern witches and wizards take seriously. Far from having other gods, the wizards seem to have no need for gods at all. "Muggle" has come to be a real life term for a hopelessly mundane individual, but it is not only Rowling's Muggles who live in a world where only facts are believable. Even in the wizarding world, imagination and spirituality are devalued. At Hogwarts, young witches and wizards are taught that myths and legends are meaningless. All they care should care about, as Professor Binns puts it, is "solid, believable, verifiable fact." Similarly, the mystical qualities of magical beasts are ignored or qualified. Newt Scamander will only say that phoenix song is "reputed" to strengthen the pure in heart. Nothing is said of the magical innocence of unicorns when they are studied in Care of Magical Creatures classes. Spirit though he is, Binns' attitude toward the Unseen would be right at home on Privet Drive. Just as Vernon can't cope with the storm of letters, Binns can't believe that a monster could be stalking Hogwarts. Cut off from his imagination, Vernon rejects the good because it is unfamiliar. Refusing to believe that evil exists, Binns cannot protect his charges from it. Harry, who does use his imagination, has to struggle with a different problem. Imagination has its own dangers. Like the Mirror of Erised, what it shows us may be neither knowledge nor truth. Still, Harry doesn't think he needs guidance to make moral choices. "I can tell who the wrong sort are for myself, thanks," he says. He soon discovers it's not so easy. His mistake about Snape in Book One affects no one but himself. But as the attacks in Book Two continue, he sees how the fear of evil undermines both judgement and the rule of law. Hagrid is imprisoned. Dobby attacks Harry with a rogue Bludger. Even Hermione starts breaking rules. The other students also turn to magics of doubtful origin and dubious effect. To feel powerful against a mysterious evil, it seems, they require a mysterious good. Poor Neville Longbottom supplies himself with a purple crystal, a rotting newt tail and a green onion. Worst of all, fear erodes the trust between Harry and Dumbledore. Worried that he is somehow connected with the evil stalking the school, Harry refuses to confide in the Headmaster. (Perhaps someone from a Christian background would like to comment on the fact that Harry's denials are punctuated by the appearances of Hagrid with a rooster.) Clinging to the unreasonable belief that there must be a reasonable solution to all this, Harry at last deduces where the entrance to the mysterious Chamber must lie. Strangely, he and Ron bring Gilderoy Lockhart along, though he is a rotting newt tail if there ever was one. It's as if they think they can somehow force him to use the power they once believed he possessed. Lockhart, whose devotion to his own image has been a running joke, reveals a more sinister side. His image demands a sacrifice: Ron and Harry will lose their memories, and Ginny will be left to her fate. The theme of the second commandment becomes explicit when Harry enters the Chamber of Secrets at last. "Harry had to crane his neck to look up into the giant face above: it was ancient and monkey like, with a long thin beard that fell almost to the bottom of the wizard's sweeping stone robes, where two enormous grey feet stood on the smooth chamber floor. And between the feet, face down, lay a small, black-robed figure with flaming red hair." Ginny lies before the sculptured image of Slytherin in the same posture the Death Eaters will assume to pay homage to Voldemort in GoF. Hero worship has betrayed her. In pouring out her feelings for Harry, Ginny has psychologically transferred them to Tom. Following the pattern of the commandment, Tom reveals the roots of his own hatred. The rejection in his past will continue down the generations to destroy Lily and James. Harry counters with the rest of the message: that love, even the love of a common Muggleborn, is stronger than hate. But Riddle has Harry's wand, and Harry's staunchest protector is far away, betrayed by Harry's refusal to seek his help. Harry has nothing to believe in. He's only trying to scare Riddle. He's broken about a hundred school rules. His loyalty to Dumbledore is badly frayed. "He's not as gone as you might think!" Harry cries, only wishing it were true. Yet the phoenix comes, flooding the chamber with warmth, light, and most of all, song. Phoenix song has a power that can be used only for good, strengthening only the pure. It is the clearest depiction of holiness we have yet seen. "Music," says Dumbledore in Book One, " a magic beyond all we do here." He leads everyone in the words to the school song, but lets the students each choose their own tune. Are the different tunes for the school song Rowling's metaphor for the different religions in real life? Pippin From editor at texas.net Thu Jan 3 03:05:15 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Lewanski) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 21:05:15 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape?... A question... References: Message-ID: <3C33CA6A.B1D87847@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 32615 Kyli Wayment wrote: > Snape's not supposed to let other people on that he's a spy. With Draco > Malfoy being at Hogwarts and keeping his eye on Snape, he has to make a good performance. If Snape did something > suspicious (such as giving points to a > Gryffindor, or being nice to Harry), Draco would surely tell his father, > who's a major supporter of the Dark Lord. With Snape pretending to be a DE, > he has to keep his act up at all times, so none of the Slytherin's whose > parents are DE's will come on to him. Make sense? It has also always seemed to me that Snape might also know that making everything easy for Draco is doing him no favors. Draco has had everything handed to him at home; now he's having things handed to him at school. His "survival skills" will be nil when he comes up against a real problem or challenge. I think Snape might be well aware of this, and might have less of a benevolent intent than most of you think, in indulging Draco so. --Amanda From bookraptor11 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 3 05:09:22 2002 From: bookraptor11 at yahoo.com (bookraptor11) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 05:09:22 -0000 Subject: Death rites and such In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32616 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" wrote: > The efficacy of magical ingredients might vary according to how > difficult they are to obtain...nobody seems to be very concerned > about keeping track of their hair or fingernail clippings. Besides their use in polyjuice potion, hair and fingernail clippings could also be used in potions that would do damage to the person they were taken from. Being young, the students at Hogwarts probably don't exercise much caution on that front and spells or potions of that sort would not be taught there anyway. I can see the teachers, government officials, and aurors especially being much more cautious. Perhaps that's why Dumbledore's hair is so long, maybe it's never been cut! Donna From LJLBub at aol.com Thu Jan 3 05:31:20 2002 From: LJLBub at aol.com (ljprincipessa) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 05:31:20 -0000 Subject: List of Harry's year at Hogwarts- the circle and lineage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32617 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Muridae wrote: > Which means that the symbols that we haven't figured out yet in the > second column are what Rowling meant when she said that she'd listed how > powerful they were and/or what their parents allegiances were. I searched through the old threads, as I have been hiding in lurkdom (first time poster here, be gentle) and am afraid of posting something repetitive. However, I did not see anyone post on speculating what different symbols mean for magical ability/lineage. One symbol that is intriguing is the circle, because it appears in both the third (magical ability) column and the forth (house) column. Could this be the link to the parents? I thought, in the house column, that the circle could mean that their parents were in the same house. However, this theory was smashed when a friend of mine pointed out that neither Crabbe or Goyle have circles around Slytherin. The circle also drew my eyes to some interesting connections. Crabbe and Goyle both have a Star of David in a circle, then an uncircled S for Slytherin. Seamus and Lavender almost had identical markings (circled Star of David, circled G for Gryffindor), but it seemed like the circle around Seamus's star has been scratched out. Anyone see any other interesting links? One more question before I stop this confusing post- could the Star of David mean pureblood, or something else related to lineage? I could not see Hermione to judge this theory, but from the screenshots I can see that Justin has a boxed in N for a symbol. ~LJLBub aka LaUra From pollux46 at hotmail.com Thu Jan 3 01:27:51 2002 From: pollux46 at hotmail.com (charisjulia) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 01:27:51 -0000 Subject: Lupin's inferiority complex In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32618 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grandisiowa" wrote: > VERY thought provoking this. > > > I've recently reread PoA and there's something that's been bothering > > me. Is Harry hurt that Lupin doesn't attempt to reach out to him like > > Sirius has? They were both one of his dad's best friends, so does he > > ever wonder why Lupin just doesn't seem to care as much? > > Lupin is a werewolf. He might perceive himself as dangerous. Because of > his condition, he has been living a hand to mouth existence. He would > want to be part of Harry's life, but might wonder if that is a wise > idea. I think he cares very much about Harry. He is just not as > effusive as Sirius. I think Sirius' emotions control him basically, > while Lupin tries very hard to control his emotions. They are very > different personalities, and a lovely study in contrasts. > > Does Lupin care as much as Sirius? Absolutely. It might be a difference > in the characters' personalities. > > > And just one more thing.. was Lupin ever a > > bit miffed at James for making Sirius best man and godfather to > > Harry? I have to say that if I were in his position, I'd be a bit > > jealous. > > This is a good point for consideration. Certainly, Sirius and James > were BEST friends from all indication, and that might be why James > chose Sirius. Remus could have understood this, or this could have > really hurt. > > > I would really like to know (rather than speculate :) ) Remus' > psychology. I find him a fascinating and complex character, full of > reserve, and twists. Sirius, in spite of his tragedy, wears his > emotions on his sleeve. We're never quite sure what Remus is thinking > or why. > I absolutely agree with you. Lupin is definitely a very complicated character and one whose reactions are very hard to interpret. Reserve and self-control seem to be his mottos as far as interaction with others is concerned and this can not only explain why he hasn't reached out more openly to Harry, but also why his friendship with James might have been a fraction less close than that of James and Sirius. Lupin has been stigmatized by his werewolfhood. For him it must be something ever present, never to be forgotten, even pushed aside for a while, something that touches him every day of the month and not only when the moon is full. I at least have been given the impression that it is the major factor in his life against which he measures everything else. And he definitely isn't proud of it. In fact his attitude towards his werewolfness, by extent towards himself, is disgust. At the end of PoA at least Harry notices the self-loathing in Lupin's voice as he talks of what he is. Later on he plainly states that he is a hazard to the school. If this is the way he looks on himself, is it not natural that he would never allow himself to get too close to anyone believing that in that way he would be doing damage to himself by reaching out for things (he believes) he cannot have and to than other person by associating them with a werewolf? When Sirius admits to Lupin that he did suspect him of being V. spy (by the way I think it states it plainly in the book that S. did think this. He even apologizes to Remus for doing so. Answer to Janett "Plus Sirius was the>first choice in being secret keeper. Did they really not trust Remus because he was a werewolf?") Lupin takes it impressively well. Doesn't he mind at all? I think Lupin views himself as standing alone in the world. He is always expecting rejection even from his friends. He is shut out not only by the barrier of distrust and prejudice everyone else has set up against him, but also by one he has set up against the world. That is not to say that he can't handle having friends- he plainly loved that- but I don't think he would allow anyone to develop a "greatest friend of all" relationship with him. His feelings of guilt and shame would always hold him back. Having said all of this let me explain that I do not believe that we (the readers) have been let to get carried away about how tight a group the Marauder's were. I think they were great friends even including Peter. After all, Sirius says that any one of the others would have given his life for Peter. That's no small thing, is it? However it does seem to me that of his three best friends Sirius was James's "bestest" and this might be due to a number of factors (maybe they really did know each other before Hogwarts) but also to Remus's aforementioned complexes. Perhaps there was some deterioration towards the end. They knew that one of them was the spy and that would have made them all suspicious of each other. However I'd like to think that they all willed for the other to be innocent. Remus definitely hated it when he thought that Sirius was the spy (" or thought I knew him") and Sirius seems greatly remorseful that he ever suspected Remus. It is a mark of how strong their friendship really was that when all the misunderstandings have been cleared up they immediately embrace like brothers and stand put it behind them. Charis Julia From ali719 at hotmail.com Thu Jan 3 01:31:50 2002 From: ali719 at hotmail.com (alihp719) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 01:31:50 -0000 Subject: Just Wondering...Add Your Opinion... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32619 Here are just a few thoughts and curiosities I have with Harry... (I am sorry if they were already posted!) Why does Peeves listen to the Bloody Baron? -I wonder a lot about if it is significant that Peeves is a *poltergeist* and that so little is known about the BB. Is it significant that Fawkes' colors, red and gold, are the same as Gryffindor's? (I think so!) Just how important are the house elves, and what kind of magic do they have?? (Dobby is my all time favorite character :) ) Why would Scabbers bite Goyle on the train to Hogwarts when he, Crabbe, and Malfoy are annoying Ron, Hermione and Harry? Wouldn't he like them considering their families are Voldemort's supporters as well? Who is the head of Ravenclaw? (This is probably in the book somewhere but I can't remember, and it's bothering me!) alihp719 From boggles at earthlink.net Thu Jan 3 08:57:18 2002 From: boggles at earthlink.net (Jennifer Boggess Ramon) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 02:57:18 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Just Wondering...Add Your Opinion... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32620 At 1:31 AM +0000 1/3/02, alihp719 wrote: > >Is it significant that Fawkes' colors, red and gold, are the same as >Gryffindor's? (I think so!) Probably. Hermione mentions that Dumbledore was in Gryffindor on the train in PS/SS; it makes sense that his pet would have the proper colors. >Just how important are the house elves, and what kind of magic do >they have?? (Dobby is my all time favorite character :) ) We don't know how important they are yet. However, Dobby was able to levitate a giant violet dessert, close the passageway to Platform 9 3/4, tamper with the enchantment on a bludger, and cast a jinx that flung Lucius Malfoy backwars down the stairs - all without a wand. Winky was somehow able to bind Crouch Jr. to her magically, again without a wand. And the Hogwarts house-elves appear to be able to port dinners and dishes up a story, from the kitchen to the Great Hall, despite the anti-Apportation wards on Hogwarts. So they must be pretty buff, magically. >Why would Scabbers bite Goyle on the train to Hogwarts when he, >Crabbe, and Malfoy are annoying Ron, Hermione and Harry? Wouldn't he >like them considering their families are Voldemort's supporters as >well? Pettigrew serves Voldemort out of fear, not loyalty. Moreover, he'd been thinking like a rat for over a decade at that point. There he was, lying in a pile of candy, either eating to his stomach's content or having a nice little nap, and here this great pudgy hand comes down on him. Why would he bother checking to see if it was the son of some other Death Eater before giving it a good nip? He might not have recognized him, and likely wouldn't care even if he did. >Who is the head of Ravenclaw? (This is probably in the book somewhere >but I can't remember, and it's bothering me!) Professor Flitwick, according to the Lexicon. -- - 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 christi0469 at hotmail.com Thu Jan 3 02:22:19 2002 From: christi0469 at hotmail.com (christi0469) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 02:22:19 -0000 Subject: Wizard body parts - uses of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32621 David wrote: > There was a rumour that Dumbledore was going to hire dancing > skeletons for a feast (can't remember where) - was this just a > rumour, or are skeletons Beings, or were they ex-wizards? Did > Dumbledore cancel the skeletons because he realised Nearly Headless > Nick would want his bones back? >> The dancing skeletons were rumored to be booked for the Halloween feast which Harry, Ron, and Hermione missed to go to Nearly Headless Nick's deathday party (CoS). Since the trio missed the party, we don't know if the skeletons were there or not. It would be interesting to know if said skeletons are bodily remains, or a race of creatures onto themselves. Another use for wizard body parts could be as relics, especially those of wizards who could be considered martyrs. It would be fairly morbid if some of the more powerful enchanted objects contained the toe of some poor victim. christi0469 From mediaphen at hotmail.com Thu Jan 3 09:13:05 2002 From: mediaphen at hotmail.com (Martin Smith) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 10:13:05 +0100 Subject: Keeping up with Muggle events (Was: What to do with the Quidditch team? ) References: <1010009613.4982.48129.m5@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32622 Merry new year to you all, I'm back after some two weeks' absence (and having turned a year older in the process)! >On Wed, 2 Jan 2002, Aja wrote: >My money's on Dean Thomas for the new Keeper thanks to the fact that he's >already such a die-hard soccer fan; I'm sure JKR wouldn't have emphasized >his sports love as one of the only things we're shown about his >personality if he weren't bound to be an athlete in the wizard world as >well. Which raises a totally different question: How does Dean keep up with the recent events of his beloved football team (??West Ham??)? Being a hardcore football fan, and a brit, I reckon he grew up glued to the telly (when not actually being at the stadium to watch the games live) whenever the Hammers played. Now, locked up in a TV-less castle in Scotland, surely he suffers from abstinence in his must-watch-every-match-and-keep-track-and-statistics-of-every-event-in-premi er-league obsession. If his Muggle parents owl him the sports section every day it could help a little, but I know I wouldn't think that's enough if I couldn't follow my beloved IFK Gteborg (UEFA Cup champions 1982 and 1987) at least on the telly. Poor kid! But, alas, Dean Thomas is most likely not the only Hogwarts student with interests in the events in the Muggleverse (sports and others). Plenty of Muggleborn witches and wizards roam the castle, and how do they keep up? Do Hermiones parents owl her "Dentist's Digest" every month? Do Dean Thomas and his kins sneak out to the closest Muggle village to watch the football on the pub's big-screen every week? How does Seamus recieve news on the ever-concerning Ireland-Britain difficulties? We know that they can't have TV-sets at Hogwarts (what with the eclecicity jamming the magic or the other way around), neither does the local paper-boy rides his bike to the Unplottable boarding school (what with it being Unplottable and all). Friends, I bid you welcome to speculate on how Muggle-borns, half-bloods and most likely some Muggle-interested purebloods keep themselves up to date on Muggleverse news while spending most of their time at Hogwarts. The discussion is opened! /Martin (Heja Blaavitt, heja Blaavitt, nu ska vi mot toppen gaa! Heja Blaavitt, heja Blaavitt, vaarat kaera IFK!) From lhale at niu.edu Thu Jan 3 03:29:53 2002 From: lhale at niu.edu (Laura Hale) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 21:29:53 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: witchcraft and Judaism/Christianity (was Sirius Black,godfather) References: Message-ID: <017401c19406$e983d410$09415aa6@yourl4vt9q703u> No: HPFGUIDX 32623 > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Etha Williams > wrote: > > Wouldn't it be a bit hard to be a witch/wizard and be > Jewish/Christian since there are parts of the Old and New testaments decrying > magic and witchcraft? > How would a witch/wizard explain that s/he was practicing a > religion which stated that s/he was doomed to hell? I wouldn't think so. The Fat Friar from HufflePuff is a good example of a practioner of witchcraft and religion. So in JK's world (where magic is not something evil but a skill to be learned and used much like other skills), it's possible. And on the Fat Friar, the Fat Friar is the resident ghost of the Hufflepuff House. The Harry Potter fan page found at http://www.topcities.com/Kids/meisetsu/characters.html describes the Fat Friar as "a jolly ghost. He is also willing to give others second chances" and as "a stout ghost." No where in the books is the Fat Friar shown as practicing religion, pushing his faith on others, or even making references to his own faith. While his occupation while alive gives him the guise of a religious character, he is more of a "secular" character in the books because of the aforementioned lack of religion. Despite the fact that the Fat Friar behaves in a more secular sense as a character, it should be understood as to what a friar is. The Catholic Encyclopedia says the following about friars: "The exercise of the sacred ministry is an essential feature, for which the life of the cloister is considered as but an immediate preparation. His vow of poverty, too, not only binds him as an individual to the exercise of that virtue, but, originally at least, precluded also the right of tenure in common with his brethren. Thus originally the various orders of friars could possess no fixed revenues and lived upon the voluntary offerings of the faithful." (Catholic Encyclopedia p4) and "A friar is a member of one of the mendicant orders." This means that the Fat Friar is a member of a religious order mostly associated the Roman Catholic tradition. He maintains a vow of poverty, living off the welfare of the faithful, i.e. other Catholics. He most likely belongs to one of four orders of friars: The Dominicans or Friars Preachers, formerly known as the Black Friars, the Franciscans or Friars Minor, the Carmelites or White Friars, or the Augustinians, or Hermits of St. Augustine. (Catholic Encyclopedia) Not only is the Fat Friar the Hufflepuff House Ghost, he also apparently attended Hogwarts and was a member of the Hufflepuff House. (Rowlings, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone 115-116) This seems to indicate that being a wizard does not conflict with a friar's vows of poverty or religious convictions. Laura From Littlered32773 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 3 09:55:58 2002 From: Littlered32773 at yahoo.com (oz_widgeon) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 09:55:58 -0000 Subject: Lupin Transformation Theory (LONG) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32624 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Just a few days ago (though you wouldn't believe it based on the posts I had to wade through to find it again), Elizabeth wrote a great theory about Lupin that cindysphynx (crafty thing that she is! even if she's in the wrong Neville camp, but that's another story), even though she like the theory, poked a big hole in. Now I personally really, really liked Elizabeth's theory, so I've done some research and think I can back her up. > Elizabeth Dalton wrote: > > > It's another common "plot hole" that we love to hate: why doesn't > Lupin transform until the moon breaks through the clouds? > The consensus of my non-HP-reading fantasy/horror experts >was that perhaps Lupin wouldn't transform if he didn't see the >moon/get exposed to rays of moonlight, but that the urge to go look >at the moon when it is full would be irresistable, due to his >curse. The potion lets him just succumb to this urge, look out the >window, then take a nap as a wolf with a sane human mind. Chaining >him up in a windowless dungeon might work, too, but being denied >moonlight at the full moon (especially repeatedly) might drive him >insane. Good theory! Well thought out and plausible. I like it! "cindysphynx" wrote: > Hmmm. I like this theory in theory, but I do have one problem. In > PoA, we're told that the Shrieking Shack has boarded-up windows. I > would assume these windows were boarded up when Lupin used it to > transform; otherwise the residents would know it was haunted not by > ghosts but by a werewolf, and Lupin-wolf could have broken out. So > if the windows are boarded up, that means that whenever he has not > had his potion, he transforms even if he doesn't look at the moon >or isn't touched by its light. It also means that he doesn't go >insane if he is prevented from seeing the full moon by being in the >Shrieking Shack, no? Now, I can see why we might think that no light could come through, boarded up windows, BUT unless they were SEALED (have you ever seen a 'haunted house' with 'sealed' windows?), there's no way they could completely keep the moonlight out. We have light blocking shades and curtains in our bedroom, but the light from the street STILL makes it way in! (ARGH!) Okay, now, evidence to back this all up. BTW, I'm very sick and on medicine, so forgive me if this isn't the most coherent thing you've ever read. I do have a point, but the meds seem to muddle it all up. :) PoA Chapter 17 Cat, Rat and Dog: '...The light was fading fast now. By the time they reached open ground darkness was settling like a spell around them...' (pg332-333 PoA US Version)-Aside from the fact that this passage really appeals to me, it shows that it is indeed dark before they go into the tunnel. 'And then the tunnel began to rise; moments later it twisted, and Crookshanks had gone. Instead, Harry could see a dim patch of light through a small opening...[description of the room] The windows were all boarded up.... The room was deserted, but a door to their right stood open, leading to a shadowy hallway...' (pg 337 US) Okay, so the windows are boarded up, but there is still a dim bit of light to see around. As there is no mention of candles burning, and I doubt Sirius would take the time to light some anyway, this is most likely moonlight (though indirect as the clouds are covering the moon) that has slipped through the boards. It seems that Lupin does indeed have to be touched by moonlight to transform, and it is possible that this little bit of moonlight that slips through the cracks could work when he's in the Shreiking Shack (perhaps he can even see it through the cracks, though no one can really see in-we also know that people avoid it, so they wouldn't be lookign in anyway). When he first come is to confront Black and Pettigrew, the moon is covered by clouds, so he wouldn't transform in this light, or perhaps, knowing he has serious work to do, he studiously avoids the light, even though the werewolf in him might be drawn to it. Further evidence that the moonlight has to TOUCH him: Chapter 20 The Dementor's Kiss: 'A cloud shifted. There were suddenly dim shadows on the ground. Their party was bathed in moonlight....' [Lupin transforms] (PoA 380 US) Lupin is walking across the ground just fine, even though the moon is up, until the clouds shift and the moonlight touches him. Chapter 21 Hermione's Secret: [Harry and Hermione have gone back in time 3 hours, have rescued Buckbeak and are waiting in the forest] 'She [Hermione] looked nervously over her shoulder into the depths of the forest. The sun was setting now... The moved around the edge of the forest, darkness falling thickly around them....' (Poa 403 US) [Harry and Hermione wach as Ron, Black, Scabbers and their earlier selves disappear into the Whomping Willow. Dumbledore, Fudge and Mc? Nair go to the castle] '"Here comes Lupin!" said Harry as they saw another figure sprinting down teh stone steps and haring toward the Willow. Harry looked up at the sky. Clouds were obscurign the moon completely.' (PoA 404 US) [Harry and Hermione watch as everyone emerges from the Whomping Willow and walk toward the castle] 'The moon slid out from behind the clouds. They saw the tiny figures across the ground stop. Then they saw movement- "There goes Lupin," said Hermione. "He's transforming-"' (PoA 408 US) Now, from all this, we can clearly see that Lupin was outside when the moon was up, but didn't transform because the moon was hidden behind clouds. It is only when the clouds shift and he is touched by moonlight that he transforms. I think the whole idea about the lure of the moon is bang on, and though he must be touched by moonlight, the need to see it would be really strong, thus this is what ultimately causes him to transform. We need to start a group to suport the 'transforms only in direct moonlight' theory. Tabouli, can I call on your service one more time? We need a name. Just please be sure to include L.I.D.S. somewhere in it (Lupin Is Dead Sexy). Cheers! Slon (back to the sofa, feeling miserable, and eating Jello as it's the only thing I can hold down) From Littlered32773 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 3 10:07:55 2002 From: Littlered32773 at yahoo.com (oz_widgeon) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 10:07:55 -0000 Subject: How does McGonagall know? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32625 Okay, I lied, I'll go back to the sofa in a minute and continue being miserable. I have another question that popped up while re-re-re-re- reading PoA. First, let me put my quotes in: Chapter 13 Gryffindor Versus Ravenclaw: [Gryf beat Ravenclaw at Quiddich and are in the common room celebrating] 'The Gryffindor party ended only when Professor McGonagall turned up in her tartan dressing gown and hair net at one in the morning to insist they all go to bed.' (PoA 265 US) [They have all gone to bed. Ron wakes up screaming that Sirius Black tried to attack him, the whole house wakes and noise begins again] '"Now really, enough's enough!" Professor McGonagall was back. She slammed the portrait behind her as she entered the common room and stared furiously around.' (PoA 267 US) Now, we know from CoS I believe, that Harry has only seen McGonagall in the common room a few times, so she's not a regular visitor. Twice in one night seems a bit of an event. My question is, how does she KNOW they're up? I get the impression that the walls are quite thick, and muffle sound. If they didn't, wouldn't it be quite easy to figure out where the other common rooms are? (Follow the noise). So, does McG live somewhere off the common room, though perhaps with a private entrance that she can hear things in the common room, or does she have some type of magical device that allows her to keep tabs on them? The latter theory bothers me, as she then would know everything the trio plots and would also know about Sirius in the fire in GoF. Any thoughts? Slon (who is REALLY back to the sofa now as her head seriously hurts) From Rebecca.Allen at turner.com Thu Jan 3 03:36:29 2002 From: Rebecca.Allen at turner.com (Allen, Rebecca) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 22:36:29 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape?... A question... Message-ID: <759A085B4DB9AF47AD5BB22098C917280752C5@cnncex01.turner.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32626 Amanda wrote: It has also always seemed to me that Snape might also know that making everything easy for Draco is doing him no favors. Draco has had everything handed to him at home; now he's having things handed to him at school. His "survival skills" will be nil when he comes up against a real problem or challenge. I think Snape might be well aware of this, and might have less of a benevolent intent than most of you think, in indulging Draco so. Thanks so much for mentioning this! I agree, I think Snape is doing Draco *no* favors at all in treating him the way he does. By the same token, I think Snape is doing Harry more of a favor than Harry realizes just by being so infuriating. It's the same will power and self control that Harry (slowly!) develops in his effort to keep his temper with Snape that also helps him overcome Voldemort at the end of GoF. Snape's sadism is very trivial compared to Voldemort's, and Snape probably knows this given that he no doubt remembers V. at his worst from back in the day. Now I'm not sure if Snape's treatment of Harry stems from something like affection; it's probably more of a lucky coincidence that Harry needs practice in dealing with viciousness and Snape is all too happy to oblige. Rebecca, who just doesn't see redemption coming for Draco anytime soon. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From yogurtcoverednuts at yahoo.com Thu Jan 3 04:27:03 2002 From: yogurtcoverednuts at yahoo.com (yogurtcoverednuts) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 04:27:03 -0000 Subject: Quidditch reserves In-Reply-To: <00bd01c193c8$d9913900$0b01a8c0@enet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32627 Gabriel wrote: [snip] When Harry was injured, they had to forfeit a match because they had no Seeker. Wouldn't it be better to field a substandard "reserve" Seeker (say, hypothetically, Ron) than to forfeit?? [snip] It must be pretty hard to fly and dodge bludgers and try to catch the snitch. A game can only end when the snitch has been caught. If the seeker isn't good then it can go on for ages. Maybe Hootch didn't think it was a good idea for them to play for all eternity, even wizards don't live forever. ;) ~laura From midwife34 at aol.com Thu Jan 3 08:47:11 2002 From: midwife34 at aol.com (jrober4211) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 08:47:11 -0000 Subject: Just Wondering...Add Your Opinion... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32628 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "alihp719" wrote: > Here are just a few thoughts and curiosities I have with Harry... > (I am sorry if they were already posted!) > > > Why would Scabbers bite Goyle on the train to Hogwarts when he, > Crabbe, and Malfoy are annoying Ron, Hermione and Harry? Wouldn't > he like them considering their families are Voldemort's supporters as > well? > > alihp719 I asked this very same question that got rejected by the moderators. Now that it's made it through, does anyone have any theories? I think it's probably in character for Scabbers/Pettigrew to always side with the winning side. Knowing who Crabbe and Goyle are, I would assume that old death eater families had a stigma attached to them. At the time the fight between the boys occurred on the train, Voldemort was still thought to be dead. jo ellen From lhale at niu.edu Thu Jan 3 04:26:58 2002 From: lhale at niu.edu (Laura Hale) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 22:26:58 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape & Draco References: Message-ID: <01b401c1940e$e37c6d40$09415aa6@yourl4vt9q703u> No: HPFGUIDX 32629 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Aja" To: Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 3:25 PM Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape & Draco > > But Snape *isn't* a spy at the time Malfoy starts Hogwarts. At that point > most of the wizarding world believes Voldemort to be dead. In CoS even > Lucius Malfoy says it wouldn't be good to be enemies with Harry--certainly > not an idea he would have entertained aloud in front of his son had he > believed Voldemort to be alive. If Lucius doesn't know of Voldy's > existence, I can't imagine that Snape would, however intelligent a spy he > might be. Maybe Snape isn't a spy but rather a ambitious indivudal (one of the qualities of the Slytherins) and recognized that clique so to speak for what it had the potential to be and out of his own interests and ambitions, kept his ears to the grindstone, knowing which way the winds blow, but not wanting to be left behind if something were to happen... Laura Hale http://writersu.s5.com/ From noor333 at hotmail.com Thu Jan 3 04:39:00 2002 From: noor333 at hotmail.com (vulpes_argentorum) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 04:39:00 -0000 Subject: On the Classification of Age Ranges in Literature In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32630 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Jennifer Boggess Ramon wrote: > Hmm. I'm not sure I agree with this, partly beacuse my solution to > the whole thing would be to wave my magic wand and put the whole > series firmly in the Young Adult category, with the caveat that the > first two books are certainly readable and enjoyable by older > children as well. > > Please note that a book's being in the YA category does not mean that > adults won't enjoy it. Indeed, YA is a "fudge" category for things > that are Too Long, Intense, and Wordy For Small Children But Don't > Have Explicit Sex In Them, in large part. Makes a lot of sense to me, Jennifer. Apologies for dumbing down a little, but it appears to me when literature works on many different levels as we have with HP, simply speaking, it can be appropriate for all ages and unclassifiable, for many of the reasons more eloquently put in this thread than I 'av. The phenomenon of "The Simpsons", recently voted the most popular TV programme ever in a poll here in the UK, illustrates this point more clearly. Kids & adults alike can love and appreciate it; to classify it in any particular age-group is to miss the simple brilliance of this creation. There is some marked similarity here with both Homer's & Harry's world! Anyway, just my couple of Euro's... Vulpy "Banana, banana...my kingdom for a banana!" Sorry...don't know where that came from, just typing and... From christi0469 at hotmail.com Thu Jan 3 05:16:05 2002 From: christi0469 at hotmail.com (christi0469) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 05:16:05 -0000 Subject: What to do with the Quidditch team? (WAS Untackled (?) Questions) and intro In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.0.20020102152758.00a56420@mail.isni.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32631 > So, for my first post, I thought I would jump in with this topic and ask > someone a question regarding Quidditch. Harry was the youngest Quidditch > player in 100 years. It is now the almost the 5th year and knowing of Ron't > interest in playing Quidditch, why hasn't he joined the team yet? Surely he > is old enough to join, Malfoy was able to even though part of it was > because his dad bought his way in to the team. Why hasn't it been mentioned > that Ron has tried out for the team? It can't be because he can't afford a > broom, I am assuming that the school would supply them, albeit not as good > as the Nimbus2001 or the Firebolt. Did I miss it in my reading? Will I be > forced to read the books all over again to find this little tidbit? > I don't think the school would provide them. When Harry's nimbus 2000 was destroyed Wood kept hounding him to buy a new broom, as he could not possibly play on a school broom. Unless there is some kind of financial aid for lower-income families who's children are interested in playing Quidditch, I am afraid Ron is out of luck. Perhaps the twin's will spend some of the winnings Harry gave them to buy Ron a new broom, or at least buy new brooms for themselves and hand their old ones down to Ron and Ginny. > > > > From midwife34 at aol.com Thu Jan 3 10:41:41 2002 From: midwife34 at aol.com (jrober4211) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 10:41:41 -0000 Subject: How does McGonagall know? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32632 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "oz_widgeon" wrote: > Okay, I lied, I'll go back to the sofa in a minute and continue being > miserable. I have another question that popped up while re-re-re- re- > reading PoA. > First, let me put my quotes in: > > Chapter 13 Gryffindor Versus Ravenclaw: > > [Gryf beat Ravenclaw at Quiddich and are in the common room > celebrating] > 'The Gryffindor party ended only when Professor McGonagall turned up > in her tartan dressing gown and hair net at one in the morning to > insist they all go to bed.' (PoA 265 US) > > [They have all gone to bed. Ron wakes up screaming that Sirius Black > tried to attack him, the whole house wakes and noise begins again] > '"Now really, enough's enough!" Professor McGonagall was back. She > slammed the portrait behind her as she entered the common room and > stared furiously around.' (PoA 267 US) > > Now, we know from CoS I believe, that Harry has only seen McGonagall > in the common room a few times, so she's not a regular visitor. > Twice in one night seems a bit of an event. My question is, how does > she KNOW they're up? I get the impression that the walls are quite > thick, and muffle sound. If they didn't, wouldn't it be quite easy > to figure out where the other common rooms are? (Follow the noise). > So, does McG live somewhere off the common room, though perhaps with > a private entrance that she can hear things in the common room, or > does she have some type of magical device that allows her to keep > tabs on them? The latter theory bothers me, as she then would know > everything the trio plots and would also know about Sirius in the > fire in GoF. Any thoughts? > > Slon (who is REALLY back to the sofa now as her head seriously hurts) I was under the assumption that her quarters are nearby, so I suppose it is possible for her to hear very loud noises. The first entrance into the common room , the night of the party, was probably just good common sense. As a parent of teenagers, I check periodically after midnight to make sure my teens are in bed if they have over night guests. The second time she arrived, I suppose she heard all the screaming from the fat lady as she was attacked by Sirius after he awakened Ron.Of course she didn't start off by saying, " ok , who vandalized the portrait? " when she entered the common room. I guess its possible to hear blood curdling screams from teen agers through thick masonry walls. Jo Ellen Jo Ellen From morrigan at byz.org Thu Jan 3 05:05:23 2002 From: morrigan at byz.org (Vicki) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 21:05:23 -0800 Subject: David Eddings' Belgariad series in relation to Sorceror's Stone In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32633 Warning - there is much snippage below! :) -----Original Message----- From: grey_wolf_c --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "acci0firebolt" wrote: >> A friend gave me the first book in David Eddings' Belgariad series >> for Christmas (by the way, the first 70 pages are very good), and I >> was struck by a certain quote in the Prologue because it reminded me >> so much of the Sorceror's Stone. >Well, since D&L Eddings are my favourite authors (please don't flame >me over this, JK-holics), I'd better answer. No flaming from me - they are among my favorite authors and have been for many years, so I figured I'd throw in my $0.02 too. >However, I don't quite recall similarities between the Belgariad and >HP. Other than the fact that they both heavily involve magic (nooo, not the M word! Sorcery! *grin*) and are fantasy-genre, they don't have a lot in common, IMHO. Well, we see a number of the characters grow to adulthood, so I suppose that's another similarity...and Garion loses his parents as a baby and is raised by his aunt as well. The orphan thing is a rather popular twist; volumes could be written on why that is, I'm sure. >The differences between HP and Eddings, are more or less the sames as >the ones between HP and LotR: Belgariad is a travel adventure, with >one purpose in mind (which I won't tell, since Garion doesn't yet know >in the part where you are), whilst HP is the life of HP at school >(with interesting background things going on-such as V return), but he >isn't working to achieve any other goal that's not finishing school >(alive). I imagine we could argue that Harry is working to achieve a goal, even if it isn't fully formed as of yet...defeating Voldy, reclaiming his birthright and place in the wizard world...just to start with. :) The difference is that Garion is handed his purpose (not at spoiler since you've already mentioned it); Harry, like most people, has to muddle around and figure his out. >Anyway, hope that helped, and I hope you like Eddings as much as I do. >However, this board is probably not the place for Eddings discussion, >so I better cut it here. I will also desist, but I think I made it fairly on-topic. I also hope that you enjoy the books, and keep reading! They only get better in the Mallorean, IMO...and even the 13 books of this universe weren't enough for me...I was quite sad when they declared all the stories were told. So naturally I'm worried that JKR WILL stop at 7! Noooooo.... heh. >Grey Wolf >(He who has given enough clues here for others to guess why he calls >himself that) Haha...a girl who once wanted to name her rock band "Polgara and the Belgariad" would have NO idea what you're referring to... ;) Vicki, who is currently HP-obsessing but still loves Eddings From midwife34 at aol.com Thu Jan 3 10:50:33 2002 From: midwife34 at aol.com (jrober4211) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 10:50:33 -0000 Subject: Keeping up with Muggle events (Was: What to do with the Quidditch team? ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32634 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Martin Smith" wrote: Which raises a totally different question: How does Dean keep up with the > recent events of his beloved football team (??West Ham??)? Being a hardcore > football fan, and a brit, I reckon he grew up glued to the telly (when not > actually being at the stadium to watch the games live) whenever the Hammers > played. Now, locked up in a TV-less castle in Scotland, surely he suffers > from abstinence in his > must-watch-every-match-and-keep-track-and-statistics-of-every-event- in-premi > er-league obsession. If his Muggle parents owl him the sports section every > day it could help a little, but I know I wouldn't think that's enough if I > couldn't follow my beloved IFK G?teborg (UEFA Cup champions 1982 and 1987) Ok, here is my theory of how they could accomplish this. Mr. Weasley is always taking apart muggle gadgets , charming them to work magically, and putting them back together( ex- the ford anglia, that flies, with the interior the size of a bus, when needed, and no need for gasoline as it now lives in the forbidden forest) Its possible the kids could get a television and vcr that is reworked to not need electricity and have parents send tapes. Oh by the way, I read an interview done by JKR and she mentioned something in the upcoming books that would be similar to our internet but infinitely more fun, so perhaps thats how they will be able to keep up with muggle events. Jo Ellen From midwife34 at aol.com Thu Jan 3 08:32:24 2002 From: midwife34 at aol.com (jrober4211) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 08:32:24 -0000 Subject: snape is a dufus Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32635 I have read all the posts about Snape and some of the things people come up with are almost laughable to me. Based strictly on previous canon from the four books, Snape is always a "day late and a dollar short" so to speak. He has always missed the point, or misses integral parts of conversations such as the confrontation at the shreiking shack. Snape is notorious for jumping to the wrong conclusions based on just a few facts , instead of having all the variables to consider in a situation. And Snape isn't interested in hearing all the facts, as evidenced by his treatment of Harry when he confronts him sneaking around the castle late at night. With these personality traits so obvious in all four books, I can see how Snape got drawn into being a death eater and previously following Voldemort. For those members of the group who are not familiar with "the Andy Griffith Show" in the states, Snape is a dead ringer for deputy Barney Fife, who always had to keep his bullet for his gun in his shirt pocket to keep from shooting himself in the foot. jo ellen From Joanne0012 at aol.com Thu Jan 3 13:31:13 2002 From: Joanne0012 at aol.com (joanne0012) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 13:31:13 -0000 Subject: Snape?... A question... In-Reply-To: <759A085B4DB9AF47AD5BB22098C917280752C5@cnncex01.turner.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32637 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Allen, Rebecca" wrote: > By the same token, I think Snape is doing Harry more of a favor than Harry realizes just by being so infuriating. It's the same will power and self control that Harry (slowly!) develops in his effort to keep his temper with Snape that also helps him overcome Voldemort at the end of GoF. Snape's sadism is very trivial compared to Voldemort's, and Snape probably knows this given that he no doubt remembers V. at his worst from back in the day. Now I'm not sure if Snape's treatment of Harry stems from something like affection; it's probably more of a lucky coincidence that Harry needs practice in dealing with viciousness and Snape is all too happy to oblige. Oh, I agree completely that Snape's treatment of Harry is good for him, but I'm not so sure that it's a coincidence or accident, I DO think it's affection. Snape's personality is such that the only way he can express his support for Harry is by being the only person at Hogwarts who is tough on him. In some ways, Snape's treatment of Harry is a continuation of the sheltering that Dumbledore sought at the Dursleys -- too much adulation would spoil the kid. But now tht Harry's at Hogwarts, Dumbledore lets him get away with all sorts of infractions, which is not a good thing. Harry tends to be headstrong and impetuous, even more than most kids his age, and the precision required in Potions class is just the discipline he needs. The less he gets away with in that class, the better off he'll be in the long run. And Snape is the only one teaching Harry that the world is arbitrary sometimes. From ftah3 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 3 13:40:09 2002 From: ftah3 at yahoo.com (ftah3) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 13:40:09 -0000 Subject: snape is a dufus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32638 Oh dang, I'm laughing too hard. Snapey Fife! LMAO! You do make some good points! I don't see Snape as *bumbling* per se, in the manner of Barney Fife. But I've always felt that Snape is somewhat of a blockhead. At this point, I don't see that Snape has been anything conspiratorial ~ i.e., pretending to be a hiding-out Death Eater for eleven years, only being nice to Draco Malfoy as part of some grand conspiracy, whatever ~ because to me the text doesn't support that, even though the mysterious directive put upon him by Dumbledore at the end of GoF implies upcoming conspiracy. But similarly, I think he has only come round to the potential to *not* be a day-late blockhead as of GoF. I'm going to ditto you, jo ellen: jo ellen wrote: > Based strictly on previous > canon from the four books, Snape is always a "day late and a dollar > short" so to speak. He has always missed the point, or misses > integral parts of conversations such as the confrontation at the > shreiking shack. Snape is notorious for jumping to the wrong > conclusions based on just a few facts , instead of having all the > variables to consider in a situation. And Snape isn't interested in > hearing all the facts, as evidenced by his treatment of Harry when he > confronts him sneaking around the castle late at night. Yep. He's been an obnoxious, mean-spirited, close-minded twit from his first appearance in the books. He did it with a margin of finesse at times, yet still he was rather lunatic about it at others (cf spitting all over himself and anything in his near vicinity in the shack in PoA). And I really, really think you have a great point here: >With these > personality traits so obvious in all four books, I can see how Snape > got drawn into being a death eater and previously following > Voldemort. The books have never given me, at least, any reason to believe that he has been other than an elitest snob since his younger days, and until text proves otherwise to me, I do take at face value that he believes Draco Malfoy and Slytherins ~ and possibly, by extention, purebloods ~ *are* better. I can see where his world view, as evinced by his reactions/opinions/expressions, indicate that he would have been all for a 'pureblood club' like the Death Eaters in the past. On the other hand, I think he's *only* an elitest snob, as opposed to a racist bloodsucker like Malfoy Sr. & Voldemort, et al, so I don't think he'd condone violence or rule- based prejudice against mudbloods/squibs. Which causes me to think that if Voldy was referring to someone we 'know' when he spoke of 'one who has left [Voldemort's supporters] forever' I think it was Snape, because I think he *would* rebel at true violence. And, I think he is sincere in any aide he has given Dumbledore against Voldemort/trouble at Hogwarts, and will be sincere about it in a broader scope in the future. I do think that Snape's attitude has been nice in the past books. He's been a domestic itch for Harry, given Harry a nicely challenging but relatively harmless antagonist to keep him on his toes. However, Snape's blockheadedness has, *I* think, served it's purpose. Any more of it in future books would start to make him seem like a total lost cause. I do think he's in for a change of character, if the mention of his rather more even-minded glance at Harry at the end of GoF is any indication. And I look forward to it. Rambling. Mahoney From IAmLordCassandra at aol.com Thu Jan 3 12:22:36 2002 From: IAmLordCassandra at aol.com (IAmLordCassandra at aol.com) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 07:22:36 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] snape is a dufus Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32639 In a message dated 1/3/2002 7:16:49 AM Eastern Standard Time, midwife34 at aol.com writes: > I have read all the posts about Snape and some of the things people > come up with are almost laughable to me. Based strictly on previous > canon from the four books, Snape is always a "day late and a dollar > short" so to speak. lol, I think I am right in guessing that you agree whole heartedly with Mr. Padfoot ^-^ PoA, Chapter 14: "Mr. Padfoot would like to register his astonishment that an idiot like that ever became a professor." Personally, I don't think he's an idiot. A bastard, yes, but not an idiot. ~Cassie-who still loves her Severus, no matter what he is ^-^~ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tabouli at unite.com.au Thu Jan 3 13:21:00 2002 From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 00:21:00 +1100 Subject: Sappy happy endings, Eddings, Snapefate, housism Message-ID: <009901c19462$17f01380$b62bdccb@price> No: HPFGUIDX 32640 Etha: > I would have the opposite problem than this -- I might reject the series if it ended in a way which was to sappy/sweet/happy. A dark ending would serve to convey the message that even in places we want to believe could or did exist, perfection and complete goodness is unattainable.< Hear hear. Though not much chance of that, methinks, not from all available indicators (JKR's comments in interviews about the forthcoming body count, the trend throughout the four books, the current state of affairs in the Wizarding World, i.e. with a newly re-arisen Voldemort, etc.etc.) Grey Wolf: > The Belgariad has strong paralels to tLotR, and it is considered by some people to be the first truly modern fantasy story (...) The plot develops very much like the LotR, but (...) women exist below the neck (and are capable of joining the adventure), and the morality and education of the main and secondary characters agrees more with the sort of thinking that has been prevalecent in 80's and 90's (and 00's).< (Tabouli risks the wrath of the ominously named Grey Wolf, not to mention John and other yet-to-be-exposed Eddings fans). I like David Eddings well enough, and read him avidly in my teens (or at least, the Belgariad and Malloreon - I gave up when his third, supposedly independent series was a quest for yet *another* magic blue stone, for Belar's sake) but I think he has a decidedly conservative American Protestant-style moral framework. And his East-West symbolism is pretty disturbing, if you think about it: a progression from genocide to cultural imperialism. With his women, it bothers me a bit that 95% of his female characters have to be beautiful (whereas the attractiveness or otherwise of his male characters almost never comes up). As for sex, well, he's making an effort, but I always get the impression that he's not really comfortable with sexually "liberated" characters... he feels much safer either marrying his characters off chastely or pushing them to the opposite end of the spectrum, like Bethra, or Belgarath the disreputable old libertine (in places), where someone (like Polgara) can disapprove of them. I think his best effort there was with the Nadraks' culture, which he portrays quite sympathetically. That aside, almost every dialogue which involves a mention of sex that I remember has at least one representative upholding his Americo-Christian moral framework by blushing or disapproving or getting defensive or embarrassed or all "not in front of the children" ish. And he shies away from any direct descriptions of sex: he just discreetly implies and then draws the curtains. Not that he should have to, mind you, but it does rather fit in with his sex is naughty message (thus spake the English-speaking world). And what's with Ce'Nedra, who starts off pretty open and unconcerned about sex and morality in the Belgariad (happy to undress in front of Garion and trying to lead him into temptation, running races naked, etc.), with Garion being shocked and embarrassed, suddenly developing maidenly blushes about lesbian prostitution in the second series and having to be reassured... by Garion??? Ahem. Harry Potter list. Yes. (though Grey Wolf is invited to submit his howls of protest and counter-argument to OT-Chatter...) Er, to draw a hasty HP parallel, I'll reiterate a long-ago message... when hunting around for cross-cultural materials, I found an article about the French translation for HP, in which the translator mused on the difficulties of the job. What particularly interested me was the *cultural* aspect of the matter: apparently s/he was having terrible trouble explaining to French children *why* all the characters were so embarrassed about sex and love and and emotions all the time! Made no sense whatsoever to them: these things are a fundamental part of life: where's the embarrassment? Ils sont bizarres, ces Anglais... Elizabeth: > I think Harry is destined to be alone (if he survives at all). And so is Snape, IMO. (If *he* falls in love, call the coffin-maker.)< For who, Snape or his beloved? (Though as captain of LOLLIPOPS, I should point out that my crew and I think the latter has already happened). Actually, I can't help wondering if Snape is being groomed for an end-of-series sacrificial lamb role. End-of-series because the relationship between him and Harry still has a long way to develop, and because all along we've been getting hints that Snape holds a lot of the keys to the mystery of Harry's past. I'd say there must be reasonable odds on Snape and Harry finally coming to like and respect each other pages before Snape dies a dreadful yet valiant death, whispering the final key to the mystery of Harry's past/defeating Voldemort/etc. with his dying breath. What say you, Snapefans? Gabriel: > And, of course, JKR clarified "off-page" for us that Hagrid was a Gryffendor. Does anyone else find it a little too convenient that everyone and their brother was in the Lion House??< Yes, yes and absolutely. A few months ago a lot of us came out as anti-housism protesters. JKR implies that it's because she herself values bravery most highly of all the qualities embodied by the houses, but it starts to bother me when she crams absolutely everyone who's anyone (or at least, everyone who's anyone good) into Gryffindor. Dumbledore, the Marauders, the Trio, Hagrid, Lily, McGonagall... I mean, come on! It's worse than Enid Blyton and North Tower in Malory Towers! (and we all know what genre *that* series falls into, chuckle chuckle...) Tabouli. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From margdean at erols.com Thu Jan 3 15:34:30 2002 From: margdean at erols.com (Margaret Dean) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 10:34:30 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Just Wondering...Add Your Opinion... References: Message-ID: <3C347A06.B841A53A@erols.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32641 jrober4211 wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "alihp719" wrote: > > Why would Scabbers bite Goyle on the train to Hogwarts when he, > > Crabbe, and Malfoy are annoying Ron, Hermione and Harry? Wouldn't > > he like them considering their families are Voldemort's supporters as > > well? > > I asked this very same question that got rejected by the moderators. > Now that it's made it through, does anyone have any theories? How much do you want to bet that the senior Crabbe and Goyle were the same kind of bullies at Hogwarts that their sons are now? (Though possibly tagging after a different leader.) Peter Pettigrew would have been =just= the sort of boy that bullies love to target, don't you think? (Rather the way Neville is in the current generation.) IOW, sweet, sweet revenge for little Peter. :) --Margaret Dean From Elizabeth.Dalton at EAST.SUN.COM Thu Jan 3 15:25:01 2002 From: Elizabeth.Dalton at EAST.SUN.COM (Elizabeth Dalton) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 10:25:01 -0500 (EST) Subject: Snape & Draco (and a little Lupin) Message-ID: <200201031525.KAA05407@gaea.East.Sun.COM> No: HPFGUIDX 32642 > From: "anakzaman" > > In GoF, when Voldemort summoned the Death Eaters, 6 were missing. > Three were dead, one too cowardly to return (Karakoff I presume), on > who has re-entered his service (Barty Crouch Jr.) and one who Voldy > believed has left him forever. That one should be Snape. > > Since Lucious Malfoy was there, he should be able to figure that out. > So what is going to happen with Draco and Snape? Draco would tell his > dad that Snape is a spy, or Lucious would tell his son that Snape is > not faithful to Voldemort anymore. > Actually, I think you may have just turned up the real reason for Voldemort to have been so obscure at this point. He names the DEs who are there, but not those who aren't. This always seemed a bit weird to me, given that this is an evil secret society. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to tell everyone the identities of the deserters? Voldemort certainly thinks he knows who is who, and we think so too. But the rest of the DEs might well assume that Snape is the faithful follower who has already re-entered V.s service -- and Crouch isn't around to gainsay this. Snape might not be able to spy directly in Voldemort's view, but he might be able to get info off the rest of the DEs if he can convince them that he's the one V. was praising. jo ellen wrote: > For those members of the group who are not familiar > with "the Andy Griffith Show" in the states, Snape is a dead ringer > for deputy Barney Fife, who always had to keep his bullet for his gun > in his shirt pocket to keep from shooting himself in the foot. I don't see this at all. I think he's normally quite clever, but he has a particular blind spot regarding anything involving Harry (or James, Sirius, or Lupin, for that matter). Unfortunately, that's when we most see him. But a guy who is regarded as a great potions maker can't be a Barney Fife. That's precise work. joanne0012 wrote: > Oh, I agree completely that Snape's treatment of Harry is good for > him, but I'm not so sure that it's a coincidence or accident, I DO > think it's affection. Hm. I think "affection" might be too strong a word. Snape gets *really* nasty some times, and not just toward Harry. But it's possible that Snape really is trying to help in his own way. I keep trying to believe that. He could do much worse things to Harry than he does. I agree about the elitist snob remarks, and your theories about how he got in with the DEs to begin with, though. (And I think Mahoney is right about his limits in this regard.) Tabouli wrote more fun stuff about Snape: > I'd say there must be reasonable odds on Snape and Harry finally > coming to like and respect each other pages before Snape dies a > dreadful yet valiant death, whispering the final key to the mystery > of Harry's past/defeating Voldemort/etc. with his dying breath. What > say you, Snapefans? Sounds about right to me. ("Rosebud...." ;) I'm officially agnostic on the LOLLIPOPS proposition, but it fits my theory either way: Lily is dead. Although, as I've said before, Snape has defied formula to this point, so he may actually survive the entire series. Maybe he's just too mean to die. :) (Though if he lives, Harry is a lot more likely to live, too, I think. Actually, if they both live and Snape is *still* nasty, that might take enough saccharine out of the ending to satisfy even Cindy the Bloodthirsty. Hm. Maybe if the MOM gets pretty much cleaned out or my prophesied end to the Wizard World occurs... what do you think, Cindy?) Elizabeth (Also, special thanks to oz_widgeon/Slon for trying to resuscitate my Lupin theory. :) From tabouli at unite.com.au Thu Jan 3 15:01:21 2002 From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 02:01:21 +1100 Subject: Physics envy (Kiddiefic monster post... the debate rages on! (whirdy winces)) Message-ID: <012901c1946c$e4b48860$b62bdccb@price> No: HPFGUIDX 32643 whirdy: > So unless there is some great new insight or revelation, can we loose the Three Fates on this thread? Now, now. When some of us (including our listmother) are enjoying it so much? I'm sure for all long-term listmembers there are Threads which we would dearly love to burn out of the sky with dragons (Anne McCaffrey reference). They unravel eventually. Patience, patience, this too shall pass... Luke (arguing with me): Tabouli wrote: > Voldemort hardly seems up to much as a foe in encounters to date, > on-stage he's a comic book villain, another marker which > says "children's series" to me >> Though it pains me to have to argue with one of my fellow Staunch Defenders of the Merits of Children's Literature, I must take issue with this statement as well. The nature of the villain is a flawed determinator for the age range of a book. If it were not, the entire James Bond series would be designed for children. There's no inherency here that I am aware of.<< Indeed not, but who was arguing for inherency? Not me. And not several of the others argued with, I'll wager. Reading Luke's essay, this thought came up several times, reminding me inescapably of my third year metapsychology lectures... (the sound of a thousand horrified delete keys rings around the globe)... in which my worthy lecturer raised the sorry subject of Physics Envy. Literary analysis, like psychology (says Tabouli to her small remaining audience), is of the social domain, not the physical domain. Now. In the educated, middle-class West, "Science" has carved out quite a reputation for itself. It cures previously fatal diseases, it enables us to participate in Harry Potter mailing lists, it flies us around the world... all very impressive. These are the sort of things most people think of when you mention science. Even our moisturisers are promoted as Scientifically Proven to Stop Ageing! As the term is "physics envy", let's consider physics. Now there's a Science for us... they've come up with *laws* which describe how things work and do it accurately and unquestionably under all normal human circumstances! (let's not get into obscure hypothetical situations and exceptions to the rule at this point: I don't know *that* much about physics). A law of gravity! The laws of motion! Nuclear power, aerodynamics, electricity, astronomy, travel to the moon... you have to admit, physicists have quite a track record in impressive accomplishments known to most of humanity. And how did they do it? Controlled experiments, leading to laws, which can then be used to develop fairground rides and Gameboys and all the rest. They've more or less laid down the line in what science is and how scientific enquiry should be conducted. In the physical domain, this works very well. The physical sciences deal with quantities and forces that can be observed and measured easily, objectively and exactly, like length, and mass, and velocity, and gravity. This makes conducting scientific inquiry a lot easier, because when you can measure something accurately, you can control its role in your experiments. You can make nice exact laws, like the rate of acceleration due to gravity on the Earth's surface at sea level is 9.8m/s/s (or whatever it is), or E=mc squared, and it's all nice and clear. There are absolute right and wrong answers. In the social domain, this doesn't work very well at all. A lot of what social scientists (and even literary analysts) are dealing with is subjective, culturally determined, can't be directly observed and is very difficult to quantify, like "personality", "intelligence", and even "level of belonging to the category of children's literature". You can't measure these things and come up with a nice simple law like "all books with simplistic villains belong to the CL category" the way you can come up with a law of gravity. Nonetheless, because science and the empirical scientific method of inquiry is so well respected and established, and because nice simplistic laws are so much more seductive than vague tendencies and probabilities, a lot of social scientists try to do it anyway, and invent things like IQ tests and personality tests and predictive models and cultural affiliation scales. Then get all hurt and indignant when the physical scientists laugh at them (Engineering students vs Psychology students... nasty, nasty, nasty). Physics envy, you see. The point (yes I do have one!) is that we can argue on this list and bring in example after counter-example until 2010 and we will never come up with a nice "If book has a+b+c then book=children's literature" law a la E=mc squared. We're just not working within those sort of parameters. It's like all the cross-cultural types I know trying to find a foolproof measure of "Chineseness"... "If person = fluent Chinese speaker + respects parents' opinions + celebrates Chinese New Year (etc.) then person=culturally Chinese". And then fall over themselves trying to defend themselves against accusations of stereotyping when people come up with the inevitable objections and exceptions. The best we're ever going to get is a list of characteristics which typically differ between adult and children's literature, a sort of template, against which we can place Harry Potter and other series for assessment. Which is a very long-winded way of defending my "comic book villain" comment as a characteristic I'd put on this list, together with: - Simplistic good/evil distinction - School series - Children as protagonists (esp. as heros saving day while adults blunder and patronise ineffectually) - Discreet and low-key handling of sex - Simplification of consequences of serious events - Accessible language - Happy, tidy endings and so on (oh yes, chuck in Luke's list as well). None of these characteristics are exclusive to children's books, none of them in themselves make a book "inherently" a children's book, and I'm sure all of you could come up with examples of adult books with one or more, and examples of children's books which exclude several (as I can). All the same, how many adults' books have *all* of these? Very few. Then there are other complicating subjectivity factors in developing the list and "measuring" HP against it. Just look at the demographics alone: Era: what was considered appropriate for children 10, 20, 50 years ago was quite different from today (hence the age of the listmember judging the series may influence his/her list of characteristics and decision). Country of origin: HP is very English, and of a sub-genre (boarding school series) popular in the mid twentieth century for children's books (hence English listmembers may judge differently from American listmembers and so on). And so on. And so on. A clear-cut objective definition of "children's book" which we can use to categorise HP without argument just ain't gonna happen, any more than some psychologist will come up with a foolproof way of measuring how Chinese someone is on a 100 point scale and use this to predict their management style. But hey - it's still fun to argue about it! Tabouli (getting carried away as usual... did anyone make it to the end?) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cindysphynx at home.com Thu Jan 3 15:39:39 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 15:39:39 -0000 Subject: Housism & Werewolf Theories (WAS Sappy happy endings, Eddings) In-Reply-To: <009901c19462$17f01380$b62bdccb@price> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32644 Tabouli wrote: > > Yes, yes and absolutely. A few months ago a lot of us came out as anti-housism protesters. JKR implies that it's because she herself values bravery most highly of all the qualities embodied by the houses, but it starts to bother me when she crams absolutely everyone who's anyone (or at least, everyone who's anyone good) into Gryffindor. Dumbledore, the Marauders, the Trio, Hagrid, Lily, McGonagall... I mean, come on! It's worse than Enid Blyton and North Tower in Malory Towers! (and we all know what genre *that* series falls into, chuckle chuckle...) > Oh, I don't know. Housism doesn't bother me much. I think of the books to date as being Gryffindor-centric. We see Harry and everyone related to Harry. If it doesn't concern Harry, we don't see much of it. Consequently, I feel safe operating on the assumption that the people in the other three houses (or Ravensclaw and Hufflepuff, at least) are also charming, smart and brave. We just haven't met them yet. ******* Please forgive the length of this next part, but it's hard to snip a great deal and have the thread make sense. Here goes: Slon wrote (backstopping Elizabeth's theory that Lupin's urge to see the moon would be irresistable, despite Lupin's transformation in the boarded-up Shrieking Shack): > Now, I can see why we might think that no light could come through, > boarded up windows, BUT unless they were SEALED (have you ever seen > a 'haunted house' with 'sealed' windows?), there's no way they > could completely keep the moonlight out. >[Quote from PoA] 'And then the tunnel began to rise; moments later >it twisted, and > Crookshanks had gone. Instead, Harry could see a dim patch of >light > through a small opening...[description of the room] The windows >were > all boarded up.... > The room was deserted, but a door to their right stood open, >leading > to a shadowy hallway...' (pg 337 US) > > Okay, so the windows are boarded up, but there is still a dim bit of > light to see around. As there is no mention of candles burning, and > I doubt Sirius would take the time to light some anyway, this is most > likely moonlight (though indirect as the clouds are covering the > moon) that has slipped through the boards. It seems that Lupin does > indeed have to be touched by moonlight to transform, and it is > possible that this little bit of moonlight that slips through the > cracks could work when he's in the Shreiking Shack (perhaps he can > even see it through the cracks, though no one can really see in-we > also know that people avoid it, so they wouldn't be lookign in > anyway). When he first come is to confront Black and Pettigrew, the > moon is covered by clouds, so he wouldn't transform in this light, or > perhaps, knowing he has serious work to do, he studiously avoids the > light, even though the werewolf in him might be drawn to it. Let's pause right here. At one point, I wrote a post about the questionable lighting in the Shrieking Shack scene, but decided not to post it. But it looks like I need it now, so here goes. :-) There is undoubtedly light throughout the Shrieking Shack scene, although JKR doesn't explicitly say so. Light initially comes from Harry and Hermione's lit wands, but they extinguish their wands before Harry kicks in the door and confronts Black. But somehow thereafter everyone can see everything in the Shrieking Shack scene, despite all of the Disarming and wands flying around. Yet we are never told what the source of light is. How can anyone see anything? So we have to make something up. :-) I think the most logical conclusion is that Sirius drags Ron to the Shrieking Shack as a man. He has confiscated Ron's wand and lit it to see where he is going. When he reaches the Shrieking Shack, he probably lights the lamps with his wand. Indeed, I would think Sirius would *want* the Shrieking Shack lit so that he can see if Pettigrew tries to escape. I suspect that there are not many lights in the Shrieking Shack (Lupin having broken many of them ages earlier), but Sirius lights the few that are still there. Why can't it be that the light Harry sees is moonlight coming through the boarded-up windows? Well, first of all, you'd have to assume that "all boarded up" really means boards with holes or cracks in them. Second, I think sunlight would be strong enough to flicker through boarded-up windows, but I think moonlight (even from a full moon) would be too dim for Harry to notice, especially since we are told it was dark outside, not bathed in moonlight. Equally important is that Harry can't see moonlight streaming through the boarded up windows because the timeline wouldn't work. For him to seem moonlight would mean the full moon was up and visible with no clouds. That can't be right because Lupin is able to run out of his office to the Shrieking Shack without transforming, suggesting that the full moon just wasn't up yet. (Remember that Harry and Hermione have a big head start on Lupin; Snape sees Lupin entering the tunnel but does not see Harry, which means that Harry is in the Shrieking Shack before Lupin is on his way down the tunnel). I think it is more likely that Harry is seeing light in the Shrieking Shack from a lamp Sirius has lit. Slon again: > Now, from all this, we can clearly see that Lupin was outside when > the moon was up, but didn't transform because the moon was hidden > behind clouds. It is only when the clouds shift and he is touched by > moonlight that he transforms. Hmmm, I know there has been a lot of discussion about this in the past. I think the upshot is that the way JKR wrote these transformation scenes is somewhat illogical because if Lupin has to be touched by the moon to transform, then all he'd have to do is park himself in a dark closet to avoid the problem altogether. Elizabeth's theory solves that problem because he can't hide in a closet because he is drawn to the moon, of course. But that requires me to believe that moonlight is streaming into the Shrieking Shack, which I'm not buying just yet. Slon again: > We need to start a group to suport the 'transforms only in direct > moonlight' theory. Tabouli, can I call on your service one more > time? We need a name. Just please be sure to include L.I.D.S. > somewhere in it (Lupin Is Dead Sexy). > Wait! I object! You can't have a group until you have members, can you? :-) I could get on board for the Lupin Is Dead Sexy part, but we don't have a basis in canon -- yet. > Slon (back to the sofa, feeling miserable, and eating Jello as it's > the only thing I can hold down) Hope you feel better soon, and I hope this post didn't make you even more sick. :-) Cindy (founder of M.A.T.C.H.I.N.G.A.R.M.C.H.A.I.R.S) From Jefrigo21 at aol.com Thu Jan 3 14:04:11 2002 From: Jefrigo21 at aol.com (Jefrigo21 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 09:04:11 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: How does McGonagall know? Message-ID: <21.16cd11b3.2965bedb@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32645 In a message dated 1/3/02 6:06:45 AM Central Standard Time, midwife34 at aol.com writes: > The second time she arrived, I suppose she heard all the > screaming from the fat lady as she was attacked by Sirius after he > awakened Ron.Of course she didn't start off by saying, " ok , who > vandalized the portrait? " when she entered the common room Hold up a minute....I thought Sir Cadgon was protecting the Gryffindor Common Room not the fat lady......Actually it is it is in the book. She goes and asks him herself. I want to say she always knows...Like any mother she does check in on them every so often I agree with you midwife on this idea. Joanna ( who has six classes left until graduation ) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cindysphynx at home.com Thu Jan 3 15:58:58 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 15:58:58 -0000 Subject: The Worst of Severus Snape (WAS snape is a dufus) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32646 What the heck. We haven't had a good Snape-bashing session yet this year, so here goes: Midwife wrote: >He has always missed the point, or misses > integral parts of conversations such as the confrontation at the > shreiking shack. Snape is notorious for jumping to the wrong > conclusions based on just a few facts , instead of having all the > variables to consider in a situation. And Snape isn't interested in > hearing all the facts, as evidenced by his treatment of Harry when he > confronts him sneaking around the castle late at night. With these > personality traits so obvious in all four books, I can see how Snape > got drawn into being a death eater and previously following > Voldemort. Yes, Snape is awful, although I think JKR will have us all loving Snape by the time she kills him . . . I mean, ends the series. But what is the very worst, single most terrible thing Snape has done and why? There are many good candidates for Worst Snape Moment, as he has done a lot of awful things. But if I have to pick one thing and only one thing, I'd go with his decision to blab that Lupin is a werewolf. Dumbledore told Snape to keep this quiet and Dumbledore repeatedly expressed faith and confidence in Lupin. Snape behaved unprofessionally and cowardly in opening his mouth to tell a bunch of students that Lupin is a werewolf. If Snape really believed Lupin was a danger to the students, he should have had the guts to confront Lupin directly. To the extent Snape bears any responsibility in not getting Lupin's potion to him that night, Snape's decision to cost Lupin the only paid work Lupin has had is more than I can swallow. Snape is going to have to suffer a great number of especially long Cruciatus Curses for me to muster enough sympathy to let him off the hook for that one. Cindy From rachelrenee1 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 3 16:38:31 2002 From: rachelrenee1 at yahoo.com (rachelrenee1) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 16:38:31 -0000 Subject: Hagrid & Filch Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32647 It seems to me that Hagrid really has gotten a raw deal here. I mean, he can't do magic. This is all because he was expelled and not a fully-qualified wizard. But now, all these years later, his name is cleared. He's even been to Azkaban for a few months because the school officials jump to the conclusion in CoS that he is the Heir of Slytherin and letting a monster loose again. Don't you think that he deserves some kind of apology? They don't let him use magic (I know he still does it on the sly every so often, but still) because he is not fully qualified. Shouldn't someone say, "Gee, gosh, we're awfully sorry, here, you can go back to school?" Or maybe he can take a Kwikspell course to relearn the basics. I am not really a Hagrid fan, but he's been a pretty good sport about being expelled unjustly. (Yeah, yeah, raising an Acromantula in the school...) Besides, would you not think that Dumbledore, (who knows that V=Tom Riddle, Jr.) get suspicious about him pinning the whole Heir of Slytherin debacle of 50 years ago onto Hagrid? Is a gamekeeping job the best he can do to right that situation now? And on this note of past schooling, do you think that Flich went to Hogwarts? Does he have a wand? Did he graduate? As a squid, I would think he would not do too well, as most of the end-of-term exams seem to be practical exams, where one demonstrates the magic they have learned and how good they are at it. I would think Filch would have failed horribly at that. So is he a fully-qualified wizard? If so, how did he become one? If not, how is it that he can try out the kwikspell course? It seems to require a wand (as the first lesson is how to hold your wand.) --Rachel From elizabethlouiseday at hotmail.com Thu Jan 3 16:50:08 2002 From: elizabethlouiseday at hotmail.com (day782002) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 16:50:08 -0000 Subject: Dobby's motives in C of S Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32648 I have been wondering why Dobby initially approaches Harry in the beginning of C of S. He has been intercepting his mail, then arrives at Privet Drive to tell him not to return to school. Why? At this stage Lucius has not given the diary to Ginny, so there is no suggestion that the chamber will be opened, therefore Harry is in no danger. If Lucius has been plotting to enable the diary to be used to reopen the chamber then why not get Draco to do it? If he has cooked an elaborate and somewhat unreliable scheme and been talking about it at home, then this would suggest that Dobby would be aware of the possible danger to Harry, but why should a dark wizard's house elf want to protect Harry Potter? Any thoughts? Liz xxx From yorch14 at hotmail.com Thu Jan 3 17:14:16 2002 From: yorch14 at hotmail.com (jorgealcontreras) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 17:14:16 -0000 Subject: My preditctions about the end of the HP series. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32649 Goblet of Fire was a turning point in the story. It breaks with the other three, changing the children style with happy endings for a more mature style, showing us a little of epic, and a great development of characters, and an end that brings some uncertainty, and we can see some fear in Harry and other characters about future... It is probably that the next books would contain epic battles between wizards, and I think that many will die, including Dumbledore... I think he is going to be defeated by Voldemort. At a point, Hogwarts may face a great attack from death eaters, and then, Draco Malfoy can have an important role. At the very end, I think Harry would fight face to face with Voldemort in a great battle. And at last, Voldemort would be defeated, but Harry could be seriously damaged. He would pay a great price for victory. This kind of happy but sad endings is typical in Fantastic Literature. It appears not only in The Lord of the Rings, and it comes since Arturians Legends: Arthur defeats Mordreds, forgives Guinevere and Lancelot, and he didn?t die, but he left Britain to rest in Avalon, hiding Excalibur with the Lady of the Lake. (Just like Frodo, leaving Middle Earth after he completed his mission to the immortal lands. I think that Harry may end simply leaving, to have a normal and quiet life in the Muggle World, and why not? with some company: Ginny. It?s possible that Hogwarts gets rebuilt by Ron, Hermione and Neville, Parvati Patil or others. And I think that Snape would die saving Harry. Jorgealcontreras From titacats at yahoo.com Thu Jan 3 18:02:31 2002 From: titacats at yahoo.com (titacats) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 18:02:31 -0000 Subject: Q: I am Confused on the time frame of the books. In-Reply-To: <3C3324D8.9414.5B211F0@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32650 Fallenhunter wrote: > Ok, than this really confuses me... why dont we see tech playing a > larger role in the stories? Its geared toward kids right? who knows > computers and stuff better than they? (This is my opinion biased on > the fact that I am a PC tech in RL as well). > > The library of books, should at least have a computer index... so as > making research easier... Hermoine has repeatedly stated GoF that such tech toys as bugs and walkie talkies would not work on the Hogwarts grounds because of the magic in the air. ;) I would assume this goes double for computers which are known to go haywire under normal circumstances. lol Cats From cindysphynx at home.com Thu Jan 3 18:06:28 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 18:06:28 -0000 Subject: Is "Remus Lupin" His Real Name? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32651 Several people have mentioned how odd it is that Lupin's parents would have given their baby a name that means essentially "werewolf." It is totally illogical -- akin to having the parents of newborn Ted Bundy name him "Serial Killer" or some such. Lupin's name is especially peculiar considering that wizards don't like werewolves, and Lupin's parents were probably not werewolves themselves (judging by the fact that they were worried he couldn't come to Hogwarts and tried everything to cure him). So if Lupin's parents didn't give him his name, where might he have gotten it? Here's a theory. We know Lupin was bitten as a small boy. We also know MoM began to register werewolves in the Werewolf Registry beginning in 1947, and werewolves are governed by the Werewolf Code of Conduct. Perhaps when werewolves present themselves for registration, the MoM changes their name to something calculated to tip off others that the wizard is really a werewolf. Under this theory, Lupin's parents would have given him an ordinary name at birth, but MoM would have required him to use his werewolf registry name of Remus Lupin, which Lupin obtained after the bite but before going to Hogwarts. If correct, this theory would help explain why Lupin couldn't get paid work. After all, since he looks like (and is) an ordinary human when he isn't transformed, employers would have no way of determining that he is a werewolf and discriminating against him because of it. If everyone knew that werewolves have certain MoM-prescribed names, however, then Lupin would be repeatedly denied employment or would be discouraged from even seeking employment because of the implications of his name. In practice, Lupin complies with MoM's re-naming requirement only marginally, using his the initials "R.J." on his briefcase and whenever he can get away with it, and having his friends call him "Moony.". As with any theory, this one has, um, issues. If the purpose of re- naming werewolves is to make it plain to everyone that they are werewolves, why is it that the Hogwarts students do not immediately figure out that Lupin is a werewolf because of his name? Mmmm, maybe it is because the students don't know much about these werewolf laws, which were passed in 1947. Parents of the students, who might know the law and understand the meaning of Lupin's name, aren't told that Lupin is teaching at Hogwarts. The Hogwarts staff know Lupin is a werewolf -- perhaps based on their knowledge of MoM's re-naming requirement, but Dumbledore has told them to keep it quiet, so they do. Under this theory, Lupin's backstory is even more sad than it already is. Stripping someone of their birth name and giving them a stigmatized name instead can't do much for their self-esteem. So where are the huge holes in the theory? Cindy From blpurdom at yahoo.com Thu Jan 3 18:13:43 2002 From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 18:13:43 -0000 Subject: Dobby's motives in C of S In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32652 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "day782002" wrote: > I have been wondering why Dobby initially approaches Harry in the > beginning of C of S. [snip] If Lucius has been plotting to enable > the diary to be used to reopen the chamber then why not get Draco > to do it? CoS suggests many intriguing things about Lucius Malfoy, although he seems to be a somewhat peripheral character in it. The following things are possible: Lucius Malfoy 1) knows that Tom Riddle became Voldemort 2) knows that Tom Riddle, not Hagrid, opened the chamber of secrets, and that therefore Hagrid's expulsion was bogus 3) knows what happens when someone writes in the diary 4) knows that there is a basilisk in the chamber Now, as to the question of why he doesn't have Draco write in the diary instead of trying to put Ginny in this position: If he knows that writing in the diary drains the life-force from the person who does this, it's possible that he doesn't want this to happen to his son. It's also possible that if he knows about the basilisk, he would feel that his son would be at risk from the creature, as well. Plus, if anyone caught Draco killing roosters or doing any of the other things Ginny did while under the diary's influence, Draco is the one who would get in trouble, which would make Lucius Malfoy look bad. Lucius Malfoy seemed to be largely motivated by hatred of Arthur Weasley and his Muggle Protection Act. (We get the impression that he's thrilled about Arthur getting in trouble for the Flying Ford Anglia.) The idea of Arthur Weasley's daughter being found responsible for setting a beast on Muggle-born students was appealing to him. His main miscalculations were that it didn't seem to occur to him that the school could be permanently shut down because of the chaos caused by the basilisk, and he also didn't consider that Draco could still be at risk, since truthfully, the basilisk didn't care which students were Muggle-born and which weren't. The part about Dobby intercepting Harry's mail and trying to prevent him from attending Hogwarts does seem like a bit of a plot hole, in retrospect. Did Lucius Malfoy simply want to prevent Harry from returning because he rather outshone Draco during the previous year? Did he really think Harry could be someone who could solve the mystery of the diary and defeat the basilisk? He DID, but was that a realistic expectation of a twelve-year-old boy? Or, if Lucius Malfoy did not send Dobby to prevent Harry from coming to Hogwarts and Dobby merely did it on his own, then why? Dobby didn't know Harry from a hole in the wall. If he was trying to protect Harry from being at the school when there would be a basilisk wandering around the castle, it would make some sense for them to have a previous relationship. The best we can do is speculate that Dobby heard Draco ranting about Harry Potter at Malfoy Manor, but that seems a poor prologue to the elf making the effort to go to Surrey and prevent Harry from going to school to protect him (and every time he does something he's not supposed to, Dobby has to start punishing himself). I suppose we can comfort ourselves with the thought that the reason OotP is taking so long must be so that she can avoid plot holes like this and Flints like the wand-order mistake, and the fifth book will be completely free of any problems of this sort... --Barb http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HP_Psych http://schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb From ftah3 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 3 18:42:24 2002 From: ftah3 at yahoo.com (ftah3) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 18:42:24 -0000 Subject: Is "Remus Lupin" His Real Name? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32653 cindysphynx wrote: > Several people have mentioned how odd it is that Lupin's parents > would have given their baby a name that means > essentially "werewolf." It is totally illogical -- akin to having > the parents of newborn Ted Bundy name him "Serial Killer" or some > such. Lupin's name is especially peculiar considering that wizards > don't like werewolves, and Lupin's parents were probably not > werewolves themselves (judging by the fact that they were worried he > couldn't come to Hogwarts and tried everything to cure him). So if > Lupin's parents didn't give him his name, where might he have gotten > it? > > Here's a theory. By the way, your Ted Bundy example is very peculiar. It almost implies that the name precludes fate. But in terms of irony after the fact, wouldn't Bundy's folks more likely have named him "Occisor" ('murderer' in Latin) or "Occidio" ('massacre' in Latin), or some derivative of 'Cruor' ('murder' in Latin)? But those aren't actual names. Soooo...maybe they call him Adolf Hitler Bundy. That would lend to irony....[/tangent] Anyhow, to humor the argument, I knew a kid named Andy Anderson. And I've met people with reeeeeally awful names, the kind that inspire "how *could* that parent do that??" My sister, if she and her husband had been even a fraction more bohemian than their actual yuppie selves, might have named their first child Amadeus, because they really liked the name. (They didn't.) Sooo...Mr. and Mrs. Lupin, having lived with their surname for however long and either not knowing or not caring as to it's root meaning, have a baby boy. "I've always loved the name 'Remus!'" says Mr. Lupin. Or alternatively, "Let's name him Remus after my father!" says Mrs. Lupin. And "Remus J. Lupin" goes down on paper. (I'm having a Sherlockian moment. The easiest solution being the most likely, as it were.) But honestly, I can't help but see it as simply an authorial naming convention. I mean, what a great name for a werewolf! A name that essentially means 'werewolf' but has a nice ring to boot! Mahoney not in the least helpful, no doubt From christi0469 at hotmail.com Thu Jan 3 17:56:05 2002 From: christi0469 at hotmail.com (christi0469) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 17:56:05 -0000 Subject: Snape - Dobby's motives In-Reply-To: <200201031525.KAA05407@gaea.East.Sun.COM> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32654 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Elizabeth Dalton wrote: > > > From: "anakzaman" > > > > > In GoF, when Voldemort summoned the Death Eaters, 6 were missing. > > Three were dead, one too cowardly to return (Karakoff I presume), on > > who has re-entered his service (Barty Crouch Jr.) and one who Voldy > > believed has left him forever. That one should be Snape. > > > > Since Lucious Malfoy was there, he should be able to figure that out. > > So what is going to happen with Draco and Snape? Draco would tell his > > dad that Snape is a spy, or Lucious would tell his son that Snape is > > not faithful to Voldemort anymore. > > > > Actually, I think you may have just turned up the real reason for > Voldemort to have been so obscure at this point. He names the DEs who > are there, but not those who aren't. This always seemed a bit weird to > me, given that this is an evil secret society. Wouldn't it be more > appropriate to tell everyone the identities of the deserters? > > Voldemort certainly thinks he knows who is who, and we think so too. > But the rest of the DEs might well assume that Snape is the faithful > follower who has already re-entered V.s service -- and Crouch isn't > around to gainsay this. Snape might not be able to spy directly in > Voldemort's view, but he might be able to get info off the rest of the > DEs if he can convince them that he's the one V. was praising. > Please correct me if I read the scene incorrectly, but it seems that there were also many death eaters the Voldy did not name. Since they seemed to still be masked, the others could have assumed that Snape was simply not named. It also makes me wonder what criterion Voldy had for naming the ones he did? --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "day782002" wrote: > I have been wondering why Dobby initially approaches Harry in the > beginning of C of S. He has been intercepting his mail, then arrives > at Privet Drive to tell him not to return to school. Why? At this > stage Lucius has not given the diary to Ginny, so there is no > suggestion that the chamber will be opened, therefore Harry is in no > danger. If Lucius has been plotting to enable the diary to be used to > reopen the chamber then why not get Draco to do it? If he has cooked > an elaborate and somewhat unreliable scheme and been talking about it > at home, then this would suggest that Dobby would be aware of the > possible danger to Harry, but why should a dark wizard's house elf > want to protect Harry Potter? > > Any thoughts? > > Liz xxx Very interesting....my theory is that Lucius wanted to unleash the diary upon Hogwarts and was reluctant to involve his son in something that dangerous. Remember that Ginny just about died because of that diary. Harry's involvement was presumably just a happy accident, but Dobby's mysterious powers may have inabled him to forsee the posible outcome, especially as Tom Riddle would have been very interested in Harry(given Harry's fame, he would be likely mentioned in a student's diary). Lucius must have been very happy when the opprotunity to give it to Ginny arose, given her proximity to(and infatuation with) Harry. As to why Dobby would want to protect Harry, Dobby states that Harry greatly improved the station of house-elves when caused Voldy's downfall, which somewhat explains Dobby's attatchment to Harry. I think Dobby will be rather important in the upcoming books, or at least I hope so. He provided quite a bit of comic relief in CoS. Christi From Zorb17 at aol.com Thu Jan 3 18:34:47 2002 From: Zorb17 at aol.com (Zorb17 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 13:34:47 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: How does McGonagall know? Message-ID: <171.69a9f85.2965fe47@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32655 Slon wrote: > Now, we know from CoS I believe, that Harry has only seen McGonagall > in the common room a few times, so she's not a regular visitor. > Twice in one night seems a bit of an event. My question is, how does > she KNOW they're up? > So, does McG live somewhere off the common room, though perhaps with > a private entrance that she can hear things in the common room, or > does she have some type of magical device that allows her to keep > tabs on them? The latter theory bothers me, as she then would know > everything the trio plots and would also know about Sirius in the > fire in GoF. Any thoughts? I've always thought that her quarters were nearby, too, so that she could come quickly if needed. However, I don't think that's her primary method of monitoring them. We saw how many interesting little gadgets and things are in other Professors' offices. This is pure speculation, but perhaps McGonagall has a device that is something like the Weasleys' clock. I imagine it as sort of a noise level gauge that alerts her when the volume gets above a certain mark. This would allow her to keep track of things without being knowledgeable of everything that goes on in the common room. By the way, hi, I'm a newbie! Other people on the list share my name, so I'll just go by Zorb [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ftah3 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 3 19:01:31 2002 From: ftah3 at yahoo.com (ftah3) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 19:01:31 -0000 Subject: Dobby's motives in C of S In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32656 Barb wrote: > CoS suggests many intriguing things about Lucius Malfoy, although he > seems to be a somewhat peripheral character in it. The following > things are possible: > > Lucius Malfoy > > 1) knows that Tom Riddle became Voldemort > 2) knows that Tom Riddle, not Hagrid, opened the chamber of secrets, > and that therefore Hagrid's expulsion was bogus > 3) knows what happens when someone writes in the diary > 4) knows that there is a basilisk in the chamber I don't think that number 4 is a given at all. In fact, if he *had* known that a basilisk was what came out of the Chamber to kill previously, he wouldn't have worked to have it opened, because he'd know that a basilisk doesn't distinguish between muggle and non- muggle, and would only be controlled by a parseltongue. Unless he assumed/was led to believe that Riddle through the diary could control the beast, which is possible. And then wrote: > he also didn't > consider that Draco could still be at risk, since truthfully, the > basilisk didn't care which students were Muggle-born and which > weren't. You know, I think all of this *might* give us a hint as to Voldemort's PR technique. If Malfoy Sr. knows that Riddle = Voldy and that Riddle opened the Chamber, and possibly that Riddle used the basilisk hidden there to kill, Voldemort must have told him. My guess is that Voldy would have told either his closest, elite supporters, or else he told them all, as a testament to his long-time power and to his position as the Heir of Slytherin. But obviously he didn't reveal the whole story, or I would think that clever Lucius would have realized that the basilisk would be a danger to *any*one at Hogwarts, including his own son, and not risked the ploy. > The part about Dobby intercepting Harry's mail and trying to prevent > him from attending Hogwarts does seem like a bit of a plot hole, in > retrospect. Did Lucius Malfoy simply want to prevent Harry from > returning Hmm, I guess I never figured Malfoy sent Dobby. It interpreted it as being clear that Dobby went illegit from the get-go, what with the profusion of self-punishment. > Or, if Lucius Malfoy did not send Dobby to prevent Harry from coming > to Hogwarts and Dobby merely did it on his own, then why? Dobby > didn't know Harry from a hole in the wall. Not true. Dobby swoons at Harry at their first meeting. Ooooh, the boy who defeated the Dark Lord, the great Harry Potter! He states that life for house elves was even worse under LV's rule, and sees Harry as a house-elf savior. Especially considering Dobby's penchant for independent thinking and his embrace of freedom when it comes, it seems part of his character that he would idolize Harry Potter. >it would make some sense for > them to have a previous relationship. The best we can do is > speculate that Dobby heard Draco ranting about Harry Potter at > Malfoy Manor, but that seems a poor prologue to the elf making the > effort to go to Surrey and prevent Harry from going to school to > protect him Er, not really. Dobby is very observant, and the Malfoy household is apparently of the sort that treats servants like furniture ~ there, but ignored to the extent that they'll talk about anything and everything when a house elf is present under the assumption that it won't dare repeat it to anyone. And seeing as Malfoy would have been seriously discombobbled by LV's defeat, I assume Harry Potter's role in LV's defeat was quite a hot topic. And certainly Draco talked about Harry when he was home. To me, not at all hard to believe that Dobby would have known about Harry; and as I said before, I can completely understand his adoration of Harry, as well. > I suppose we can comfort ourselves with the thought that the reason > OotP is taking so long must be so that she can avoid plot holes like > this Wow, harsh judgement! I guess I must be a marbled fruitcake for not recognizing it as a plot hole at all, much less it's severity.... ;-P (Tongue firmly in cheek, there!) Mahoney From aromano at indiana.edu Thu Jan 3 19:05:50 2002 From: aromano at indiana.edu (Aja) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 14:05:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Is "Remus Lupin" His Real Name? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32657 On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, ftah3 wrote: > cindysphynx wrote: > > Several people have mentioned how odd it is that Lupin's parents > > would have given their baby a name that means > > essentially "werewolf." It is totally illogical -- akin to having > > the parents of newborn Ted Bundy name him "Serial Killer" or some > > such. > By the way, your Ted Bundy example is very peculiar. It almost > implies that the name precludes fate. This is so fascinating to me. It gets into the question of whether the wand chooses the wizard or the wizard chooses the wand: i.e., in the realm of magic, where so many variables exist regarding a person's apparent possible destiny (Harry'd be good in slytherin) and the choices they make-- why *shouldn't* a name have the potential to preclude fate? After all, Remus Lupin is a werewolf, Sirius turns into a dog, and Severus is nothing if not severe. Pettigrew/Wormtail is not only petty but a figurative rat. I could go on and on. It seems very likely to me that just as Harry has a chance to determine his own fate against circumstances which would point him in another direction, the power of a name would easily shape one's destiny, depending on what one would choose to do with that power. I have always been fascinated by the fact that I was named Aja Fair after a song ("Aja" by Steely Dan") and a book, the novel Vanity Fair-- and that with no deep musical or literary interests on either side of my family I grew up with a lifelong goal of double-majoring in voice and english in college. Ironic, psychic, silly, who knows-- but in the case of the wizarding world, I could easily believe such coincidences take on a much greater significance on a regular basis. Aja From slytherin_belle at hotmail.com Thu Jan 3 19:09:20 2002 From: slytherin_belle at hotmail.com (Evil Flame) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 13:09:20 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: How does McGonagall know? References: <171.69a9f85.2965fe47@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32658 We saw how many interesting little gadgets and things are > in other Professors' offices. This is pure speculation, but perhaps > McGonagall has a device that is something like the Weasleys' clock. I > imagine it as sort of a noise level gauge that alerts her when the volume > gets above a certain mark. This would allow her to keep track of things > without being knowledgeable of everything that goes on in the common room. > Ah! Now that is an excellent idea! Or possibly something like a sneak scope that reacts to partying and mischeif making on a large scale. And like you said, that would allow her to keep an 'eye' on things without having knowledge of all the things that go on. Though, if it were a mischief making type detector, would it pick up things that Harry and co did? Or would it be *intent* to make mischief, and so Harry and co would be exempt because they weren't setting out to cause trouble? > By the way, hi, I'm a newbie! Other people on the list share my name, so > I'll just go by > Zorb Hi Zorb, welcome from another newbie! -Evil Flame Goddess From dolphyn917 at aol.com Thu Jan 3 19:35:32 2002 From: dolphyn917 at aol.com (acci0firebolt) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 19:35:32 -0000 Subject: More about technology/electricity at Hogwarts Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32659 Our conversations about Dean and his soccer teams have reminded me of a point that I have wondered about for a while. How, exactly, do Muggle-born witches and wizards keep in contact with their family while at Hogwarts? And along those lines, how do the Dursleys manage to send Harry his 10 pence piece or whatever he gets for Christmas in SS/PS? I would imagine that the Dursleys would not be too keen on using owls, and they wouldn't be up to relaying it through another wizarding family either ... ? - Irene From terrilyn at ameritech.net Thu Jan 3 20:11:30 2002 From: terrilyn at ameritech.net (Terri Lyn Layman) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 15:11:30 -0500 Subject: How does McGonagall know?; SHIP: Ron/Hermione Message-ID: <000001c19492$d535e660$111efea9@c8b5v1> No: HPFGUIDX 32660 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: How does McGonagall know? --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "oz_widgeon" wrote: My question is, how does she KNOW they're up ? jrober4211 [mailto:midwife34 at aol.com] Wrote: I was under the assumption that her quarters are nearby, so I suppose it is possible for her to hear very loud noises. The first entrance into the common room , the night of the party, was probably just good common sense. As a parent of teenagers, I check periodically after midnight to make sure my teens are in bed if they have over night guests. The second time she arrived, I suppose she heard all the screaming from the fat lady as she was attacked by Sirius after he awakened Ron.Of course she didn't start off by saying, " ok , who vandalized the portrait? " when she entered the common room. I guess its possible to hear blood curdling screams from teen agers through thick masonry walls. Jo Ellen I guess I can weigh in on this one: I would suppose that in addition to Jo Ellen's theory on her quarters being nearby, she would have items in the "house" bewitched to let her know when things were going to be problematic (like a baby monitor for us muggles). This would not only be helpful in the case of break-in, out of control parties, but also in more practial matters such as Neville Longbottom practicing a summoning spell inadvertantly with a Armoire or some other item. Just my $.02, -TerriLyn (who is new around here and has never been on a moderated list before, bear with me) P.S. In GoF, is it just me or is there a bit of attraction between Ron and Hermionie? Unfortunately, Ron hasn't matured enough yet to "get it", and Hermionie's exasperated with him? (Due to girls maturing faster than boys?) Is it possible that H's "romance" (she's 14, right?) with the quidditch guy could be for revenge/insite jealousy? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Whirdy at aol.com Thu Jan 3 20:30:42 2002 From: Whirdy at aol.com (Whirdy at aol.com) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 15:30:42 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dobby's motives in C of S Message-ID: <188.164dc35.29661972@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32661 In a message dated 1/3/02 12:25:20 PM Eastern Standard Time, elizabethlouiseday at hotmail.com writes: > If Lucius has been plotting to enable the diary to be used to > reopen the chamber then why not get Draco to do it? If he has cooked > an elaborate and somewhat unreliable scheme and been talking about it > at home, then this would suggest that Dobby would be aware of the > possible danger to Harry, but why should a dark wizard's house elf > want to protect Harry Potter? > > Because, IIRC, LM wanted the "muggle-loving" Weasleys to be blamed for it; the death of Ginny was just an extra. Besides, I don't think that Lucius trusts Draco - "uneasy lies the head full of DA." As for Dobby, he must be unique among house elves, perhaps a mutant, who realizes there may be a higher authority than his master. We see the more usual house elf in Winky, who never wavers in her loyalty to BC, senior and junior. And isn't it written that even the lowliest of magical creatures suffered under the reign of terror of LV and the DEs. And Dobby never really betrayed his house as his ears and fingers attest, but perhaps adopted HP into the Malfoy menage to protect him and safeguard himself. Perhaps Malfoy's plan was to have the CoS opened and have the Big Snake dispose of HP. Ginny's involvement was just a bonus. PS - Shouldn't the MOM have been informed about the misuse of muggle artifacts by LM, as soon as HP returned it to him? whirdy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Whirdy at aol.com Thu Jan 3 20:36:51 2002 From: Whirdy at aol.com (Whirdy at aol.com) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 15:36:51 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Is "Remus Lupin" His Real Name? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32662 In a message dated 1/3/02 1:44:43 PM Eastern Standard Time, ftah3 at yahoo.com writes: > And "Remus J. Lupin" goes down on paper. > > I won't even start to imagine what the "J" stands for. whirdy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From hp_lexicon at yahoo.com Thu Jan 3 20:42:34 2002 From: hp_lexicon at yahoo.com (hp_lexicon) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 20:42:34 -0000 Subject: Keeping up with Muggle events (Was: What to do with the Quidditch team? ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32663 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jrober4211" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Martin Smith" wrote: > Which raises a totally different question: How does Dean keep up with > the > > recent events of his beloved football team (??West Ham??)? Here's a quote from JKR that might give some hint, although no specific answer: Q. Has Harry ever used the Internet? A. No. He's not allowed near Dudley's computer and Dudley's the only one who's got a computer. He gets beaten up if he goes too near the keyboard. So no, he's never used the Internet. I use it a lot but not Harry. Wizards don't really need to use the Internet but that's something that you'll find out later on in the series. They have a means of finding out what goes on in the outside world that I think is more fun than the Internet. Could anything be more fun than the Internet? Yes! Steve Vander Ark The Harry Potter Lexicon http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon From GerRoJen at aol.com Thu Jan 3 20:50:04 2002 From: GerRoJen at aol.com (GerRoJen at aol.com) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 15:50:04 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Is "Remus Lupin" His Real Name? Message-ID: <3f.46103bd.29661dfc@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32664 Cindy brought up some really good points. I would like to make a few comments. My maiden name is Blevins which is derived from the word "Wolf" in the Welsh language. (Bledden). I know plenty of "Wolfs" (Tim, Josh, Rachel, etc etc.) I bet there are plenty more people out there with names that can be traced to mean Wolf. Or Deer (I know a Hart), or Boar, or Dragon, etc etc. I would figure having the surname Lupin is no more odd than I having the name Blevins. My parents were just kind enough not to play off of it and name me Romulus or Lupercalia or anything of the sort. Perhaps Remus's parents weren't as serious minded as mine? I have heard of people with careers/professions/looks that coincide with their names. Even initials (hey, might want to look into this in the Harry Potter books). My best friend for example. Her initials are ARC. But, when she gets married in the near future her initials will be ARF. She is, of all things... a dog groomer. Perhaps it is fate she marries Tim? LOL I changed my choice of my daughter's name so that her initials wouldn't spell out SAG. (They spell out JAG now. But that seemed the better idea. Maybe she will be a Judge Advocate General...LOL) For the sake of argument, my true feelings on this is just that J.K Rowling names her characters according to specific characteristics of the person. On a side note... my uncle works with a gentleman by the name of Harry Hiney. I have no idea if it fits him and my uncle refuses to ask. Jessie P.S. Just a thought on initials. Hermione Granger. HG. Head Girl. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Calypso8604 at aol.com Thu Jan 3 20:59:40 2002 From: Calypso8604 at aol.com (Calypso8604 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 15:59:40 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Is "Remus Lupin" His Real Name? Message-ID: <46.2051e009.2966203c@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32665 In a message dated 1/3/2002 3:52:04 PM Eastern Standard Time, GerRoJen at aol.com writes: > For the sake of argument, my true feelings on this is just that J.K Rowling > names her characters according to specific characteristics of the person. > Yes, I agree with that point. I don't see why Remus Lupin wouldn't be his real name. Suggesting he goes under a psuedo name would also be suggesting that half the other characters do as well. Sirius Black, named after the dog star/constellation has an animagi form of a black dog. In folklore, good wizards are often referred to as white wizards and good old Albus' name means white. Harry himself, one of the greatest wizards alive, shares his name with the greatest muggle magician, Harry Houdini (yes, I *know* that's not why JKR named him Harry). Most of the characters in the book are named according to their characteristics. It also gives us a few hints as to what's coming (although I didn't see the Remus lycanthropy coming...I was furious with myself!). Calypso "Writing is easy. All you do is stare at a blank sheet of paper until drops of blood form on your forehead." - Gene Fowler [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Thu Jan 3 21:18:03 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 21:18:03 -0000 Subject: Werewolf Appearance In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32666 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jrober4211" wrote: > What happens to their clothes when they transform? Also, when Sirius > is hiding in the cave during GoF, he transforms from dog to man and > back again. Well, is he naked? I know Rita Skeeter and Professor > Mcgounagall's glasses go with them when they transform, do the > clothes also transform into fur, feathers, or whatever? > > Jo Ellen --------------- IMHO: Clothes disapear while they are transformed. So do any other thing they are wearing/carrying. The issue of the glass-shaped marks is a little more complex, but I've got a pet theory which will probably will be beaten to the ground quite quickly, but which I'm going to display anyway. We know (thank to Hermione' studies) that (legal) animagus are tightly controled. The first time they transform, note is taken about the animal into which they transfor, and a minute description of such animal is taken. However, some people of HP4GU have pointed out that that description cannot be accurate, if whatever the person is wearing (such as glasses) make an impresion on the animal. How can this be? Easily, by my theory: the animal form indeed reflects what the person is wearing the first time. However, from then on, you're stuck with whatever they caused to be that first time. So, maybe you need to read aloud an incantation written down in some book, and both Rita and McGonagal had to wear their glasses when they transformed, and now their alter-forms wear "glasses-marks" forever. Now, to answer the original question: the clothes disappear (do not transorm), and indeed the animals are naked (as are most animals, except sometimes dogs-which I feel real pity for). Hope this helped Grey Wolf PD: For a very obscure theory (but very precise and correct, when you understand it) on what happens to objects carried while transformed into an animal, read the Belgariad series, by David Eddings. From boggles at earthlink.net Thu Jan 3 21:41:55 2002 From: boggles at earthlink.net (Jennifer Boggess Ramon) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 15:41:55 -0600 Subject: Snape and Dobby In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32667 At 8:32 AM +0000 1/3/02, jrober4211 wrote: >Based strictly on previous >canon from the four books, Snape is always a "day late and a dollar >short" so to speak. Oh? I seem to recall that he was the only one in PS/SS who had caught on that it was Quirrell who was the problem. Granted, he didn't have himself swooping around as a red herring like the Trio did, but if it hadn't been for our Snapey, Quirrill might have gotten past Fluffy on Halloween after releasing the troll. >Snape is notorious for jumping to the wrong >conclusions based on just a few facts , instead of having all the >variables to consider in a situation. Like the Trio had decided on his guilt in PS/SS, you mean? ;) Granted, Snape seems to want to see the worst in Gryffindors in general and Harry in particular, and this completely blinds him in PoA. But he's not unintelligent, merely unwise. (Everyone who's ever played D&D, sing along with me: High Intelligence, Low Wisdom! A classic combination for a wizard . . .) >For those members of the group who are not familiar >with "the Andy Griffith Show" in the states, Snape is a dead ringer >for deputy Barney Fife, who always had to keep his bullet for his gun >in his shirt pocket to keep from shooting himself in the foot. Oh, please. If that were true, he'd've never survived his chosen profession; his potions would have blown up, poisoned him, and turned him into a tadpole (not necessarily in that order) ages ago. Bumbling Potions Masters don't live long; unlike DADA, it's not a theoretical art, but a practical one. At 4:50 PM +0000 1/3/02, day782002 wrote: >I have been wondering why Dobby initially approaches Harry in the >beginning of C of S. He has been intercepting his mail, then arrives >at Privet Drive to tell him not to return to school. Why? What, exactly, is wrong with Dobby's own explanation? >At this >stage Lucius has not given the diary to Ginny, so there is no >suggestion that the chamber will be opened, therefore Harry is in no >danger. I'm sure Lucius has been articulating his naefarious plot aloud or on paper. House-elves are usually totally loyal, so he wouldn't worry about doing so in front of him; it would never occur to him that Dobby is developing free will, as he seems to resent its existence in his son. >If Lucius has been plotting to enable the diary to be used to >reopen the chamber then why not get Draco to do it? He doesn't seem to have too high an opinion of Draco's abilities; he might not trust Draco to get instructions from the diary regularly. Even if he did, however, he might not like the idea of Draco slowly being taken over by the sixteen-year-old Riddle. Moreover, by slipping it into someone else's books, he avoids implicating the Malfoy family and deflects the heat from the Ministry onto someone else - making it the Weasleys was the icing on the cake, although I can't tell if that was improvised or planned. >If he has cooked >an elaborate and somewhat unreliable scheme and been talking about it >at home, then this would suggest that Dobby would be aware of the >possible danger to Harry, but why should a dark wizard's house elf >want to protect Harry Potter? Dobby explains that sufficiently, I think - house-elves suffered terribly as a race under Voldemort, and they see Harry as a savior-figure. Dobby, having evolved his frail spark of free will, wants to "return the favor," as it were. Dobby, having suffered abuse from the Malfoys and himself, and not being human in teh first place, is not necessarily thinking very straight in the way he goes about this, but it's a perfectly understandable impulse at bottom. -- - 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 greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Thu Jan 3 22:09:14 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 22:09:14 -0000 Subject: Untackled (?) Questions In-Reply-To: <20020101173013.32864.qmail@web21101.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32668 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Ronald Rae Yu wrote: > Hi! I'm Ronald Yu, and I'm new here. Wellcome! I'm Grey Wolf > And since I'm new, forgive me if I ask questions > already discussed before. I've searched these already > in HP sites but none seem to tackle them (or maybe I > didn't search well). Well, I'm sure somebody somewhere > have asked himself some of these before. And I'm sure > there are other newbies here as well. Try the Lexicon: almost everything can be found there: http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/ > How did Myrtle die if she wears glasses (Colin was > petrified using the camera)? I assume that the lenses didn't protect Colin; the film did (in the same way people use photographic film to look at the sun eclipses) > How did ghosts take their clothes and glasses with > them when they died? If you've seen the film "The Matrix", it's exactly the same reason they are wearing heir clothes and long hair when inside the Matrix. > In book 3, Quidditch Final, Lee comments on the beater > work of George Weasley. How could he have known it was > HIM (not Fred)? I mean, flying at top speed and > everything, he recognized George. Posibly, each of the twins is devoted to one half of the pitch (like in football), and Lee knows about it. Also, it's possible that they are wearing numbers in their backs. > What's the use of the first two tasks if the champion > who reaches the Triwizard Cup first wins? The less points you have, the later you enter the maze. > Why not use Veritaserum or the Pensieve as evidences > for Harry's account at the end of book 4? And to clear > Sirius as well. For the same reason Truth-inducing serums (like Sodium Penthothal) aren't used in the real world (whatever that reason may be!) > Why do the Hogwarts electives have such impossible > schedules? I mean, if you have the option of taking as > much classes as you can, they should make the schedule > possible to follow without time-turners. They don't: Hermione is a VERY special case: she's allowed to take that many classes because she's a very good student. > And since you have options of electives they should > not be scheduled by house (Care of Magical Creatures > with the Slytherins). Maybe they believe that there should be more than 10 people in each class to make it worthwhile (I know that's the case in my University), so when the House numbers are too small, they have to put two together. > With Arithmancy and Divination taking place > simultaneously, is Hermione the only Gryffindor (in > her year) in Arithmancy? Everyone else is in > Divination. Posibly. It seems like "science" people get into Ravenclaw, while the others get into any other house. > Why not Snape go for DADA? What's stopping him? I believe he doesn't want it - it's just a baseless rumour. Read about it in December's posts (last two weeks or so) > Why do wizards still use owls for messages? Frankly, > phones are faster; they should at least try to adapt > to muggle ways. They're not faster than using the fire, and owls can find anyone, without need of postal directions or adress. They will follow you even if you're moving (HP receives a letter of Sirius in the train, if I remeber correctly) > Why are there 4-5 quidditch players in Fred and > George's batch (them, Alicia, and Angelina, and likely > but not positively, Katie)? Is their year really that > good? It looks like it is, certainly. > What's the big fuss in not being able to apparate or > disapparate within Hogwarts? One could make a portkey > anytime and portkey himself in or out of the grounds. Maybe portkeyes can go out from Hogwarts and back, or whatever magic stops aparating at Hogwarts was suspended during the last phase of the tournament. It's interesting to mention that house elves have unlimited aparating capabilities, though. > No one ever seems to mind or at least notice (even > Harry) that Oct. 31 is not only Nick's deathday but > also James's and Lily's. Someone asked: HP has no idea of what day were his parents killed (I think). Hermione posibly knows (it surely comes in "Great Wizards of the 20th Century"), but she hasn't got around to telling him yet. > Where are the dead bodies of James and Lily? Buried, hopefully. > If house elves don't want pay the Weasleys could get > one anytime. Why don't they? Molly wants one. House elves are slaves, and slaves are expensive, even if, once bought, you don't have to pay them. In ancient Rome, only families with at least moderate income could buy and mantain slaves. I assume house elves is more or less the same, but even more expensive. > If you live in Hogsmeade it would make perfect sense > NOT to take the Hogwarts Express to Hogwarts. Do all > students need to ride it to school? Probably not. If you live in Hogsmeade, you get to get up later the first day, and sooner the rest of the year, as in any other boarding school which allows children from nearby places to go to sleep to their homes > If Voldie couldn't kill Harry with his wand he could > have done so anytime with a gun or something. That's assuming that Voldie HAS a gun, and KNOWS how to use it. England is not the USA: weapons are mostly illegal, are hard to come buy, tightly controlled and people aren't traditionally trained in their use (much less wizards). From a wizard's point of view, anyway, muggle objects are useless compared to the posibilities of magic > Do Quaffles move on their own? There's at least one > instance when it fell, but in the World Cup it > rocketed upwards when it was released. According to "Quidditch Over the Ages", Quaffles fall very slowly towards earth (such as a feather), but that is the only magic on movement. I assume that the referee used some incantation to throw it into the air. > Why could they talk to paintings and not to photos? It > is more likely to be the other way around, since > photos are based on real people. Paintings take longer, so there is time to put more enchantments on them. Hope that helped, Grey Wolf From hollydaze at btinternet.com Thu Jan 3 22:10:28 2002 From: hollydaze at btinternet.com (Hollydaze) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 22:10:28 -0000 Subject: Just Wondering...Add Your Opinion... References: Message-ID: <018701c194a8$6939d960$8e01073e@j0dhe> No: HPFGUIDX 32669 alihp719 Wrote: > Is it significant that Fawkes' colours, red and gold, are the same > as Gryffindor's? (I think so!) I think this question depends on how you interpret different things. Phoenixes are always red (scarlet) and gold, those are the only colours they come in, so if you mean it in terms of colour of plumage and that there may be other colours then no I do not think that the colour is at al relevant. However if you think about it as Dumbledore has a phoenix because of it's colours then I can possibly agree although, doesn't it say in FB something about them being difficult to train and only trusting certain people? that would make it seem to me that Fawkes stays with Dumbledore because he likes and trusts him, a bit like the "wand chooses the wizard", so Fawkes choose Dumbledore. HOLLYDAZE!!! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From hollydaze at btinternet.com Thu Jan 3 22:10:36 2002 From: hollydaze at btinternet.com (Hollydaze) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 22:10:36 -0000 Subject: Wizard body parts - uses of References: Message-ID: <018801c194a8$69a62fc0$8e01073e@j0dhe> No: HPFGUIDX 32670 David Wrote: > Did the original owner of the Hand of Glory (Knockturn Alley, COS) > have any say in the use of their hand? I'm not sure we can really think about this question as the hand of Glory is a real Mythical object. I think JK has mentioned that it was in one of her online chats but, also, a couple of weeks ago I found a book that had a whole page of info about the Hand of Glory (and how to make a fake one for Halloween etc) it was in my school library though so I can't go and find any info at the moment. It did look quite interesting although it does apear to do slightly more than JK said it does in CoS, it doesn't just give light to the holder it does something else that I unfortunately can't remember. HOLLYDAZE!!! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Thu Jan 3 22:45:09 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 22:45:09 -0000 Subject: Sirius's Motorcycle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32671 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "dicentra_spectabilis_alba" wrote: > Hagrid says in PA that Sirius yielded up the motorcycle to him, saying > he wouldn't be needing it anymore. Hagrid figures later that Sirius > didn't want to keep something that could so easily be traced, but > obviously he was wrong. > > Some have speculated that it was a pre-suicidal gesture, but when > Sirius recounts the events of that night, he makes no mention of > planning to kill himself. Did Sirius figure he would be in jail soon > because he was planning to murder Peter, or is this just one one more > unknown about that night? > > "dicentra_spectabilis_alba" I Believe that Sirius recognized the fact that the most important thing at that moment was to get Harry to safety, so he gave the motorcycle to Hagrid so he could get out of there quickly. He wasn't going to need it more ("for the time being", understated, IMHO) since he was going to face Wormtail, who was nearby. Grey Wolf From slytherin_belle at hotmail.com Thu Jan 3 19:25:39 2002 From: slytherin_belle at hotmail.com (Evil Flame) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 13:25:39 -0600 Subject: Death rites and such (also Wizard Body parts - uses of) References: <759A085B4DB9AF47AD5BB22098C917280752C2@cnncex01.turner.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32672 Rebecca wrote: > Yes! Voldemort himself uses the bone of his father in the potion which gives him to a body at the end of GoF, which is why they were at that graveyard. This seemed like it was pretty literal -- a little column of white powder rose up from the earth and into the cauldron. *grumbles* I am going to have to read that book again. That totally slipped my mind. (I read it in two days right before Christmas.) But that was exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. > > It does make you wonder if James and Lily's graves are protected or hidden somehow. Don't you think Harry would want to visit them at some point in the future? The fact that this hasn't occurred to him yet might be a plot convention -- maybe these graves will be really significant in future books. > Well that and teenage boys are not very big on emotional closure things like visiting graves, so he just might not have reached that stage yet. It's possible, like you said that he will in future books, and I will be looking forward to seeing how she does write it, possibly elaborating more on the traditions surrounding death and how it is handled in the wizarding world. <> You know... that thing has fascinated me since the first mention of it. For some reason it just grabbed my attention and I want to know more about it. <> I think you will be right about that. I was thinking more in context of the first couple of books but on reflection, I do think that there will be more of this to come. <> ~Evil Flame (Who wonders how you get on the DE party invite list) From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Thu Jan 3 22:53:30 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 22:53:30 -0000 Subject: Accio Charm (and a bit about portkeys & apparating) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32673 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "brewpub44" wrote: > A Barkeep in Diagon Alley ---------- The only hole I find in this theory (which had occoured to me, being an RPG fan), is that Ron's mother accios the fake items from the twin's pockets without even knowing what they were or even if they truly existed. Any views on this? Grey Wolf From rainbow at rainbowbrite.net Thu Jan 3 19:58:52 2002 From: rainbow at rainbowbrite.net (_-*Rainbow Brite*-_) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 14:58:52 -0500 Subject: Muggle Mail/McConagal Knowing References: Message-ID: <006a01c19491$11b66760$68a1dec7@rainbow> No: HPFGUIDX 32674 acci0firebolt said: > And along those lines, how do the Dursleys manage > to send Harry his 10 pence piece or whatever he gets for Christmas in > SS/PS? I would imagine that the Dursleys would not be too keen on > using owls, and they wouldn't be up to relaying it through another > wizarding family either ... ? Maybe Hedwig knew they wouldn't give Harry a Christmas present of their own accord, so she stayed at their house and annoyed them for awhile until they gave her something to take to him. She is a smart owl after all ;) Re: McConagall knowing: All of the teachers were on "high alert" during that time with the "threat" of Sirius being on the loose and supposedly looking to kill Harry. So i don't really find it abnormal that she was there in a flash as soon as she knew something was wrong. She could even have been sleeping in the common room (in her cat form) to be close by just in case. midwife34 at aol.com writes: > The second time she arrived, I suppose she heard all the > screaming from the fat lady as she was attacked by Sirius after he > awakened Ron.Of course she didn't start off by saying, " ok , who > vandalized the portrait? " when she entered the common room That's a very good theory! But he would have slashed the portrait to gain entrance to the hall BEFORE awakening Ron, right? And if so, that would have given McConagal even more time to hear the fat lady and then dash into the hall as Ron screamed. Joanna said: > Hold up a minute....I thought Sir Cadgon was protecting the Gryffindor Common > Room not the fat lady......Actually it is it is in the book. She goes and > asks him herself. Nopers, not at this point in the book. They got Sir Cadgon to replace the Fat Lady *after* this event where Sirius slashed her picture. Or did the slashing take place on a different night than the night when Sirius woke up Ron? Oh now i'm all confused :P I wish i had a digital copy of the book so i could do a search on it instead of flipping through pages hoping to stumble across the part i'm looking for :P .. )) -::- . )) ((. .. -::- Lily -::- -::- ((.* From terrilyn at ameritech.net Thu Jan 3 20:19:06 2002 From: terrilyn at ameritech.net (Terri Lyn Layman) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 15:19:06 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] More about technology/electricity at Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000501c19493$e5113ca0$111efea9@c8b5v1> No: HPFGUIDX 32675 -----Original Message----- From: acci0firebolt [mailto:dolphyn917 at aol.com] Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 2:36 PM To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Subject: [HPforGrownups] More about technology/electricity at Hogwarts Our conversations about Dean and his soccer teams have reminded me of a point that I have wondered about for a while. How, exactly, do Muggle-born witches and wizards keep in contact with their family while at Hogwarts? And along those lines, how do the Dursleys manage to send Harry his 10 pence piece or whatever he gets for Christmas in SS/PS? I would imagine that the Dursleys would not be too keen on using owls, and they wouldn't be up to relaying it through another wizarding family either ... ? - Irene I would think that the muggle family and friends of students at Hogwarts are able to communicate with their student/s in a manner very similar to that of the friends/family of members of the Armed Forces. They send their mail to a uniform POBox or whatever it is in the UK, then Hagrid, or some other designate (likely from the MoM) goes to that box, withdraws the mail, and then sends it along via owl. This is of course, pure speculation. -TerriLyn [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From marybear82 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 3 21:05:14 2002 From: marybear82 at yahoo.com (Mary Shearer) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 13:05:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Physics envy (Kiddiefic monster post... the debate rages on! (whirdy winces)) In-Reply-To: <012901c1946c$e4b48860$b62bdccb@price> Message-ID: <20020103210514.34574.qmail@web14001.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32676 --- Tabouli wrote: > whirdy: > > So unless there is some great new insight or > revelation, can we loose the > Three Fates on this thread? > > Now, now. When some of us (including our > listmother) are enjoying it so much? I'm sure for > all long-term listmembers there are Threads which we > would dearly love to burn out of the sky with > dragons (Anne McCaffrey reference). They unravel > eventually. Patience, patience, this too shall > pass... > > A clear-cut objective > definition of "children's book" which we can use to > categorise HP without argument just ain't gonna > happen, any more than some psychologist will come up > with a foolproof way of measuring how Chinese > someone is on a 100 point scale and use this to > predict their management style. But hey - it's > still fun to argue about it! > > Tabouli (getting carried away as usual... did anyone > make it to the end?) Yes, Tabouli, made it to the end! Though I still think the whole age classification debate stems from our guilt issues...what do you think? Thanks for sticking up for us newbies (and oldies) who have been chewing the age-classification scenery lately. Worked for over an hour on a thoughtful response, then discovered a posting in the inbox that basically said, "shut up!" before I ever hit "send!" Please be patient with the newbies, everyone. Eventually, we will be up to speed! - Mary, who had WAY too much coffee before her last posting about age classification. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send your FREE holiday greetings online! http://greetings.yahoo.com From Rebecca.Allen at turner.com Thu Jan 3 21:43:27 2002 From: Rebecca.Allen at turner.com (Allen, Rebecca) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 16:43:27 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Worst of Severus Snape (WAS snape is a dufus) Message-ID: <759A085B4DB9AF47AD5BB22098C917280752C7@cnncex01.turner.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32677 Cindy wrote: > > But what is the very worst, single most terrible thing Snape has done > and why? For some reason I feel compelled to defend him a little here, although I will give my own answer to your question further on. > There are many good candidates for Worst Snape Moment, as he has done > a lot of awful things. But if I have to pick one thing and only one > thing, I'd go with his decision to blab that Lupin is a werewolf. > Dumbledore told Snape to keep this quiet and Dumbledore repeatedly > expressed faith and confidence in Lupin. Snape behaved > unprofessionally and cowardly in opening his mouth to tell a bunch of > students that Lupin is a werewolf. Remember Snape thinks Lupin is dangerous for two reasons. For one thing, Snape is convinced that Lupin was aiding and abetting Sirius in what appeared to be Sirius's attempt at murdering Harry. Snape probably imagines that Lupin gave Harry the map to lure him out of school and into Sirius's clutches; he might also think that Lupin was the guy on the inside who let Sirius into the school the time he got as far as Ron's bed. And of course the second problem is that Lupin is a werewolf. > If Snape really believed Lupin > was a danger to the students, he should have had the guts to confront > Lupin directly. He did, sort of, in his office when he gave him the map, and that didn't get him anywhere. I think Snape justifies what he did by figuring that since he couldn't actually *prove* that Lupin was helping Sirius try to murder Harry, even though to his mind finding them in the Shack together was proof enough, that he needs to take matters into his own hands. > To the extent Snape bears any responsibility in not > getting Lupin's potion to him that night, Snape's decision to cost > Lupin the only paid work Lupin has had is more than I can swallow. I think Snape did everything he could to get Lupin that potion; it was Lupin who forgot and disappeared when it was time for his dose. And then *everybody* got distracted. That's probably another source of his justification for narcing on Lupin, he figures he did everything he humanly could to keep him from transforming into a dangerous beast and he still transformed anyway. I suspect Snape felt a little betrayed by Dumbledore at the end as well. He probably comes to suspect that Dumbledore helped Harry to free Sirius for some reason despite his own experience of Sirius as being quite capable of murder. Dumbledore might be the only person who normally cares about Snape, so it probably hurt him a lot to think Dumbledore went behind his back for Sirius' sake. He might feel that after about 20 years of keeping the same secret that his obligation just ended. Of course he did the *wrong* thing, but we see that much better than he does. Now, to answer the question, I think the single most terrible thing he did -- with lasting consequences -- was to refuse to hear out the theory about Peter-is-Scabbers. If he could have been patient for about five minutes, Sirius might have been cleared. However I think the one thing he did that simply bothers me the most was to threaten Lupin with the Dementor's kiss. No one deserves that, not even a murderer. /Rebecca, who should be getting back to work now. :-) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ChaserChick at hotmail.com Thu Jan 3 22:20:47 2002 From: ChaserChick at hotmail.com (Liz Sager) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 16:20:47 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Untackled (?) Questions Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32678 >In book 3, Quidditch Final, Lee comments on the > > beater > > work of George Weasley. How could he have known it > > was > > HIM (not Fred)? I mean, flying at top speed and > > everything, he recognized George. I take it that Lee and the Weasley twins are very good friends, and therefore Lee can tell the difference even up in the air, or perhaps George has a different flying style or something of that sort that distinguishes him from Fred. Liz _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com From christi0469 at hotmail.com Thu Jan 3 21:47:22 2002 From: christi0469 at hotmail.com (christi0469) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 21:47:22 -0000 Subject: Romulus and Remus(Lupin) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32679 If JKR named Lupin Remus for symbolic reasons, who represents Romulus? When is Remus going to get jealous of Romulus, which will lead to Romulus killing Remus. I really hope that JKR just thought that Romulus or Remus would be a funny name for a Werewolf, and chose Remus because it sounded more like a real(or contemporary)name. In my first reading of GoF, I did not pick up on the Remus thing:however, I did wonder about his last name being Lupin. Of course, I thought it might just represent that he was not what he seemed, or that he might be a villain. BTW, I'm pretty much a newbie here. I just starting reading the HP series at Thanksgiving, and received PoA and GoF for Christmas. I spent all night Christmas and most of the day Dec 26 reading those books all the way through and am now hopelessly addicted. Lucky for me I found this discussion group, or I seriously doubt I would be able to survive until the 5th book comes out. My husband is already giving me a hard time about having read the books twice. Christi From gingerorlando at hotmail.com Thu Jan 3 22:12:21 2002 From: gingerorlando at hotmail.com (katrionabowman) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 22:12:21 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts communications (was: Re: More about technology/electricity at Hogwarts) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32680 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "acci0firebolt" wrote: > And along those lines, how do the Dursleys manage to send Harry his > 10 pence piece or whatever he gets for Christmas in SS/PS? I would > imagine that the Dursleys would not be too keen on using owls, and > they wouldn't be up to relaying it through another wizarding family > either ... ? > - Irene good point irene! and surely a regular mailing address which the dursleys could use would reveal the location of hogwarts to muggles. perhaps there's a forwarding system somewhere... kt in seattle From andrew_macian at yahoo.com Thu Jan 3 20:51:16 2002 From: andrew_macian at yahoo.com (Andrew MacIan) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 12:51:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Werewolf Theories (WAS Sappy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020103205116.3617.qmail@web9507.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32681 Greetings from Andrew! A short reply, in re real world lyncanthropy/magick... {snip} > > Slon wrote: > > > > > > > Now, from all this, we can clearly see that > > Lupin was outside when the moon was up, but didn't transform because > > the moon was hidden behind clouds. It is only when the clouds shift > > and he is touched by moonlight that he transforms. > > --- cindysphynx wrote: > > Hmmm, I know there has been a lot of discussion > > about this in the past. I think the upshot is that the way JKR > > wrote these transformation scenes is somewhat illogical > > because if Lupin has to be touched by the moon to transform, then all he'd > > have to do is park himself in a dark closet to avoid the problem > > altogether. Elizabeth's theory solves that problem because he > > can't hide in a closet because he is drawn to the moon, of course. > > But that requires me to believe that moonlight is streaming into the > > Shrieking Shack, which I'm not buying just yet. In Romany legend, the wereX (for there are many sorts; wolves happen to be the 'poster children' of the class, as it were) feels the rising of the Moon and then seeks the light. However, also per those legends, even if the wereX is imprisoned in the dark, it still changes simply because the Moon is full. As for the modern magickal sense of this, I would say that it is an application of the Rule of Similarity: As the Moon changes, so does the wereX. The actual syndrome is a case of the Rule of Contagion. Cheers, Andrew ===== 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 your FREE holiday greetings online! http://greetings.yahoo.com From christi0469 at hotmail.com Thu Jan 3 23:09:30 2002 From: christi0469 at hotmail.com (christi0469) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 23:09:30 -0000 Subject: Hand of Glory Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32682 I looked up the lore on the Hand of Glory. Supposedly it had to be cut from the body of a hanged criminal, drained of blood, and treated with certain materials and incantations. It was used by thieves to give light while the household in question slept. First the thief would say an incantation. Then he would either treat the fingers with some sort of ointment and light them, or use the hand to hold a candle that was made to include the dead man's fat. The hand would provide light, as well as assure that the household would not wake up no matter how noisy the thief was. As an added bonus not all of the fingers would light if someone in the household was still awake. Supposedly people actually believed in this, as there are several versions of the story and someone supposedly found one of these hands in their attic (Yech!) and donated it to a museum. I'm not sure if this is at all important to the HP universe or CoS, but it is at least an interesting, if somewhat disgusting, little piece of background information. Christi From srae1971 at iglou.com Thu Jan 3 23:38:36 2002 From: srae1971 at iglou.com (Shannon) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 18:38:36 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Muggle Mail/McConagal Knowing In-Reply-To: <006a01c19491$11b66760$68a1dec7@rainbow> References: Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.20020103183836.00a83828@pop.iglou.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32683 At 02:58 PM 1/3/2002 -0500, Lily wrote: >midwife34 at aol.com writes: >> The second time she arrived, I suppose she heard all the >> screaming from the fat lady as she was attacked by Sirius after he >> awakened Ron.Of course she didn't start off by saying, " ok , who >> vandalized the portrait? " when she entered the common room > >That's a very good theory! But he would have slashed the portrait to gain >entrance to the hall BEFORE awakening Ron, right? And if so, that would have >given McConagal even more time to hear the fat lady and then dash into the >hall as Ron screamed. > Ok, hang on. Sirius slashes the portrait on a different night than when he wakes Ron. He slashes the portrait because he's angry that the fat lady won't let him in. They are all coming up to the dormitory and the crowd is all hanging around outside because the fat lady has disappeared. Peeves tells Dumbledore it was Sirius Black. When Sirius wakes Ron, *that* is when Sir Cadogan is in the portrait...he lets him in because Crookshanks stole Neville's password list. As for how Professor McGonagall knows what's going on, I suspect she has her rooms fairly close to the Gryffindor dorms since she is, after all, the head of Gryffindor. More than likely she simply heard the racket they were all making. She couldn't possibly be hanging around in her cat form since they all know what she looks like, and way too much plotting goes on in that common room for them to know she's likely to stroll through, silent as a cat, at any moment. :) Shannon From jenrose981 at hotmail.com Thu Jan 3 23:40:08 2002 From: jenrose981 at hotmail.com (Jennifer Kington) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 18:40:08 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] snape is a dufus Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32684 >From: "jrober4211" >Reply-To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com >To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com >Subject: [HPforGrownups] snape is a dufus >Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 08:32:24 -0000 >jo ellen wrote: >For those members of the group who are not familiar >with "the Andy Griffith Show" in the states, Snape is a dead ringer >for deputy Barney Fife, who always had to keep his bullet for his gun >in his shirt pocket to keep from shooting himself in the foot. Jenrose writes: All I have to say is, where in all the books did you come up with this idea?!!! These characters are so different they can't even be compared. Barney Fife was a physically funny character, very naive, always screwing something up and occasionally causing himself physical harm. Snape just has poor judgement sometimes, he's biased by his past, which we know very little about. He hates Harry simply because of James, though we don't yet know Snape's full history. I find it extremely hard to believe that someone like Barney Fife could successfully spy for Dumbledore and not be found out, and murdered within the span of a day or two. Furthermore, can you honestly picture Alan Rickman in full Snape costume playing Barney in an episode of the show?! I know I can't! _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com From rainbow at rainbowbrite.net Thu Jan 3 23:53:05 2002 From: rainbow at rainbowbrite.net (Lily Potter) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 18:53:05 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Muggle Mail/McConagal Knowing References: <3.0.1.32.20020103183836.00a83828@pop.iglou.com> Message-ID: <00a301c194b1$ca218080$4b07000a@711> No: HPFGUIDX 32685 > Ok, hang on. Sirius slashes the portrait on a different night than when he > wakes Ron. He slashes the portrait because he's angry that the fat lady > won't let him in. They are all coming up to the dormitory and the crowd is > all hanging around outside because the fat lady has disappeared. Peeves > tells Dumbledore it was Sirius Black. When Sirius wakes Ron, *that* is > when Sir Cadogan is in the portrait...he lets him in because Crookshanks > stole Neville's password list. Ooook.....thanks for clearing that up :) I was getting all confuzzled.. > As for how Professor McGonagall knows what's going on, I suspect she has > her rooms fairly close to the Gryffindor dorms since she is, after all, the > head of Gryffindor. More than likely she simply heard the racket they were > all making. She couldn't possibly be hanging around in her cat form since > they all know what she looks like, and way too much plotting goes on in > that common room for them to know she's likely to stroll through, silent as > a cat, at any moment. :) I didn't mean that she's *always* in the common room in cat form. But late at night, when the students are asleep, it would make good sense to do so - especially when Sirius is on the loose and they're fearful for Harry's life. But you're right, she probably doesn't do that, because if she did, Harry would have a heck of a time sneaking out in the middle of the night ;) .. )) -::- . .)) ((. .. -::- Lily -::- -::- ((.* From virtualworldofhp at yahoo.com Fri Jan 4 00:11:02 2002 From: virtualworldofhp at yahoo.com (virtualworldofhp) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 00:11:02 -0000 Subject: Snape & the Map (was The Worst of Severus Snape) In-Reply-To: <759A085B4DB9AF47AD5BB22098C917280752C7@cnncex01.turner.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32686 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Allen, Rebecca" wrote: > Snape probably imagines that Lupin gave Harry the map to lure him out of school and into Sirius's clutches. What I've never understood is how Snape suspects what Harry is holding is the Map. Well, granted he may not know exactly that the piece of parchment was the Marauder's Map, but something about it obviously drew his suspicions. What was the "direct from the manufacturers" comment? Lupin always gave me the impression that absolutely *NO ONE*, save the Marauders themselves, knows/knew about the Map, so why does Snape have suspicions. It's clearly something more than Snape thinking, "Hmmm, Potter has old parchment in his pocket--clearly something illegal and up to no good!"--that's just far too much of a stretch for me. What gives with Snape's actions? A Flint? -Megan (who knows Snape is unnaturally suspicious, but thinks JKR paints it out to the fact that we obviously suspects something about the Map and that this is inaccurate) From zoehooch at yahoo.com Fri Jan 4 00:16:00 2002 From: zoehooch at yahoo.com (zoehooch) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 00:16:00 -0000 Subject: Keeping up with Muggle events (Was: What to do with the Quidditch team? ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32687 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Martin Smith" wrote: > Friends, I bid you welcome to speculate on how Muggle-borns, half- > bloods and most likely some Muggle-interested purebloods keep > themselves up to date on > Muggleverse news while spending most of their time at Hogwarts. The > discussion is opened! Perhaps Dean reads Muggle newspapers. IN GoF, Dumbledore reveals that he reads Muggle newspapers, while admitting that many in the magical community do not. Perhaps Dean has a subscription to the Guardian that is delivered each day by Owl, via his parents. Or perhaps the library has a subscription, at the request of the headmaster. Z. Hooch From pennylin at swbell.net Fri Jan 4 00:56:37 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny & Bryce) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 18:56:37 -0600 Subject: Newbies, Old Topics & Patience with Threads we Dislike References: <20020103210514.34574.qmail@web14001.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3C34FDC5.2020107@swbell.net> No: HPFGUIDX 32688 Hi all -- Mary Shearer wrote: > Yes, Tabouli, made it to the end! Though I still think > the whole age classification debate stems from our > guilt issues...what do you think? Thanks for sticking > up for us newbies (and oldies) who have been chewing > the age-classification scenery lately. Worked for over > an hour on a thoughtful response, then discovered a > posting in the inbox that basically said, "shut up!" > before I ever hit "send!" Please be patient with the > newbies, everyone. Eventually, we will be up to > speed! Mary, please don't apologize! As List mum, I want to reiterate to everyone that all on-topic discussions are welcome here, even if the old-timers have hashed & rehashed & rehashed it to death. There is absolutely no reason for anyone (whether an old member or a newbie) to try & quash ongoing conversations that others are enjoying. As Tabouli mentioned, I am participating in the age/literature classification debates, and I'm enjoying them immensely. There are other conversations going on that I'm not reading because they hold little interest for me. But, it doesn't mean I or anyone else should try to silence those who are going on their merry way with a particular topic. Newbies in particular should feel free to discuss any topics that are new to them, but shouldn't be surprised if many of the old members choose not to traverse that same territory for the 100th time. Some of us have been members for 2 yrs or close to it at this point (my own 2nd anniversary is coming up later this month .. will need to find the exact day in the Archives). We've not had any new material (other than the schoolbooks) in 1.5 yrs. There's not much "new" really, but there can always be new perspectives or opinions. It's very rude IMO for anyone to try & squelch a discussion topic because they dislike it or they find it boring or they judge that it's been done to death. If there are 2 or more people enjoying the thread and it's on-topic (and it's not about to devolve into a flame war or something truly controversial), it should be allowed to continue without heckling from other members. Back to your regularly scheduled conversations! Penny From Zarleycat at aol.com Fri Jan 4 01:32:29 2002 From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 01:32:29 -0000 Subject: snape is a dufus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32689 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jrober4211" wrote: > I have read all the posts about Snape and some of the things people > come up with are almost laughable to me. Based strictly on previous > canon from the four books, Snape is always a "day late and a dollar > short" so to speak. He has always missed the point, or misses > integral parts of conversations such as the confrontation at the > shreiking shack. Snape is notorious for jumping to the wrong > conclusions based on just a few facts , instead of having all the > variables to consider in a situation. And Snape isn't interested in > hearing all the facts, as evidenced by his treatment of Harry when he > confronts him sneaking around the castle late at night. With these > personality traits so obvious in all four books, I can see how Snape > got drawn into being a death eater and previously following > Voldemort. For those members of the group who are not familiar > with "the Andy Griffith Show" in the states, Snape is a dead ringer > for deputy Barney Fife, who always had to keep his bullet for his gun > in his shirt pocket to keep from shooting himself in the foot. > Whoa! I can't really believe I'm doing this, but I feel compelled to ride to Snape's defense. As an aside, someone posted a thought a while ago that wondered/proposed that people either liked Snape or Sirius and if you liked one character, you really didn't like the other. I am firmly in the Sirius camp - I'd happily throw Snape off a cliff and ride off into the sunset with Sirius. But...I'm also of the opinion that you have to give the devil his due. Yes, Snape can be a right bastard. He's inexplicably mean to Neville, and allows his dislike of James Potter and friends to infect his teacher-student relationship with Harry. But, he did protect Harry from Quirrel in PS/SS at one Quidditch match and was the referee in another in order to prevent a similar attack on Harry. Yes, he lost it in PoA in the Shrieking Shack scene, but it really wasn't his fault that he arrived when he did. Should he have relaxed and given Remus and Sirius a chance to explain the situation? I'd say yes, but, given the history between these 3 characters, plus the presence of 3 youngsters, one of whom already has a broken leg, in the company of a convicted murderer and a man who at any moment will transform into a werewolf, and I could at least understand why he acted as he did. Snape does not approve of rule-breakers. No student is supposed to be sneaking around the castle at night. Just because he catches Harry doesn't mean he's been lying in wait for that opportunity. Snape is probably happy to nail any student who's out of bounds. Whether this is how he feels a professor must act, or whether this is an outgrowth of some old, deep-seated anger at MWPP for all the rule- breaking they did without getting expelled, I don't know. But I think it's safe to say that Snape believes in playing by the rules, and that the rules apply to everyone, even Harry. Don't we all want that to be true in our own lives - that no one is given preferential treatment because of their birth or their looks or because they're famous? As far as Barney Fife goes, well, Snape has a lot of dislikable qualities, but he's not an idiot. Marianne, wondering whether she's developed a split personality. From bookraptor11 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 4 02:04:18 2002 From: bookraptor11 at yahoo.com (bookraptor11) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 02:04:18 -0000 Subject: The Best of Lupin (was the Worst of Snape) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32690 I've been reading the thread about the worst of Snape. I agree that letting slip Lupin was a werewolf was partly vindictiveness, but also feel Snape is sincerely concerned about the safety of the students, that the danger outweighed the good of Lupin having a paying job. That being said, given Lupin's conversation with Harry at the end of POA, I'm pretty firmly convinced that Lupin would have resigned on his own without any "help" from Snape. He tells Harry, "And after last night, I see [the parents'] point. I could have bitten any of you...That must never happen again." Also he knows he should have told Dumbledore about Sirius being an animagus. It's an understandable weakness, he didn't like D to know he was taking such risks after being given an unheard of chance to be a student in spite of his affliction. Unlike Black and Snape, Lupin has matured rather than simply have gotten older. He would have done the right thing on his own. Donna From brewpub44 at earthlink.net Fri Jan 4 01:58:27 2002 From: brewpub44 at earthlink.net (brewpub44) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 01:58:27 -0000 Subject: Accio Charm (and a bit about portkeys & apparating) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32691 > > The only hole I find in this theory (which had occoured to me, being an > RPG fan), is that Ron's mother accios the fake items from the twin's > pockets without even knowing what they were or even if they truly > existed. > > Any views on this? > > Grey Wolf Wow! Great observation! OK, how's this: a) she saw them put something in their pockets (not likely) b) she obviously sees that "something" is in their pockets. The pockets themselves are visible, they're bulging out or something. There has to be something there, and she knows it (more likely) For example, if a wizard saw a tablecloth over an obvious object underneath, that person could Accio it into his or her hand. Of course, this could be verrrrry dangerous. It could be a bowling ball with teeth or something. It would be different if there was an object in a tablecloth in a room not in view. Then there's nothing there as far as the person knows, hence, no Accio. A Barkeep in Diagon Alley From editor at texas.net Fri Jan 4 03:22:54 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Lewanski) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 21:22:54 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] snape is a dufus References: Message-ID: <3C35200C.F7DBF9D@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 32692 jrober4211 wrote: > I have read all the posts about Snape If you genuinely have, all the archived stuff and everything, I salute you! > and some of the things people come up with are almost laughable to me. > Based strictly on previous canon from the four books, Snape is always > a "day late and a dollar > short" so to speak. He has always missed the point, or misses integral > parts of conversations such as the confrontation at the shreiking > shack. And not being present and/or conscious for key revelations is his fault how...? > Snape is notorious for jumping to the wrong conclusions based on just > a few facts , instead of having all the > variables to consider in a situation. I don't know that he "jumped" there. He does draw the wrong conclusions, but generally with some justification--circumstantial, mostly, but some clearly drawn on past experience. One cannot be expected to know that one does not have all the variables; when it seems to someone that they have enough evidence to draw a conclusion, they do so. And if evidence is later presented to change that conclusion, they change. And Snape does, albeit with small grace--he has clearly been briefed by Dumbledore, for instance, as to the actualities of the situation where Sirius is concerned, and has adjusted his conclusions. He still hates the ground Sirius walks on, but he is not treating him like a deranged murdering threat to society. > And Snape isn't interested in hearing all the facts, as evidenced by > his treatment of Harry when he confronts him sneaking around the > castle late at night. If I found a kid sneaking around a castle late at night, I don't know that I'd listen to him either. I'd be sleepy, for one, and pissed at not being asleep. But I'm not sure which instance you are referring to; I can't get more specific. > With these personality traits so obvious in all four books, I can see > how Snape got drawn into being a death eater and previously following > Voldemort. I just don't see Snape as the impulsive type. His actions and conclusions seem to me, while generally wrong, to be based on a decent analysis of the information he's got (I am not talking about his general nastiness to students, which seems like something he does just to pass the time; I'm talking about genuine moments where we see him in real interactions and stressful situations). > For those members of the group who are not familiar with "the Andy > Griffith Show" in the states, Snape is a dead ringer for deputy Barney > Fife, who always had to keep his bullet for his gun in his shirt > pocket to keep from shooting himself in the foot. This, I don't see. Snape does not bumble. Lockhart seems more like Fife than Snape, who kept his head in the duel scene, led the quashing of Lockhart in the staffroom, walked knowingly into a room holding two very dangerous people to catch them and save three idiot kids, who carried out Dumbledore's orders quietly and efficiently at the end of Goblet of Fire, who unhesitatingly revealed his former DeathEater status in front of several non-impartial people to help Dumbledore convince Fudge....I could go on. Snape seems more the in-control-to-the-point-of-repression type, especially in light of when he *does* lose it in the Shrieking Shack. If you're going to throw gauntlets down where Snape is concerned, you need to back up your assertions with more than "I think this." I'd like to see examples in canon of *why* you think that. --Amanda *whispers* It's spelled "doofus" [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From editor at texas.net Fri Jan 4 03:48:16 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Lewanski) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 21:48:16 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: snape is a dufus References: Message-ID: <3C3525FF.DDB0166E@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 32693 kiricat2001 wrote: > Marianne, wondering whether she's developed a split personality. No, dear, just improved taste..... Seriously, I will point out again the contrast in how Sirius and Snape treat the unconscious members of their party on Shrieking Shack Night---Sirius lets the unconscious Snape float along and bob'n'scrape against the ceiling; Snape conjures stretchers for the injured Ron, out-cold Harry, and needing-to-be-restrained Sirius. Most everybody, when I mention this, just blows it off for one reason or another, and it certainly doesn't make him a candidate for Humanitarian of the Year, but I think this is an interesting comparison. --Amanda, who really doesn't hate Sirius, but who won't excuse him for a joke that could have killed someone on the basis of his age [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From editor at texas.net Fri Jan 4 04:00:16 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Lewanski) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 22:00:16 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape & the Map (was The Worst of Severus Snape) References: Message-ID: <3C3528D0.3335DD4E@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 32694 virtualworldofhp wrote: > What I've never understood is how Snape suspects what Harry is > holding is the Map. Well, granted he may not know exactly that the > piece of parchment was the Marauder's Map, but something about it > obviously drew his suspicions. It was (a) in Harry's pocket, (b) old, dirty, and *blank,* and (c) Harry rather desperately stopped him when he offered to toss it in the fire. Snape was going over all the stuff Harry had; the stuff in the bag was not unusual, and a blank, old, dirty parchment that Harry wants to keep, *is.* > What was the "direct from the manufacturers" comment? Lupin always > gave me the impression that absolutely *NO > ONE*, save the Marauders themselves, knows/knew about the Map, so why > does Snape have suspicions. Here's been my thought. I think Snape knows those names quite well--Moony, Padfoot, Wormtail, and Prongs. Those names were the Marauders' aliases while in school, and I think it more than likely that Snape had a trick or two played upon him by those four (or at least, Mr. Padfoot). So he is acquainted with those names and is alarmed that Harry has a magical parchment that they are involved with. That said, I have always thought it odd that Snape summoned Lupin and asked him about "the manufacturers" with, to me, no overtones of knowing that Lupin *was* one of them. So, I think that Snape is not aware of the true identies of the bearers of those names. [Nor does he hear, by the way, that part of the explanation in the Shrieking Shack; I don't remember if he's not there yet, or is out cold yet, but he hears only that they were animagi, not their forms or their names for themselves.] Anyway, such has been my analysis of the scene. It always stood out to me that Snape twigged on those manufacturers as something to be concerned about, yet did not confront Lupin as one of them, rather treating him as a resource to consult about it. I think the nature of the prank(s) played upon Snape under those names might well have given him some cause for concern, given the following: (a) Snape knows there is a dangerous murderer on the loose (b) Snape believes Harry to be in particular danger from this murderer (c) The influence of this object, whatever it is, will either be to enchant Harry or induce him to bypass the rules and strictures set up to protect him So, does this make any sense to you, or help the scene flow better? --Amanda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Jefrigo21 at aol.com Fri Jan 4 00:00:23 2002 From: Jefrigo21 at aol.com (Jefrigo21 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 19:00:23 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Muggle Mail/McConagal Knowing Message-ID: <158.6b4006f.29664a97@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32695 In a message dated 1/3/02 4:57:54 PM Central Standard Time, rainbow at rainbowbrite.net writes: > Nopers, not at this point in the book. They got Sir Cadgon to replace the > Fat Lady *after* this event where Sirius slashed her picture. Or did the > slashing take place on a different night than the night when Sirius woke up > Ron? Oh now i'm all confused :P I wish i had a digital copy of the book so > i > could do a search on it instead of flipping through pages hoping to stumble > across the part i'm looking for : Ok I had in mind when Sirius did make it into the common room, the second time. The original poster did not state it. I guess we got our wires crossed. Joanna (who is looking forward for the break ending and starting a new semester at college) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From grrlscout678 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 4 00:01:09 2002 From: grrlscout678 at yahoo.com (grrlscout678) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 00:01:09 -0000 Subject: The Worst of Severus Snape In-Reply-To: <759A085B4DB9AF47AD5BB22098C917280752C7@cnncex01.turner.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32696 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Allen, Rebecca" wrote: > Cindy wrote: > > > > But what is the very worst, single most terrible thing Snape has done > > and why? > My vote would have to be for the scene in GoF when Malfoy accidentally engorges Hermione's teeth, and Snape, on seeing her front teeth growing down past her chin, says, "I see no difference," causing Malfoy and the Slytherins no end of amusement. Granted, it didn't have the lasting results that his "outing" of Lupin did, but unlike that instance, there is no justification for him humiliating Hermione like that. She's the best student in his class (unlike Neville, whom Snape might think deserves his ridicule for his ineptitude), she wasn't involved in the duel that resulted in her being cursed, and she has in Snape's eyes committed no greater sin than being friends with Harry & co. Anyone who spends as much time with teenagers as Snape does should know how cruel it is to tease a 14-year-old girl like that, and how inappropriate it is for a teacher to do so in front of an entire class. There is just no way to excuse his actions this time. Of course, our Hermione is made of stronger stuff than most teenage girls and was able to shrug it off, but not before running down the corridor in tears. Hey, I'm all for defending Snape -- I think he's one of the good guys too, and why should Sirius get all the glory? -- but he's still highly unlikeable (note that after that episode our own sweet Harry spent the rest of the Potions class fantasizing about putting Snape under the Cruciatus curse). :) Scout From hazel-rah7 at juno.com Fri Jan 4 00:20:46 2002 From: hazel-rah7 at juno.com (hazel-rah7 at juno.com) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 18:20:46 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape?... A question... Message-ID: <20020103.182117.-3906561.0.hazel-rah7@juno.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32697 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Allen, Rebecca" wrote: > By the same token, I think Snape is doing Harry more of a favor than Harry >realizes just by being so infuriating. It's the same will power and self control that >Harry (slowly!) develops in his effort to keep his temper with Snape that also >helps him overcome Voldemort at the end of GoF. Snape's sadism is very trivial >compared to Voldemort's, and Snape probably knows this given that he no doubt >remembers V. at his worst from back in the day. Now I'm not sure if Snape's >treatment of Harry stems from something like affection; it's probably more of a >lucky coincidence that Harry needs practice in dealing with viciousness and Snape >is all too happy to oblige. ~*Here's a new one. Maybe Dumbledore is forcing Snape to teach at Hogwarts as a sanction for his DE days (the ultimate punishment for someone who clearly hates children - Dumbledore must have a good sense of humor). So Snape mistreats all the kiddies in the hopes that Dumbledore will fire him! Aha! Solved! Or, maybe not. Snape could simply be a cruel, sadistic nazi who delights in hurting others doesn't care about anything. I'd like to believe that somehow it's not his fault, but if JKR lets us Snapefans down and it turns out he's just "Like That" and will never change, I'll sure be disappointed. ~*Amanda Snape*~ If you are reading this, it means that I finally managed to get a real post past the mods! Yay for me! ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. From jojo_mcfields at hotmail.com Fri Jan 4 00:28:49 2002 From: jojo_mcfields at hotmail.com (jojo_mcfields) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 00:28:49 -0000 Subject: Is Lilly Potter even Harry's Real Mother? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32698 I have a question about the end of the last book when Potter and Voldemort were dueling and all people he had killed came out of Voldemort's wand in reverse order. How come James Potter came out first and then Lilly Potter? I thought in all those flashbacks James Potter was supposed to have fought Voldemort first and then Lilly tried to protect Harry. However, the book 4 duel shows that Voldemort killed Lilly first and then James. So, is there something I'm missing or maybe the woman holding the baby Harry at the end is not Lilly or what?The ghostlike James in the duel also told Harry that he was going to meet his mother, but did he specifically say "Lilly"?Is she even his real mother? "jojo_mcfields" From Rebecca.Allen at turner.com Fri Jan 4 00:28:40 2002 From: Rebecca.Allen at turner.com (Allen, Rebecca) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 19:28:40 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape & the Map (was The Worst of Severus Snape) Message-ID: <759A085B4DB9AF47AD5BB22098C917280752D1@cnncex01.turner.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32699 Megan wrote: > What I've never understood is how Snape suspects what Harry is holding > is the Map. Well, granted he may not know exactly that the piece of > parchment was the Marauder's Map, but something about it obviously > drew his suspicions. What was the "direct from the manufacturers" > comment? Lupin always gave me the impression that absolutely *NO > ONE*, save the Marauders themselves, knows/knew about the Map, so why > does Snape have suspicions. It's clearly something more than Snape > thinking, "Hmmm, Potter has old parchment in his pocket--clearly > something illegal and up to no good!"--that's just far too much of a > stretch for me. What gives with Snape's actions? A Flint? I realize I was speculating here; but I have some reasons to assume Snape had an idea of what the map was. 1. Snape hears from Draco that Harry's head has appeared in Hogsmeade (how Draco gets from the Shrieking Shack back to Snape's office that fast is another good question). He soon locates Harry in a random part of the castle; he is covered in mud, out of breath, and carrying two things in his pockets: some candy that could only have come from Hogsmeade and a very old, blank piece of parchment. I think at this point Snape wondered if the parchment had some secret information about a shortcut to Hogsmeade from within the castle. He doesn't have to know it's a map of the whole school, just wonder if it could help Harry get to town. 2. Then Snape pokes at the map and gets insulted by MWP&P. I'm guessing here that he might have known the nicknames of the Marauders, even if he doesn't know why (he knows Lupin is an animagus but I don't think he ever figured out the rest became animagi; still he spied on them a lot and could have noticed what they called each other). Since he knows that Lupin was good friends with Sirius, and that this might be something of theirs, his suspicions go through the roof. 3. He immediately gets Lupin to floo in and questions him in a really cryptic way, as if he's trying to let Lupin know he's onto him without either showing his hand or letting Harry know what he means. Lupin is obviously trying not to say anything that incriminates him or Harry, but Snape must suspect he's bluffing. Then of course Ron runs in with an alibi, and everybody's off the hook for now. But since Snape's powers of 'putting two and two together' are legendary, it makes sense he'd have some suspicions. Make any sense? /Rebecca [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Calypso8604 at aol.com Fri Jan 4 05:21:27 2002 From: Calypso8604 at aol.com (Calypso8604 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 00:21:27 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Is Lilly Potter even Harry's Real Mother? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32700 In a message dated 1/4/2002 12:18:28 AM Eastern Standard Time, jojo_mcfields at hotmail.com writes: > I have a question about the end of the last book when Potter and > Voldemort were dueling and all people he had killed came out of > Voldemort's wand in reverse order. How come James Potter came out > first and then Lilly Potter? I thought in all those flashbacks James > Potter was supposed to have fought Voldemort first and then Lilly > tried to protect Harry. However, the book 4 duel shows that Voldemort > killed Lilly first and then James. So, is there something I'm missing > or maybe the woman holding the baby Harry at the end is not Lilly or > what?The ghostlike James in the duel also told Harry that he was > going to meet his mother, but did he specifically say "Lilly"?Is she > even his real mother? This was an error. It has been fixed in newer versions of GoF, having James come out *after* Lily like he's supposed to. I believe there are pictures of the original text and fixed text in the files section. And, my inner-perfectionist must point this out, Lily Potter's name is only spelled with one 'L'. Sorry, habit! :-D Calypso "Writing is easy. All you do is stare at a blank sheet of paper until drops of blood form on your forehead." - Gene Fowler [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Seiryuu_Avatar at msn.com Fri Jan 4 00:55:50 2002 From: Seiryuu_Avatar at msn.com (Brian Yoon) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 16:55:50 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape & the Map (was The Worst of Severus Snape) References: Message-ID: <00a001c194bc$32a01900$7f28fea9@yoonabomber> No: HPFGUIDX 32701 From: virtualworldofhp > What I've never understood is how Snape suspects what Harry is holding > is the Map. Well, granted he may not know exactly that the piece of > parchment was the Marauder's Map, but something about it obviously > drew his suspicions. What was the "direct from the manufacturers" > comment? Lupin always gave me the impression that absolutely *NO > ONE*, save the Marauders themselves, knows/knew about the Map, so Here's my go at a theory on that: The Map had already been confiscated once. Even though the authorities never actually figured it out (I still wonder how the Weasley twins did), it might have been involved in some mischief beforehand to warrant being taken. Perhaps Snape had been involved in an accident with the Map before? He might just think it was Dark Magic, as he accused it of being. He might not have known it was a Map until he actually saw it on Lupin's desk. (The fact that Lupin knows how to use a "Dark" artifact might have in fact, closed any doubts Snape had about Lupin's innocence in the Sirius affair.) Seiryuu aka Brian Yoon AIM: Akodo Brian From hazel-rah7 at juno.com Fri Jan 4 01:08:49 2002 From: hazel-rah7 at juno.com (hazel-rah7 at juno.com) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 19:08:49 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups]The ~*BEST*~ of Severus Snape (was: The Worst of Severus Snape) Message-ID: <20020103.190955.-3906561.2.hazel-rah7@juno.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32702 On Thu, 03 Jan 2002 15:58:58 -0000 "cindysphynx" writes: > But what is the very worst, single most terrible thing Snape has > done and why? ~*Now now, I think that's just a tad bit negative. Let's be fair. ::innocent smile:: You can all come up with your "I Hate Snape" slogans and bash him until the cows come home, but I think we should reserve judgement until we know for sure that he's not Satan incarnate. Okay, so that might take most of the fun out of discussing everyone's _favorite_ character, but anyway.... why not focus on the positive -- the BEST of Severus Snape? At least he does *some* things right. I very much enjoyed seeing him stand up to Fudge in GoF. In fact, I'd *love* to see him pick on someone his own size more often. ~*Amanda Snape*~ who finds it absolutely hilarious that everytime she does a spell check for her emails, the computer wants to change "HPforGrownups" to "phosphorus". ::chuckle:: Technology....... ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. From brewpub44 at earthlink.net Fri Jan 4 01:31:46 2002 From: brewpub44 at earthlink.net (brewpub44) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 01:31:46 -0000 Subject: Just Wondering...Add Your Opinion... (Pettigrew) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32703 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jrober4211" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "alihp719" wrote: > > Here are just a few thoughts and curiosities I have with Harry... > > (I am sorry if they were already posted!) > > > > > > Why would Scabbers bite Goyle on the train to Hogwarts when he, > > Crabbe, and Malfoy are annoying Ron, Hermione and Harry? Wouldn't > > he like them considering their families are Voldemort's supporters as > > well? > > > > alihp719 > It depends on what you think Pettigrew's deal is. I look at Pettigrew as a pitiful character. Pettigrew hates serving LV. He is afraid, feels he has no choice but to serve, isn't particularly powerful ('gas explosion' notwithstanding, it hasn't been explained how he did that stunt). He was basically LV's slave in the past and is his slave again. He saw an opportunity to lash out at the DEs in the only way he could at the moment. I think he is actually loyalty-less (is that a word)? He betrayed the Potters, and he'll betray LV. He is a sniveling coward, and htat's that. However, some read Pettigrew as a thoroughly evil individual, LV's perfect partner, incompetent yes but committed to the DE cause. If this is the case, well, then maybe he bit Crab and Goyle because their parents gave up on LV after the incident with Harry Potter. A Barkeep in Diagon Alley From christi0469 at hotmail.com Fri Jan 4 04:05:50 2002 From: christi0469 at hotmail.com (christi0469) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 04:05:50 -0000 Subject: snape is a dufus In-Reply-To: <3C3525FF.DDB0166E@texas.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32704 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Amanda Lewanski wrote: > kiricat2001 wrote: > > People> > > > Marianne, wondering whether she's developed a split personality. > > No, dear, just improved taste..... > > Seriously, I will point out again the contrast in how Sirius and Snape > treat the unconscious members of their party on Shrieking Shack > Night---Sirius lets the unconscious Snape float along and bob'n'scrape > against the ceiling; Snape conjures stretchers for the injured Ron, > out-cold Harry, and needing-to-be-restrained Sirius. Most everybody, > when I mention this, just blows it off for one reason or another, and it > certainly doesn't make him a candidate for Humanitarian of the Year, but > I think this is an interesting comparison. > > I thought the scene where Snape conjures up stretchers for everyone was actually sort of touching. At first it seemed somewhat out of character, but after reading the book a second time it seemed to indictate a depth to Snape that has yet to be explored. Of course, it would have been very irresponsible of Snape to leave the kids out for who knows what to find, and Sirius might have escaped if he were just left there, but the stretchers were a kinder conveyance than the mobilcorpus method. Perhaps if Snape were to get past all that baggage of his he could actually be a fairly cool guy, but I'm afraid that would sort of spoil things. After all, Harry's character would be less interesting if he didn't have the Dursleys, Snape and Malfoy as foils. After all, he can't battle LV for an entire book. And I actually find myself liking Snape, just because he is such a conflicted, baggage driven individual. It adds to his air of mystery. Christi,who could not be more suprised to find herself coming to the defense of Snape. From ChaserChick at hotmail.com Fri Jan 4 04:09:18 2002 From: ChaserChick at hotmail.com (Liz Sager) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 22:09:18 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Fudge's version of the Sirius/Peter encounter Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32705 >"dicentra_spectabilis_alba" wrote: >In PA, Fudge says that when he arrived on the scene, shortly after the >blast that "killed" Pettigrew, Sirius was laughing. > >Is this an embellishment of Fudge's or was Sirius laughing (or >something similar) and Fudge misinterpreted what he saw? Fudge seems to be the type of man that would embellish that kind of thing, whether it was for motives or other things. OTOH, Sirius might have been really laughing, though I fail to find the humor in the situation. I guess you had to be there and not die :P >If the former, did Fudge have an ulterior motive for making Sirius out >to be the villian? Could it be linked to his refusal to take >Voldemort's return seriously? Once again, Fudge seems to me the kind of man that refuses to look past the end of his nose unless someone reaches up and grabs that nose and stretches it out a few feet. Its easier to deny that Voldemort has been resurrected than to seriously investigate. Although if two of the four champions were suddenly wisked away to an undisclosed locale and one came back dead, there should be a light bulb going off in someone's head. I realize that there was nothing really to go on other than Harry's word, but immediately sentencing Barty Crouch Jr. to the Dementor's Kiss was really, *really* stupid. If he hadn't done that, then they might have gotten him put back in Azkaban, and maybe even a couple more things about him--because unless he had changed in the last eleven years he does NOT like Azkaban. My point is I wonder how someone like Fudge got to be in charge. *I* certainly wouldn't have voted for him (if that's how they get the MoM...*holds up her "Arthur Weasley for MoM" sign*) Liz _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx From IAmLordCassandra at aol.com Fri Jan 4 04:42:36 2002 From: IAmLordCassandra at aol.com (IAmLordCassandra at aol.com) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 23:42:36 EST Subject: Who did Voldemort Possess? Message-ID: <12b.a1aea46.29668cbc@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32706 (A few days ago a wrote a post about Voldemort's power to possess. I have a nasty habit of writting a post before I get all my thoughts collected and I don't think it was very clear. So I'm rewritting it. At least for my own peace of mind ^-^) "Only one power remained to me. I could possess the bodies of others." This quote has really got me thinking. He says the power *remained* to him. Well, who did he possess? And why? Why not just use the Imperius curse to control someone? The only reason I can figure is to do something vicariously through that person-but Who and What? And will he use this power again? Any ideas? ~Cassie~ From ChaserChick at hotmail.com Fri Jan 4 05:06:21 2002 From: ChaserChick at hotmail.com (Liz Sager) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 23:06:21 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Death rites and such Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32707 Cindy wrote: The other instance is Cedric's murder, >in which he asks that Harry take his body back to his parents. This >suggests that retrieving the body is very important in the wizarding >world as it is in the muggle world. Recently in L.A. we've been reading Greek Tragedy, and earlier, the Iliad and the Aeneid, and several times we've talked about how important a proper burial was to them. For example, when the Trojans returned Patroclus' body to the Greeks, but Achilles did not return Hector's until a plague was unleashed on the Greek army, or in "Oedipus Rex" when Jocasta kills herself (sorry to anyone I've just ruined that for) Oedipus begs Creon to give her a proper burial, and most recently in "Antigone", where Antigone goes to give her rebel brother a decent burial when Creon has decreed that he should rot in the fields. Maybe such is the case in the wizarding world where a decent burial is important to the family and friends or society of the deceased. Liz _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx From egility at yahoo.com Fri Jan 4 05:31:25 2002 From: egility at yahoo.com (egility) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 05:31:25 -0000 Subject: Return to Muggledom or the Ruby Slippers Theory Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32708 It seems most readers attribute LV's attacks on HP as an effort to eliminate the person(s) who has, or is prophesied to have, the power to destroy him. And this destruction is most often interpreted to be LV's death (*really*, irreversibly dead) or, in a minority of opinions, conversion or assimilation into the 'Good'. This line of thinking generally leads to a final battle of Good and Evil in which LV - and hence Evil in the Wizarding world - is destroyed. It is possible that HP may have to risk his own death to achieve this end. I like an alternative explanation that is not necessarily more likely, but is at least as plausible and in some ways I think more satisfying than the common wisdom. This idea has probably been discussed elsewhere in this group before and if so, I would appreciate any archival references from the members. LV seeks to kill Harry not because Harry can kill him, but because Harry has the possibility of removing all the magic from the world. Imagine a final conflict in which Harry has to choose between a magical world dominated by LV or a muggle world where he and his friends had to live without Hogwarts, powerlessly with the likes of the Dursleys. It has always troubled me that Dumbledore felt HP was not ready to know why LV wanted to kill him. Since HP had already faced LV and placed his life at risk in doing so (and has done so repeatedly in subsequent volumes) why is it inappropriate to tell HP that he is prophesied to have the power/opportunity to finally rid the world of LV? But if the final choice is between magical and muggle, then isn't it appropriate that Dumbledore's disclosure wait until Harry has the maturity to understand that life as a muggle will be OK? Harry's journey after all is not about becoming a better wizard, it is about becoming a better person. It is, we are told, the choices he makes that are important. The choice to return to the place from whence he came would complete the circle. In an "Oz" sort of way the journey through the magical world is as much a schooling as Hogwarts itself, such that upon graduation Harry is prepared to return to the muggle world and succeed, not because that world has changed, but because he has. In his first years at Hogwarts his Dursley experiences are still too raw and his infatuation with the magical too great. But as Harry matures, grows in confidence and, just as importantly, learns the warts and flaws of the Wizarding world are not so different from Privet Drive he can choose wisely between the two. It occurs to me that LV's true motivation and fixation is his hatred of mudbloods and muggles and that he seeks power not just for its own sake but to excise 'them' from his life. If HP were to make LV a muggle it would be a blow perhaps worse than death itself. This would certainly be adequate motivation for LV to target Harry. Why/How would Harry have this power? I speculate that it may be through or in concert with a device rather than just an inherited trait that is passed to him when he is ready, much in the same way the cloak was. It may also help explain in some way the mysterious wealth of his parents. It is also interesting to note that - and please excuse this one reference to the film - that James and Lilly were living as muggles at the time LV attacked them, although this is more commonly explained as part of their hiding tactics. It is possible that this power has to do with the phoenix that through its own regenerative powers would one day enable magic to return to the world. I like this theory because I find the departure/journey/return myth more satisfying than the simple battle of Good and Evil ending and because it gives JKR a good excuse to stop after the seventh book, for the remaining characters would then be muggles with "ordinary" lives thereafter. From the books and her interviews, JKR gives me the impression that she would like such an ending too. Of course I could be wrong... Chris:) From tabouli at unite.com.au Fri Jan 4 05:52:47 2002 From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 16:52:47 +1100 Subject: T.A.G.S. re-opens for 2002 with another long acronym Message-ID: <001801c194e4$25ae0360$ee30c2cb@price> No: HPFGUIDX 32709 Slon: > We need to start a group to suport the 'transforms only in direct moonlight' theory. Tabouli, can I call on your service one more time? We need a name.< Should I assume this group would subscribe to the "Lupin is drawn unstoppably to moonlight exposure" theory? If so, errr... how about... M.A.R.A.T.H.O.N.S.W.I.M. (Moonlight Attracts Remus And Transforms Him, Overcoming Nitpicky Suggestions Which Insinuate Miswriting). >Just please be sure to include L.I.D.S. somewhere in it (Lupin Is Dead Sexy).< Never let it be said that I shrink from challenges. All right, let's tack on some more... M.A.R.A.T.H.O.N.S.W.I.M.M.E.R.S.E.Y.E.L.I.D.S. (as above, plus: Maybe Even Rallying Smitten Enthusiasts Yelling Exultantly "Lupin Is Dead Sexy!") Or, if you want to emphasise the direct moonlight aspect: R.O.T.T.W.E.I.L.E.R.O.F.S.W.I.T.C.H. (Remus Only Truly Transforms When Experiencing Intense Lunar Exposure, Rendering Our Friend Safe When It's Totally Cloudy at Hogwarts) Tabouli (who wonders if she can somehow figure out a way of making money from this strange acronym generating ability she is developing, so that she can afford the currently doubtful-looking trip to the US she is meant to take in the middle of this year). [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From boggles at earthlink.net Fri Jan 4 07:25:51 2002 From: boggles at earthlink.net (Jennifer Boggess Ramon) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 01:25:51 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Worst of Severus Snape (WAS snape is a dufus) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32710 At 3:58 PM +0000 1/3/02, cindysphynx wrote: > >But what is the very worst, single most terrible thing Snape has done >and why? We don't know. He was a Death Eater. That almost certainly means he was once a user, and a proficient one, of one or more of the Unforgiveable Curses. He may have killed people. The absolute Worst thing he ever did probably falls somewhere in that time period. What was the worst thing he ever did in the stories? Probably interfering in the Shrieking Shack. It almost resulted in Sirius receiving the Dementor's Kiss. He was also partially responsible for Pettigrew's escape, and therefore for Voldemort's second rise. However, we don't know for certain that that wouldn't have happenned even if he hadn't shown up. What was the thing he did in the series that most struck me, personally, with the knowledge that, deep down in his soul, he still bears the monster that was a Death Eater? "I see no difference." *shudder* -- - 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 boggles at earthlink.net Fri Jan 4 07:52:56 2002 From: boggles at earthlink.net (Jennifer Boggess Ramon) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 01:52:56 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups]The ~*BEST*~ of Severus Snape (was: The Worst of Severus Snape) In-Reply-To: <20020103.190955.-3906561.2.hazel-rah7@juno.com> References: <20020103.190955.-3906561.2.hazel-rah7@juno.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32711 At 7:08 PM -0600 1/3/02, hazel-rah7 at juno.com wrote: > > why not focus on the positive -- the BEST of >Severus Snape? At least he does *some* things right. Easy - totally blowing Lockhart away in the duelling sequence from CoS. Anyone who thinks Snape is bumbling or incompetent needs to re-read that scene. A few IMHO musings on Snape's character: I think Snape desperately wants to be famous, and hates people who, in his eyes, flaunt their fame. He is inordinately thrilled about the Oder of Merlin and the publicity he will get for capturing Sirius, and totally loses his marbles (temporarily, thankfully) when Sirius escapes. His beef with Harry in that first potions lesson boils down to "Fame isn't everything." But the person who gets his goat most in all the series so far is Lockhart, who is famous _and_ incompetent - getting Snape's goat twice over. Moreover, other people being famous bothers him worse if it's undeserved, in his eyes. Whether Harry defeated Voldemort solely through what Lily did for him, or through a combination of that and something inherent in him, isn't clear, but either way, it seems to gall Snape that Harry-now is praised and famed for what Harry-then went through - an experience that Harry-now can only dimly remember. Lockhart is so blatant an incompetent that Snape must know his books are fabrications, so he wasn't even present for what he's made himself famous for. Both of these chafe Snape much more than, say, Dumbedore, who is justly famous for defeating Grindlewald. -- - 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 greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Fri Jan 4 08:36:03 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 08:36:03 -0000 Subject: Snape & the Map (was The Worst of Severus Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32712 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "virtualworldofhp" wrote: > What I've never understood is how Snape suspects what Harry is holding > is the Map. Well, granted he may not know exactly that the piece of > parchment was the Marauder's Map, but something about it obviously > drew his suspicions. What was the "direct from the manufacturers" > comment? Lupin always gave me the impression that absolutely *NO > ONE*, save the Marauders themselves, knows/knew about the Map, so why > does Snape have suspicions. It's clearly something more than Snape > thinking, "Hmmm, Potter has old parchment in his pocket--clearly > something illegal and up to no good!"--that's just far too much of a > stretch for me. What gives with Snape's actions? A Flint? > > -Megan (who knows Snape is unnaturally suspicious, but thinks JKR > paints it out to the fact that we obviously suspects something about > the Map and that this is inaccurate) ------------------ I believe that the marauders got a lot of mmileage from that map when they were at school, so maybe Snape started getting suspicious about the map at that age (something on the lines of: why are hose four good-for-nothing always carrying apiece of parchment with them?!). Maybe, when he caught Harry, those memories surfaced. Of course, maybe he's just suspicious of anything Harry is carrying. Hope that helped, Grey Wolf From mediaphen at hotmail.com Fri Jan 4 09:14:41 2002 From: mediaphen at hotmail.com (Martin Smith) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 10:14:41 +0100 Subject: Is "Remus Lupin" His Real Name? References: <1010091595.4162.28652.m10@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32713 So, okay, "Lupin" is derived from the latin word for wolf, lupus. And "Remus" brings to mind the legend of Romulus and Remus, who were brought up by a she-wolf. But, is not lupin also a flower? Yes it is (just watch the MP Flying Circus episode where gentleman/robber Dennis Moore steals lupins from the rich and hand to the poor). And what is Remus other than "summer" spelt backwards and missing a not so important m? Therefore, the PoA DADA professor's name does not always mean "Werewolf" but sometimes "summer flower". Which, IMHO, describes his personality rather well: most of the time being a calm, friendly man, like a summer flower, and sometimes a ferocious killer werewolf. Perhaps mum and dad Lupin first thought of the flower meaning of the name, and never considered the possibility of him becoming a werewolf. Which (if this even by my standards far-fetched theory holds) would put him in the ever-growing family of florists in Potterverse: Lily, Petunia, Sprout, Narcissa... meet Lupin! And head of the family, the creature who makes all flowers come to life, the bumblebee, aka Dumbledore. 10 o'clock in the morning, and I'm already this tired... well, it's good to be back! /Martin From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Fri Jan 4 09:14:18 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 09:14:18 -0000 Subject: Ron's death, Neville's role and Harry's travel Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32714 For some time know, I've accumulated a few theories which need to be placed before the unyielding Canon to know whether they fit or not. Guidelines say it's better one long than several short, so (even though they've got little in common), I'm presenting them at the same time: Th. 1: Ron's Death As you might have guessed, I've got the unconfortable feeling that Ron is the one who is going to be killed by the end of the series (of the H-R-H main team, that is. HP is turning into a gore series, by words of the author). The reason? I think JRK told us his longing to be better than all his ther brothers becuase she's planning to make it so. However, Ron is out of options (as we all well know): can't be better student, or sport-man, or clown, etc. The one thing that will put him at the top is an heroic death in which he sacrifices himself so that his friends can overcome Voldemort. We know he can do it, since he's done so already (giant chess). I think that chess will turn out to be a reflection of the entire book series: lots of minor deaths in each side, and finally one great sacrifice for the chess-mate. Th. 2: Neville's role in the books In a much less dark tone, I've been thinking about what's to come for Neville. I don't know if you're aware that the only enemy of a dragon, by oriental mythology, is a small yellow bird (I remembered this during the Weasel/Basilisk discussion). We know that Neville turned into a canary (which suits him quite well, really), and the "dragon" of the series is: Draco Malfoy (who's name means "dragon"). Thus, my theory suggests, Draco will turn bad after all (as if it didn't look that way already), and Neville's the one who's going to defeat him. Th. 3: Harry's travel JK told in an interview that Harry's going to visit a place that has been named in the books, but that we haven't visited yet. I think this plce is Godric's Hollow, and Harry'll be going there to visit his parents' grave. Comments? Suggestions? Feel free to beat any of the three down, as long as I'm around to answer back (which I will be, don't worry) Grey Wolf (He who now understands why "one of the deaths" will be painfull to write for JKR - just the theory was painful enough!) From alexpie at aol.com Fri Jan 4 06:24:15 2002 From: alexpie at aol.com (alexpie at aol.com) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 01:24:15 EST Subject: Small request vis a vis italics Message-ID: <17c.1b4cb02.2966a48f@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32715 I don't know if this is true of everyone but, on my server, if someone uses italics, all subsequent emails are in italics, which are (on a computer screen, at least) very difficult to read. Might I suggest the awkward but accepted *word* for italics? Barbara From aquamirror at edsamail.com.ph Fri Jan 4 06:47:02 2002 From: aquamirror at edsamail.com.ph (Athena Asamiya) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 14:47:02 +0800 Subject: Is Snape a dofus? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32716 Hello. I don't think Snape is a dofus at all. I like Snape because I consider him sort of, 'intelligent' because he manages to excel both in Potions and Dark Arts. But yes, I think he's mean not only to Harry and his friends but the rest of his students (~but perhaps some Slytherins too~). One question that bugged me is: "Why did he teach students in the first place?" He can have other jobs like working somewhere. Is he guarding something or someone in Hogwarts but he is using teaching in covering it (~whatever it is~) up? Bye! Athena __________________________________ www.edsamail.com From fuelchic at edsamail.com.ph Fri Jan 4 10:46:37 2002 From: fuelchic at edsamail.com.ph (Slytherin6) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 18:46:37 +0800 Subject: The Power of Names (WAS:[ "Remus Lupin" His Real Name?) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32717 Hi! This is interesting to me. Most of the characters in JKR's universe live up to their names or at least have some qualities of it. Like what Aja stated for example; Sirius means Dogstar, and we know that he is a dog animagus and Wormtail is called "wormtail", because he "ratted" (sp?) the location of the Potters to Voldie etc... It's weird but the names of people(be it in the HP books or real life) have a small or big impact on a person's personality or nature, or if that is not the case; a name of a person is associated with the person's personality. And I think that JKR uses this a lot in naming her characters. Reese of Ravenclaw >It seems very likely to me that just as Harry has a chance to determine his own fate against circumstances which would point him in another >direction, the power of a name would easily shape one's destiny, depending on what one would choose to do with that power. __________________________________ www.edsamail.com From aromano at indiana.edu Fri Jan 4 10:53:05 2002 From: aromano at indiana.edu (Aja) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 05:53:05 -0500 (EST) Subject: The worst of times... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32718 > At 3:58 PM +0000 1/3/02, cindysphynx wrote: > > > >But what is the very worst, single most terrible thing Snape has done > >and why? This much bandied-about question turned me off at first beacuse it seemed so subjective, and I'm just not able to think subjectively when I look at Snape because there's so much I don't know about him and I've pretty much withheld judgment in lieu of being fascinated by the mystery of the man. (I guess thinking about it, I'd have to agree with the insult to Hermione in book 4, that just was about as nasty as I've ever seen him, even beyond his treatment of Lupin) For whatever reason, I feel like leveling that subjectivity in a completely different direction, out of fairness to our enigmatic professor--so here comes a completely idle question to turn the tables a bit: What's the worst thing *Harry's* ever done? Aja "Awww, idn't dat sweet? Wook at the widdle witchy conjuring the dark forces of Satan. Awwwww. See, this is what happens if you let your kids read those damn Harry Potter books." --www.capnwacky.com From Whirdy at aol.com Fri Jan 4 12:03:01 2002 From: Whirdy at aol.com (Whirdy at aol.com) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 07:03:01 EST Subject: Written in the Wand Message-ID: <130.729d1e8.2966f3f5@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32719 Who's been keeping LV's wand these 13 years and where was it kept? Is it not true that LV could not and cannot hold a wand until the cemetery setting in GoF. And then it is his very own wand. Hasn't Wormtail been doing the dirty wand work? The wand was last seen at the Potter place in Godric's Hollow. So who was the wand's "secret keeper?" How about Lucius Malfoy, in the little rabbit hole under his dining room or was it among the souvenirs that Mr. Crouch, Sr., might have brought home and so was retrieved during one of LV or PP visits to the Crouch house or some one else in the MOM, such as C. Fudge. whirdy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From midwife34 at aol.com Fri Jan 4 06:40:29 2002 From: midwife34 at aol.com (jrober4211) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 06:40:29 -0000 Subject: snape is a dufus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32720 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "kiricat2001" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jrober4211" wrote: >> Snape does not approve of rule-breakers. No student is supposed to > be sneaking around the castle at night. Just because he catches > Harry doesn't mean he's been lying in wait for that opportunity. > Snape is probably happy to nail any student who's out of bounds. > Whether this is how he feels a professor must act, or whether this is > an outgrowth of some old, deep-seated anger at MWPP for all the rule- > breaking they did without getting expelled, I don't know. But I > think it's safe to say that Snape believes in playing by the rules, > and that the rules apply to everyone, even Harry. Don't we all want > that to be true in our own lives - that no one is given preferential > treatment because of their birth or their looks or because they're > famous? Snape may not give preferrential treatment as far as grading the students, but he does give preferrential treatment to the Slytherins when there is a confrontation between them and the Gryffindors and there are numerous examples of this in CoS, not to mention the other books. I agree with the statement about Snape being happy to nail any student he finds breaking the rules.I personally got the impression he enjoys it. He must be lying in wait for them because I have not always gotten an explaination as to why Snape is roaming the castle in the middle of the night. Like Harry, I think sometimes it was because he suspected something going on and was doing his own snooping. Just about everything Snape does for Harry is because Dumbledore has instructed him to do so, Snape is good about following orders because he is a follower not a leader( much like Barney Fife), thus far in the books.As for the comparison to Barney Fife, doesn't anyone remember the episode where Barney locked up the whole town for one reason or another when Andy was gone for a few days and left Barney in charge? I would say both Snape/ Barney are sticklers for rules with no shades of gray in between......lolololol. > > As far as Barney Fife goes, well, Snape has a lot of dislikable > qualities, but he's not an idiot. Sirius and Lupin seem to think Snape is an idiot in alot of ways as evidenced by Sirius's comment in the shrieking shack " How did an idiot like that become a professor?" oh well Marianne, if I haven't convinced you , then maybe at least you can relate to some of my comparisons.I did intend the comparison to be more humorous than anything else :-) Jo Ellen > > From Seiryuu_Avatar at msn.com Fri Jan 4 06:49:05 2002 From: Seiryuu_Avatar at msn.com (Brian Yoon) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 22:49:05 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Who did Voldemort Possess? References: <12b.a1aea46.29668cbc@aol.com> Message-ID: <00bc01c194eb$ea78df60$7f28fea9@yoonabomber> No: HPFGUIDX 32721 Cassie Wrote: > "Only one power remained to me. I could possess the bodies of others." > > This quote has really got me thinking. He says the power *remained* to him. > Well, who did he possess? And why? Why not just use the Imperius curse to > control someone? The only reason I can figure is to do something vicariously > through that person-but Who and What? And will he use this power again? > Any ideas? Perhaps the reason LV fears Dumbledore is because he is actually the wizard that Dumbledore had wacked a while back? Maybe he took over TR in Hogwarts (where he took pleasure in taking a good student's body and mind), and started again from there. He creates the diary, where he could end up using the possessing power again if he fails in his second quest. Seiryuu aka Brian Yoon From midwife34 at aol.com Fri Jan 4 10:34:59 2002 From: midwife34 at aol.com (jrober4211) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 10:34:59 -0000 Subject: Is Snape a dofus? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32722 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Athena Asamiya" wrote: > Hello. > > I don't think Snape is a dofus at all. I like Snape because I consider him sort of, 'intelligent' because he manages to excel both in Potions and Dark Arts. But yes, I think he's mean not only to Harry and his friends but the rest of his students (~but perhaps some Slytherins too~). One question that bugged me is: "Why did he teach students in the first place?" He can have other jobs like working somewhere. Is he guarding something or someone in Hogwarts but he is using teaching in covering it (~whatever it is~) up? > > > Bye! > Athena > I wondered about that too , Athena. It seems he detests children, or at least they get on his nerves more easily than the children bother the other professors. My guess would be that perhaps Dumbledore and Hogwarts provide him with protection, since he is the one death eater that spied on Voldemort. Jo Ellen > __________________________________ > www.edsamail.com From lucy at luphen.co.uk Fri Jan 4 13:00:35 2002 From: lucy at luphen.co.uk (Lucy Austin) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 13:00:35 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The worst of times... References: Message-ID: <005601c1951f$cd11b8a0$11ae1e3e@stephen> No: HPFGUIDX 32723 >aja wrote: >For whatever reason, I feel like leveling that subjectivity in a completely different direction, out of fairness to our enigmatic professor--so here comes a completely idle question to turn the tables a bit: >What's the worst thing *Harry's* ever done? Ooh, what a good question. I would probably have to say his treatment of Ron in GoF. I know Ron should have believed him etc, but it was a bit off the way Harry goes about wanting to poke him in the head, and throwing badges at him. Of course he's only 14, so can't be expected to think out a quiet rational way of talking to Ron at this point. Alternatively the insistence on sneaking into Hogsmeade in PoA, but somehow putting himself in danger doesn't seem as nasty as being cruel to his best friend! He's not done very many bad things though - what a hero! :-) Lucy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cindysphynx at home.com Fri Jan 4 14:06:27 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 14:06:27 -0000 Subject: Best and Worst of . . . . & Acronyms (WAS The worst of times...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32724 Aja wrote: > What's the worst thing *Harry's* ever done? > What a fine question! Um, off the top of my head, I would have to say that his decision to sneak to Hogsmead (not even bothering to bring the invisibility cloak) is probably the worst thing Harry has done. Much of his other rulebreaking had a real purpose to it -- saving Ginny, saving the stone. Going to Hogsmead without the cloak meant that had he met up with Black, he would have no one to defend him and no way to hide. All to have a butterbeer in a bar? That sort of poor judgment seems almost beneath Harry, until you recall that he is a teenage boy. It is also interesting to try to decide what is the best thing Harry has ever done. He's done a lot of fabulous things, so this is not easy. I think I'll suggest that finding his courage to stand up and fight Voldemort was the best thing Harry has ever done. The temptation to just freeze or beg would have been very strong. There was no reason to think anything could be accomplished by doing it, yet it was the key to his survival in the graveyard. Yet, he still failed to stop Voldemort's return. So his bravery led to a victory, but not really. If I might be permitted to expand Aja's fantastic idea some (and I hope it isn't viewed as too negative), the question of the worst thing characters have done could be expanded to include other characters. Some are too easy to bother with (Lockhart, Pettigrew, maybe Sirius). But asking the question (What is the worst thing they've done?) might yield some interesting answers when applied to characters like Lupin, Hagrid, Draco, Ron, Hermione, Dumbledore. To keep it light, feel free to add in the Best Thing They've Ever Done. Tabouli wrote: M.A.R.A.T.H.O.N.S.W.I.M. (Moonlight Attracts Remus And Transforms Him, Overcoming Nitpicky Suggestions Which Insinuate Miswriting). > > > M.A.R.A.T.H.O.N.S.W.I.M.M.E.R.S.E.Y.E.L.I.D.S. (as above, plus: Maybe Even Rallying Smitten Enthusiasts Yelling Exultantly "Lupin Is Dead Sexy!") > > R.O.T.T.W.E.I.L.E.R.O.F.S.W.I.T.C.H. (Remus Only Truly Transforms When Experiencing Intense Lunar Exposure, Rendering Our Friend Safe When It's Totally Cloudy at Hogwarts) > > Tabouli > (who wonders if she can somehow figure out a way of making money from this strange acronym generating ability she is developing, so that she can afford the currently doubtful-looking trip to the US she is meant to take in the middle of this year). What, the glory of being one of the few people in your hemisphere who can come up with this stuff isn't enough? OK, here's one knut for a job well done! Cindy (who would have said pretty much anything to try to talk her way out of the graveyard) From ftah3 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 4 14:38:10 2002 From: ftah3 at yahoo.com (ftah3) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 14:38:10 -0000 Subject: TAGS and moonlight (was T.A.G.S. re-opens for 2002 with another long acronym In-Reply-To: <001801c194e4$25ae0360$ee30c2cb@price> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32725 Tabouli wrote: > R.O.T.T.W.E.I.L.E.R.O.F.S.W.I.T.C.H. (Remus Only Truly Transforms When Experiencing Intense Lunar Exposure, Rendering Our Friend Safe When It's Totally Cloudy at Hogwarts)< You know, I don't know if I'm on board with the direct moonlight theory (I do sort of think that bit is a consistency flub), but there is something greatly appealing in the thought of being a rottweiler.... Grrrrr, woof! By the way, I'm going to take a stab at explaining the moonlight/transformation thing. (Yes! Another theory! A crackpot one, too!) Do we have any concept at all as to what time it was when Lupin transformed? I was thinking about the fact that he ran out of the school having forgotten to take his potion ~ I mean, with werewolvery being such a huge part of his life, I just don't see him, on the night of the full moon, both forgetting to take the potion *and* running out and putting others in danger of his transforming, you know? But what if he thought he had time? It was the full moon that night; he hadn't taken his potion; he had the map on his desk (which is how he saw Pettigrew et al). What If: he knew it was the full moon that night, and was going to go get his potion from Snape. However, he knew the kids might sneak off re the Buckbeak thing. He glances at the clock. It's evening, but on the first night of the full moon the transformation does not occur until (to pick a common 'witching hour') midnight. So he has time to check the map, make sure Harry & Co. are either safe in their dormitory, or else to go collect them from wherever they've snuck off to ~ and still get back, take his potion and curl up under his desk. He checks the map. Cue dramatic music: egad, there's Sirius! Near the kids! And ~ can it be? It can't! But the map doesn't lie! ~ Peter Pettigrew! Alive? How?? Things are a-clickin' in Lupin's mind. The kids are in danger; if Peter is alive, then Sirius didn't kill him; if Sirius didn't kill Peter, could it be that he didn't betray the Potters; he has to get out there at once! In the excitement of the moment, he still has at the back of his mind the full moon, but also the disarming thought "*I still have time*." Running out now without taking his potion will be cutting things close, but his split-second decision is that he must. So out he runs...events happen...things get out of hand...and when they leave the tunnel under the Whomping Willow, it's not the fact that the moon breaks through that causes Lupin to change. The appearance of the moon is simply what alerts Sirius to the reason behind Lupin's sudden change in attitude. The cause of the change is simply that Lupin's time has run out. Midnight of the first full moon is at hand. Maybe? It's a theory. And, now I think of it, maybe someone has put it forth before; sorry, if that's the case! I'm thinking it will be easily debunked by you very intelligent people, at any rate. :-P On the other hand, it explains, to me, four things that have bothered me: 1. Why did he forget to take his potion, when it's so critical? (He didn't; he just put it off, because he thought he would have time to get to it later.) 2. Why did he run out of the relative security of his office on the night of his transformation? (Again, he thought he had time to get back to the potion/his office before he transformed.) 3. Why did he not transform until that one particular moment, when it *seems* clear that the moon has been up for a while? (Because it isn't just the appearance of the moon, but the 'witching hour' on the first night of the full moon that dicates his transformation.) 4. Why did he berate himself and consent to leave Hogwarts, when he'd only made the one mistake, and knew that so long as he stuck to the potion he would be harmless in the future? (Because it wasn't just that he'd put innocents in danger by forgetfulness; it was because he'd made a conscious choice to take a risk, and in doing so he realized that he'd taken his dangerous condition for granted. He didn't forget his potion, he forgot to keep in mind how dangerous he was. Which is almost scarier. Er, you know?) Anyhoo. Just a thought. Mahoney From cindysphynx at home.com Fri Jan 4 14:41:17 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 14:41:17 -0000 Subject: The Best and Worst of Snape (WAS snape is a dufus) In-Reply-To: <3C3525FF.DDB0166E@texas.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32726 Amanda wrote: > Seriously, I will point out again the contrast in how Sirius and Snape > treat the unconscious members of their party on Shrieking Shack > Night---Sirius lets the unconscious Snape float along and bob'n'scrape > against the ceiling; Snape conjures stretchers for the injured Ron, > out-cold Harry, and needing-to-be-restrained Sirius. Most everybody, > when I mention this, just blows it off for one reason or another, and it > certainly doesn't make him a candidate for Humanitarian of the Year, but > I think this is an interesting comparison. ::dives into the room, rolls, and straightens up, all while pinning S.I.N.I.S.T.E.R. badge to chest:: Although I am willing to give Snape credit where credit is due, I can't concede Amanda's point very easily. Part of the reason is that that scene is one of my favorites in the entire series. :-) But I need a better argument than that, so let me try this. Sirius lets Snape's head scrape the ceiling when he could easily prevent it, true. Why is that? In the past hour, Snape (a) snuck up on the group to eavesdrop; (b) tied up Lupin so that he crashes to the ground; (c) threatened Lupin's life; (d) threatened to kill Sirius himself; (e) threatened to let the dementors finish Sirius; (f) threatened Harry in some unclear manner with "Move out of the way or I will make you"; and (g) above all, refused to listen to reason. I think a little head-scraping is just a slap on the wrist for all of Snape's infractions. Now, just to be fair to Snape, I have to point out two things that explain his behavior and put him in a better light, in addition to the fabulous comments others have made thus far. First, I think Snape's failure to listen was entirely rational. He genuinely believed he had walked in on a Confunding-In-Progress. Black and Lupin are telling the kids a cockin' bull story to confound them, so why should he listen to that? He might become confunded, too. Also, for him to accept Black and Lupin's story, he would have to admit to himself that Pettigrew, Potter and Black learned to become animagi, and his pride objects to even considering that notion. He would also have to entertain the possibility that he was wrong about Black, and he might even have to ask himself some tough questions about whether he (Snape) should have figured out Pettigrew was the spy in time to save the Potters. So if he really believed Lupin and Black were lying, then he actually did the right thing by stopping the Confunding. Also (and it really pains me to admit this), Snape could probably have taken Black straight to the dementors when he found everyone passed out on the grounds. MoM had already authorized this. So I have to admit that Snape's threat against Lupin and Black may have been an empty threat, and Snape may have actually shown mercy by taking Black to the castle. OK, I just admitted two good things Snape has done (and it left a pretty bad taste in my mouth, BTW ), so I have balance that by pointing out another awful thing Snape did. I think Snape's actions once he knew Lupin had failed to take his potion show that Snape is acting more to avenge old grudges and because of prejudice than to protect the trio. We discussed this recently, so I'll try to be brief. The events were that Snape goes to Lupin's office with a goblet of potion. He knows there will be a full moon and that Lupin is going to transform because he failed to take his potion. Then he looks at the map, and he sees Lupin "running along the passageway and out of sight." There is only one reasonable conclusion to draw from that: Lupin is fleeing to get to the Shack so that he doesn't transform in the castle. Snape should either (1) follow Lupin *with the goblet* to give him the potion before he transforms (which probably would not be a good idea), or (2) turn around and go back to his own office, figuring the situation is handled because Lupin is away from the school and will transform in the Shack just like he did in their school days. But no. Snape is prejudiced against Lupin and hates Lupin on principle. So he follows *without bringing the potion*, not to help Lupin or the trio, but to see if he can catch Lupin doing something wrong. After a year of Dumbledore expressing faith in Lupin and in Lupin behaving like a complete professional and doing everything he is supposed to do, Snape ought to be bigger than that. Even assuming that Snape was acting to protect the trio once he was in the Shrieking Shack, his initial motive for going there shows his true personality -- vindictive and prejudiced. One more thing: I know the jury is still out on Snape, as we still have three books to go. But I still think it is fair to criticize or compliment Snape or any other characters (or evaluate any other aspect of the first four books) based just on what we know so far. Cindy (who wishes Sirius' being dead sexy was enough to bring people around) From feycat at feycat.net Fri Jan 4 14:45:18 2002 From: feycat at feycat.net (Gabriel Edson) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 09:45:18 -0500 Subject: Accio Charm / Snape / Wasted Charms References: Message-ID: <008701c1952e$6eb9f740$0b01a8c0@enet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32727 > RPG fan), is that Ron's mother accios the fake items from the > twin's pockets without even knowing what they were or even if they truly > existed. My theory on that is that she knew they were there, and could visualize them. After all, she's seen them before. Note that she said "Accio!" not "Accio Ton-Tongue Toffee" or "Accio Fake Wand!" because she's not sure *exactly* what they have, just that they definately have naughty gags on their person. In my humble opinion, the Accio Charm is one of those plot-hole-making devices - like the Polyjuice and Veritaserum Potions - that JKR really should have thought through better before tossing them in. There are way too many places where it would be so easy to use Accio (the Egg and the Eye for example - and RIGHT AFTER Harry spent days and days working on Accio!) and the characters stupidly forget it exists. > Snape's worst moment While I agree with people about the Shrieking Shack scene (what a loss of control for someone who's made coldness an art!) the one line that I always found completely unforgivable was when Harry and Malfoy shot hexes at each other and hit Goyle and Hermione. How dare he say that about that poor little girl? Sure, she's a Gryffindor, an insufferable know-it-all, and the sidekick of awful Harry Potter.... but she's also a little girl, a student, and was clearly suffering from the hex. The "I see no difference" comment was absolutely unforgivable. Scoring those kind of points on a child is just petty and small beyond belief. BTW, regarding the Shrieking Shack scene... why didn't they use a Cheering Charm on him? Wouldn't THAT have been a great scene? Ah, another place where using a Charm we've seen them all learn would ruin the plot, and so it goes to waste, *sigh* Gabriel Pack House Quidditch Team Keeper "Twitchy little ferret, aren't you Malfoy?" Isn't having a smoking section in a restaurant like having a peeing section in a pool? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From eliasheldon at yahoo.com Fri Jan 4 14:49:45 2002 From: eliasheldon at yahoo.com (eliasheldon) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 14:49:45 -0000 Subject: Ron's death, Neville's role and Harry's travel In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32728 Grey Wolf, WOW! Great theories. I haven't posted to this board in a while, but this topic really sparked my interest. In response to your theories: *snip* > > Th. 1: Ron's Death The chess match represents the future I never quite looked at it that way, but I have always had the feeling that Ron would die by the end of the series. I like your use of the wizard's chess game to justify the setup of this. May I also add that Christopher Columbus said that his favorite scene of the movie is the chess scene because it reflects the heart of the books..... hmmm...... wonder if he has gotten the real scoop from JKR about Ron's fate? OTOH, it is possible that Ron will only be injured (as was the case in the chess game) and that the death is not Ron but another lovable character. Please see below for my theory on this.... > Th. 2: Neville's role in the books Neville the canary defeating Draco the dragon I agree that Neville is going to play a large part in the defeat of a big bad (Buffy term for something evil). My theory (which I posted to this board about 6 months ago) is that Neville is so forgetful because he had a memory charm placed on him when his parents were attacked and tortured by the Deatheaters. At some point, this memory charm is going to be broken. Once it is, I think we will begin to see a different, more powerful side of Neville. After all, his father was an Auror, it makes sense that he must also be a powerful wizard. I like your theory about the canary and the dragon. Very clever foreshadowing on JKR's part if you are right! I am not sure if Draco is going to turn out to be evil after all - it is just too obvious for it to be true! JKR being the master of plot twists as she is wouldn't make it that easy for us to id the villain, would she? > Th. 3: Harry's travel parents' grave.> That is a definite possibility. The other possibility that comes to mind is Azkaban - what if he goes there to visit an imprisoned friend or to help defeat the dementors (face his worst fears)? He could also show up at the ministry - less possible because it would not really be that exciting, would it? Another possibility that springs to mind is the mountains where the giants reside - from the end of GOF. > > Feel free to beat any of the three down, as long as I'm around to > answer back (which I will be, don't worry) I hope you don't feel like I beat any of these down, I think they are quite good. > > Grey Wolf > (He who now understands why "one of the deaths" will be painfull to > write for JKR - just the theory was painful enough!) I think the most painful death that she is going to write might be Hagrid. Before the movie, I didn't really get as much of a sense about how tender and important the relationship between Hagrid and Harry is. That last scene in the movie when Harry says goodbye to him almost broke my heart - it seems that JKR might have let Mr. Coltrane in on the little secret that Hagrid might not be around at the close of Book 7. I can't really explain it more than the fact that I just got this eery feeling about it and that I think Mr. Coltrane played Hagrid much more sympathetically and softly than I pictured Hagrid in the books. I hope this makes sense. Thanks for the interesting topic... Elia From Elizabeth.Dalton at EAST.SUN.COM Fri Jan 4 14:49:27 2002 From: Elizabeth.Dalton at EAST.SUN.COM (Elizabeth Dalton) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 09:49:27 -0500 Subject: The Worst & Best of Severus Snape References: <759A085B4DB9AF47AD5BB22098C917280752C7@cnncex01.turner.com> Message-ID: <3C35C0F7.9CC28855@sun.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32729 Snape is probably my favorite character in the series, but I have to go along with the things people have mentioned as "worst": narking out Lupin, refusing to listen to "Peter-is-Scabbers", and especially that vicious remark to Hermione. Another one is when Harry comes charging into the castle late in GoF, looking for Dumbledore to tell him about Crouch, Sr. being on the grounds, and Snape just stalls him right there. Fortunately, Dumbledore comes along very quickly. But if Snape hadn't gotten involved, they might have made it back in time to save Crouch, Sr. from his wacky son. I think Snape was stalling Harry not out of any conspiratorial evil intent, but simply out of malice, and his conviction that Harry is never up to any good. Of the lot, refusing to listen about Peter is probably the one with the worst consequences, and the worst motivation. Snape was just flatly refusing to hear any excuse for Sirius, because he has hated him since they were young (and maybe for other reasons that we've speculated on here). He's willing to send the wrong man to Azkaban and let a murderer go free, because of a grudge. Stalling Harry in GoF has pretty awful consequences, but Snape doesn't know what's at stake in that scene, so I don't think his behavior is quite as unforgivable as in PoA. The remark to Hermione, however, is the most petty of his actions, because he really has no good motivation. The only thing I can think of is that the confrontation involved Malfoy, and we've speculated that Snape may have some unusually deep game going on with the Malfoys, or with Draco in particular. That being said, I also agree with Amanda that Snape's finest hour is when he confronts Fudge at the end of GoF. We don't know yet if Fudge knew about Snape's former DE status. (Fudge *should* have known, but seems pretty darn clueless.) Snape had been quite chummy with Fudge at the end of PoA, when it looked like he was going to pick up an Order of Merlin. But in this scene, Snape has to decide whose side he's really on, and he's Dumbledore's man. I was very proud of him. (Wipes a small tear. Sniff. ;) Second prize probably goes to his efforts to save Harry during the Quidditch game in PS/SS. It would have been easy for him to just let Quirrell win that once. Oops, sorry! But he didn't do it. The books are full of these obscure little actions on Snape's part that leave us guessing as to his true motivations and purposes. That's why he's such a great character. Elizabeth (Not interested in taking on "Snape" as a last name, but still craving our next Snape action in OoP.) From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Fri Jan 4 14:59:23 2002 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 14:59:23 -0000 Subject: Your Arm Was Hurled (filk) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32730 Your Arm Was Hurled (from CoS, Chap. 10) To the tune of We Are the World (one of the worst songs ever written IMO, which makes it not entirely inappropriate for the likes of Gilderoy Lockhart) Dedicated to Aja THE SCENE: The Hogwarts' Quidditch Field. In the aftermath of a particularly brutal Gryffindor/Slytherin match, OLIVER and the WEASLEY TWINS give a post-game analysis. GEORGE, FRED & OLIVER There was a game in which Harry took a fall When the Snitch he snatched with a shattered arm His broom he was flying Through the torrential storm and hale For our team he gave his all! HARRY (lying in the mud and rain) I psyched out Malfoy to make this winning ploy But my right arm's angle now is so strange It sustained a Bludger blow that smashed up my elbow LOCKHART (suddenly making his way forward) Here's good news, you know, I am all you need Your arm was hurled >From off its broomstick But with a magic charm of mine Its full use you'll resume quick. With this spell I'm casting For mending what's been broke Good thing I'm such a helpful bloke Please don't thank me. HARRY (panicked) Will someone please remove this man in turquoise? Get Pomfrey here before my arm he destroys! LOCKHART Harry's in such pain he babbles without sense But soon his gratitude will be immense LOCKHART and GRYFFINDOR TEAM Your arm was hurt Aboard your Nimbus But I/he know(s) what the spell That can patch up your limb is Right now you're injured, And feeling sick, we see LOCKHART But when I'm through you'll have no bone To pick with me (Lockhart casts his spell) LOCKHART (spoken) Ah, yes. Well, that can sometimes happen - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From ftah3 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 4 15:07:13 2002 From: ftah3 at yahoo.com (ftah3) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 15:07:13 -0000 Subject: Neville's role (was Ron's death, Neville's role and Harry's travel) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32731 grey_wolf_c wrote: > Th. 2: Neville's role in the books > We know that Neville turned into a > canary (which suits him quite well, really) Grey_wolf_c, I apologize for snipping your wonderful parallel with oriental mythology, but your pointing out of Neville's turn as a canary reminded me of something closer to home (for myself, as an American, as well as, theoretically, JKR as a Briton). Especially as I've always had Neville in my list of "if someone is going to die, might be one of these." In the days when coal miners dug deep in the earth with nothing but pitchforks, rags over their mouths and scraggly little ponies to drag carts full of rock up the long winding tunnels to the surface, one way that they protected themselves from the very real danger of air poisoning/suffocation was by bringing a canary in a cage down with them. The canary, being smaller, would die more quickly if the air went bad, and with it's death alert the miners to their own peril. Is Neville the canary in the mine? Will his death alert the Heroes to an unseen danger in the future? Hmmmm. :-) Mahoney From cindysphynx at home.com Fri Jan 4 15:06:58 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 15:06:58 -0000 Subject: Lupin, the Moon and the Bewitching Hour (WAS TAGS and moonlight ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32732 Mahoney wrote: > By the way, I'm going to take a stab at explaining the > moonlight/transformation thing. (Yes! Another theory! A crackpot > one, too!) > OK, I'm sold. I really like Mahoney's theory. The best part is that it makes Lupin out to be a thoughtful person who made a rational decision (consistent with his character) instead of an incompetent who can't remember the one thing he has to remember in order to avoid killing people. That's an improvement. The timing seems to work, because I think it is a one-hour, one-way trip to the Shrieking Shack, and Lupin sees Sirius on the Map at nightfall, which is maybe 7-8 p.m. that time of year. So if the full moon rises at midnight, he has plenty of time to save the trio, apprehend Sirius/Peter, and make it back to the castle for a dose of wolfsbane potion. It's not perfect in this regard, however, because Lupin shows no signs of keeping an eye on the time once he is in the Shrieking Shack. He doesn't say the obvious thing like, "You know, we'd better get a move on because I'm going to transform in about 90 minutes and eat all of you." But I can wave that off by pointing out that he has just received a real jolt by finding Peter alive, he doesn't anticipate Snape's interference, he is multi-tasking (dealing with Peter/Snape/Sirius and being outed as a werewolf) and he doesn't have a wristwatch on him. :-) A fabulous additional benefit of Mahoney's theory is that it neatly explains Lupin's failure to transform when the boggart turns into the moon. The boggart can turn into the moon all it wants to, but it is not the bewitching hour, so Lupin doesn't have to be concerned about transforming. Recall how Lupin vanquishes the boggart moon "almost lazily?" He isn't concerned because he knows he won't transform because it is not the sight of the moon, his fear of the moon, or anything else connected only with the moon that makes him transform. It is the bewitching hour *coupled with* the moon. I think we need a new acronym though. The Rottweiler one focuses on lunar exposure, and we now know it is lunar exposure coupled with the bewitching hour. Maybe something about a Rottweiler and its eyelids? :-) Cindy (wishing there were a really good theory to excuse Lupin for failing to take the Map with him and for failing to pick up the Invisibility Cloak) From harper_liessa at yahoo.co.uk Fri Jan 4 13:21:47 2002 From: harper_liessa at yahoo.co.uk (Liessa) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 13:21:47 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: snape is a dufus References: Message-ID: <004701c19522$c4ebd0e0$0200a8c0@Nshare> No: HPFGUIDX 32733 Jo Ellen wrote: >Sirius and Lupin seem to think Snape is an idiot in alot of ways as >evidenced by Sirius's comment in the shrieking shack " How did an >idiot like that become a professor?" Them thinking that he is an idiot is not really any way to judge his talent or intelligence really. Idiot is one of the less derogatory terms for someone you dont like. They may consider him to be an idiot because he didnt break the rules and have fun like they did. Perhaps he was like Hermione and always had his head in a book and they thought that was idiotic because they could learn all that sort of stuff in class and didn't need to read about it outside. Maybe he was a bully, same as he is now, and they're down on him for it. He maybe acted idiotically with his bullying/telling tales, but that doesnt make him braindead. Maybe they think he's an idiot for being a DE. If he truly was an idiot he would quite probably have never graduated let alone be still alive and teaching the "delicate art" of potions. Surely an idiot would have blown himself up by now. I think his only real problem is, and possibly always has been, that he's a rules-monger and always goes with what he thinks is the "right thing" even if its not always what everyone else thinks is the best idea. Liessa - who now wonders if he truly was an evil DE or was a double agent all along. Would kind of explain Dumbledore looking after/trusting him. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From anakzaman at yahoo.com Fri Jan 4 13:39:17 2002 From: anakzaman at yahoo.com (anakzaman) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 13:39:17 -0000 Subject: snape is a dufus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32734 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jrober4211" wrote:> > Snape may not give preferrential treatment as far as grading the > students, but he does give preferrential treatment to the Slytherins > when there is a confrontation between them and the Gryffindors and > there are numerous examples of this in CoS, not to mention the other > books. I agree with the statement about Snape being happy to nail any > student he finds breaking the rules.I personally got the impression > he enjoys it. He must be lying in wait for them because I have not > always gotten an explaination as to why Snape is roaming the castle > in the middle of the night. Like Harry, I think sometimes it was > because he suspected something going on and was doing his own > snooping. Just about everything Snape does for Harry is because > Dumbledore has instructed him to do so, Snape is good about following > orders because he is a follower not a leader( much like Barney Fife), > thus far in the books.As for the comparison to Barney Fife, doesn't > anyone remember the episode where Barney locked up the whole town for > one reason or another when Andy was gone for a few days and left > Barney in charge? I would say both Snape/ Barney are sticklers for > rules with no shades of gray in between......lolololol. I'm thinking as Snape as the Peter Pettigrew of the other side. It could be likely that Lucious Malfoy, Goyle Sr, and Crabbe Sr were in Hogwarts together with James, Sirius, Remus, Wormtail, and obviously Snape. I know that it isn't mentioned in the books, but since Draco is Lucious' only son and he is the same age as Harry, that doesn't rule out the possibility of both daddies being the same age. (if someone can contradict this, please let me know, so I can think of other Snape theories.) Malfoy & co obviously went to Slytherin, as was Snape (he is after all the head of Slytherin). So possibly there was a rivalry between James/Sirius/Remus/Wormtail vs Malfoy/Goyle/Crabbe/Snape. Wormtail then switched side to the dark side, and Snape switched to Dumbledore. If this theory is true, then it leads to more conclusions and it would be easier to understand Snape's behaviour towards Draco and Harry. > > Sirius and Lupin seem to think Snape is an idiot in alot of ways as > evidenced by Sirius's comment in the shrieking shack " How did an > idiot like that become a professor?" oh well Marianne, if I haven't > convinced you , then maybe at least you can relate to some of my > comparisons.I did intend the comparison to be more humorous than > anything else :-) But this is like Ron saying Goyle Jr is an idiot, even though it is possible that Goyle is actually good at something. And if Goyle would become a teacher at Hogwartsm teaching something he is good at, then I know that Ron, or Fred/George is gonna say "How did an idiot like that become a professor?". (although the possibility that Goyle is good at something is near zero... see I'm thinking like Ron already). -indra- From terrilyn at ameritech.net Fri Jan 4 13:58:31 2002 From: terrilyn at ameritech.net (Terri Lyn Layman) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 08:58:31 -0500 Subject: My take on Snape/Order of Merlin Message-ID: <000001c19527$e56a59e0$1980fea9@c8b5v1> No: HPFGUIDX 32735 Ok, here's the deal... (slightly drawing from my own experience) Apparently the Order of Merlin (OoM) is a very importaint award in the annals of Wizarding. Thus, I see it as analgous to our Nobel Prize. Now, while Snape may be a quite proficient teacher (as well as one of the strictest in regards to the "en loco-parente" clause involved in a bording school), and know his topic throughly, he may always be comparing himself to someone (maybe Dumbledore, maybe not) who HAS the OoM. This constant comparision, and desire for the OoM himself, may inadvertantly cause him to be less attentive to ALL his students, and in most cases, stricter with them than normal. Of course, he does have his preference to his house. But, that's to be expected. I get the impression that the "houses" are somewhat akin to our (US) Fraternity/Sorority system. This would breed a great love of your particular house, and while acknowleging that the other houses are fine houses, you'd always exault your own house. (Like me when asked about Indiana Colleges/Universities. They're all fine, but Purdue's the best.) Now, to clairfy why I can slightly see where Snape's coming from (although I don't condone his actions in many respects), I'll tell you why I can see it. Purdue had two chemistry professors, Dr D and Dr B. Dr B at one point found the one breakthrough that made him eligibile for consideration, and eventually won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry. Now, Dr. D had compared himself to B for a long period of time. He eventually became a less proficient instructor and would have done 100% research had they allowed him. He was generally very strict in his courses, and when you went to his office for help he'd send you away with a "figure it out yourself, or ask a TA", and he'd go back to his research. I'm not saying that D was an extremely bad instructor. In fact, he's the reason I can remember what Macro and Micro mean (I'm not that great with terms and always mix them up.). But he always seemed to have a bitter edge that he didn't have the Nobel himself and took it out on the students. This is just my theory, and I could be entirely off... but hey, only JK knows his motivations for everything, right? -TerriLyn From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Fri Jan 4 15:12:24 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 15:12:24 -0000 Subject: Ron's death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32736 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "eliasheldon" wrote: > Th. 1: Ron's Death (snip) > OTOH, it is possible that Ron will only be injured (as was the case > in the chess game) and that the death is not Ron but another lovable > character. (snip) > Elia ----------------- Thanks for the feedback, Elia. I think, however, that you may have missed the central point in this theory: Ron's going to die because it's the only way he'll be better than his brothers. Ron has demonstrated enough that he resents being in the shadows (of his brother's deeds and, afterwards, of Harry's deeds, as stated by Hermione in GoF). If Ron dies a heroic death which brings about the destruction of Voldemort, there's not a single thing any of his brothers can do to top it. Thus, Ron's life-long wish would be granted. The chess idea was meant as an example. Reflecting on my previous theory posts, however, it seems I always have trouble with the examples, so maybe I'll stop using them. Anyway, hope that helps, Grey Wolf From Elizabeth.Dalton at EAST.SUN.COM Fri Jan 4 15:16:52 2002 From: Elizabeth.Dalton at EAST.SUN.COM (Elizabeth Dalton) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 10:16:52 -0500 Subject: Return to Muggledom or the Ruby Slippers Theory References: Message-ID: <3C35C764.62971767@sun.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32737 I like this theory, obviously. Now I'm wondering if that's what the "Order of the Phoenix" is/was working toward? And if the Malfoys and others knew about this, it would be reason for a lot of the malice we've seen between the two groups.... And, given that phoenixes represent (in part) rebirth, I'm wondering if in some way this would be a redistribution of magic, rather than a draining of it? The thing that worries/puzzles me about this kind of apocalyptic ending is, what would happen to the magical creatures the wizards are protecting, as described in FB&WTFT? Elizabeth (Proud inventor of the MARATHONSWIM theory -- Thanks, Tabouli! Feel free to crash at my house if you make it to the States!) From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Fri Jan 4 15:22:29 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 15:22:29 -0000 Subject: Neville's role/Canary-in-the-mine In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32738 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ftah3" wrote: > Th. 2: Neville's role in the books > Grey_wolf_c, I apologize for snipping your wonderful parallel with > oriental mythology, but your pointing out of Neville's turn as a > canary reminded me of something closer to home (for myself, as an > American, as well as, theoretically, JKR as a Briton). Especially as > I've always had Neville in my list of "if someone is going to die, > might be one of these." Don't worry, I'm here to discuss HP and develop theories (a pet hobby of mine), so I always welcome other points of view. However, what I do ask (please) is to be called Grey Wolf. "grey_wolf_c" is the closest thing I could get from yahoo, since closer screenames were already taken. > In the days when coal miners dug deep in the earth with nothing but > pitchforks, rags over their mouths and scraggly little ponies to drag > carts full of rock up the long winding tunnels to the surface, one > way that they protected themselves from the very real danger of air > poisoning/suffocation was by bringing a canary in a cage down with > them. The canary, being smaller, would die more quickly if the air > went bad, and with it's death alert the miners to their own peril. > > Is Neville the canary in the mine? Will his death alert the Heroes > to an unseen danger in the future? Hmmmm. > Mahoney A good and interesting idea, with no obvious flaws. I'll remeber it (although, I still prefer my own, since it includes not only Neville's future but Draco's). Going a bit off-topic, though, I always had doubts about the whole canary-in-the-mine theory. It was suposed to die because of soffocation? The smaller a creature is, the less air it needs, and the calmer you are, the less air you need. Why would, then, the canary (small, virtually inmobile inside is cage) die sooner than the miners (big men, sweating away while mining)? But I digress... Hope that helped, Grey Wolf From cindysphynx at home.com Fri Jan 4 15:29:26 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 15:29:26 -0000 Subject: Wasted Charms (WAS Accio Charm / Snape / Wasted Charms) In-Reply-To: <008701c1952e$6eb9f740$0b01a8c0@enet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32739 Gabriel wrote: > In my humble opinion, the Accio Charm is one of those plot-hole- >making devices - like the Polyjuice and Veritaserum Potions - that >JKR really should have thought through better before tossing them >in. There are way too many places where it would be so easy to use >Accio (the Egg and the Eye for example - and RIGHT AFTER Harry spent >days and days working on Accio!) and the characters stupidly forget >it exists. and > BTW, regarding the Shrieking Shack scene... why didn't they use a >Cheering Charm on him? Wouldn't THAT have been a great scene? Ah, >another place where using a Charm we've seen them all learn would >ruin the plot, and so it goes to waste, *sigh* There are other places where a character knows or should know a suitable spell to get them out of a tight spot, but doesn't use it for whatever reason. (There's a great essay in the Lexicon about why Harry sometimes fails to use the obvious solution, but this issue extends far beyond Harry). One example is Harry's failure to summon the Egg from the dragon. Another is Hermione's failure to attempt to move the Whomping Willow with "Mobilarbus." Another is Lupin and Black's failure to just apparate out of the Shrieking Shack rather than be taken to the dementors. Another is Lupin's failure to just "Accio" Scabbers out of Ron's hands when Ron was reluctant to hand him over. There are probably others. There are probably good reasons we can all imagine about why the characters do not do these things. But the point is that JKR doesn't often feel it necessary to give us an explanation in canon, even when she easily could. You know, either a failed attempt to use the charm, or a one-sentence piece of dialogue or narrative that explains it. Sometimes, I do wish she would slip in some reason why this or that charm wouldn't work in a particular circumstance. For instance, Hermione could have tried her Mobiliarbus charm on the Whomping Willow, only to have it fail because the tree is rooted. Same thing for using "Accio" on the dragon egg -- Bagman could have more explicitly explained that the Champions had to physically retrieve the egg by getting past the dragon. It's a nit, really, but it does make me raise an eyebrow now and then. (But if she closed every potential loophole, what would we have to talk about?) Going forward, JKR is really going to have to watch her step, though. She has lots of charms and potions lurking out there that could trip her up. In addition to Veritaserum, she is going to have to watch out for the Priori Incantantem that Amos Diggory uses on Harry's wand. It seems like characters (e.g. teachers) could be using that one in future books to determine who cast a certain spell when everyone denies doing it. Cindy (wondering if Lupin could have taken Scabbers from Ron with a well-placed "Expelliar-mouse" charm) From Elizabeth.Dalton at EAST.SUN.COM Fri Jan 4 15:28:36 2002 From: Elizabeth.Dalton at EAST.SUN.COM (Elizabeth Dalton) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 10:28:36 -0500 Subject: The worst of times... the ball References: <005601c1951f$cd11b8a0$11ae1e3e@stephen> Message-ID: <3C35CA24.86679528@sun.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32740 >What's the worst thing *Harry's* ever done? Well, there are a number of candidates that are probably better for *worst*, but this has been bugging me, so here goes: his treatment of Parvati at the Ball. Gets her to go, even gets her to throw her sister at Ron, and then utterly ignores her. Trivial, yes, but really unkind and unfair. Here's how I *wish* he could have invited her: "Hi, Parvati, got a minute? Look, I have to take a dance partner to the ball, and I can't dance." "But I bet you can. Would you help out a housemate and be my dance partner? Just for the first dance. I'll try not to embarrass you too much, and I'm sure you'll get loads of offers right after that, from guys who can appreciate a good dancer, and I'll stay out of your way. Please?" But heck, the kid is 14, and not up to that level of finesse. Elizabeth (who hated dances as a kid and still avoids the activity when possible, even though she sort of wishes she did know how....) From lucy at luphen.co.uk Fri Jan 4 15:36:00 2002 From: lucy at luphen.co.uk (Lucy Austin) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 15:36:00 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Neville's role/Canary-in-the-mine References: Message-ID: <014f01c19535$8316cf40$11ae1e3e@stephen> No: HPFGUIDX 32741 >> Is Neville the canary in the mine? Will his death alert the Heroes >> to an unseen danger in the future? Hmmmm. >> Mahoney >A good and interesting idea, with no obvious flaws. I'll remeber it >(although, I still prefer my own, since it includes not only Neville's >future but Draco's). Going a bit off-topic, though, I always had doubts >about the whole canary-in-the-mine theory. It was suposed to die >because of soffocation? The smaller a creature is, the less air it >needs, and the calmer you are, the less air you need. Why would, then, >the canary (small, virtually inmobile inside is cage) die sooner than >the miners (big men, sweating away while mining)? But I digress... >Hope that helped, >Grey Wolf I like that theory - not that I want Neville to die, but although he's not exactly a 'fan' of Harry's, it could be the death that JKR is dreading to write. (and then Ginny and Hagrid might be OK!) Re the canaries, I think the miners hung them up high in the corridors or something, as the bad air rose to the top. That way they knew the air was going bad when the canary fainted (I think!). Lucy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Elizabeth.Dalton at EAST.SUN.COM Fri Jan 4 15:43:54 2002 From: Elizabeth.Dalton at EAST.SUN.COM (Elizabeth Dalton) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 10:43:54 -0500 Subject: Lupin, the Moon and the Bewitching Hour (WAS TAGS and moonlight ) References: Message-ID: <3C35CDBA.2A4BF3BF@sun.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32742 Fickle as I am, I will now abandon my moonlight exposure theory in favor of the thoughtful-Lupin-I-have-time theory. But Tabouli did give us three really kick-butt acronyms. Let's give her a round of applause and all chip in a sickle or two to buy her a bag of floo powder, shall we? Elizabeth (who really would like to contribute in some way to this journey to America Tabouli is talking about....) From Elizabeth.Dalton at EAST.SUN.COM Fri Jan 4 15:56:07 2002 From: Elizabeth.Dalton at EAST.SUN.COM (Elizabeth Dalton) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 10:56:07 -0500 Subject: Wasted Charms & other magical devices (Time Turner) References: Message-ID: <3C35D097.C4385BBA@sun.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32743 I was having an off-list conversation with someone about the Time Turner in which I made a similar point. I had called the Time Turner "hokey" and was being asked to explain that desgination. I'll repost that explanation here, because it also applies to things like the Accio charm (which might not have worked on the Egg because of an anti-magic property of the dragon, but I think that's reaching). Anyway, regarding why I called the Time Turner "hokey": Mostly it's that it's kind of overdone. Time travel is considered a cheesy effect in SF, unless it's done *really* well, directly addressing the problems of time travel (causality, paradox, etc.) Rowling makes a point of having Dumbledore stress with Hermione that there are severe consequences if an error is made with the Time Turner ("Mis Granger, you know the law-- you know what is at stake... *You must not be seen.*"), but those consequences are never really spelled out. If it's only that you have to worry about not startling your former self, as Hermione explains it to Harry, that's not much of a consequence, and I'm surprised these things aren't more commonly in use (and better known). Sure, there's the risk of doing something to yourself, but it's an awfully handy device. But if causality gets messed up and the world will fall apart or something, then why did they risk letting Hermione have the thing in the first place? She's bright, but still a kid. It's a basic SF/Fantasy problem. If something is powerful enough to save the day, especially due to some surprise element, you have to have a reason that it isn't in use all the time. And then you have to be sure not to *let* your characters use whatever it is too often. Rowling makes sure Polyjuice potion takes a month or more to make, and remembers to tell us that it's incredibly difficult to become an animagus (even if there *are* four or more unregistered animagi running around), and that invisibility cloaks are really rare (and she backs that one up in FB&WTFT). But she kind of drops the ball on veritaserum, the Time Turner, and the Marauder's Map. And she really blows it with portkeys (at least so far). (And I would now add, a number of charms such as Accio and the Cheering Charm.) I put it down to the fact that she doesn't read much fantasy or science fiction. If she did, she'd have seen other authors run into and try to solve some of these problems, and might not have tripped over them herself. Then again, the logical constraints of children's fiction are less severe than for YA or adult fiction, so she might be writing herself out of her skill level, at least where this kind of element is concerned. (Meaning that her earlier books, which are more clearly children's stories, don't suffer as much from these problems as her later books, which are less so.) Well, those are my thoughts for the day, Elizabeth (who does think Rowling is doing a fine job with the series, considering she says she hasn't read much fantasy, but thinks she would have done even better if she had a little more experience with the SF&F genre.) From Joanne0012 at aol.com Fri Jan 4 15:59:25 2002 From: Joanne0012 at aol.com (joanne0012) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 15:59:25 -0000 Subject: Lupin, the Moon and the Bewitching Hour (WAS TAGS and moonlight ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32744 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > The timing seems to work, because I think it is a one-hour, one-way > trip to the Shrieking Shack, and Lupin sees Sirius on the Map at > nightfall, which is maybe 7-8 p.m. that time of year. So if the full > moon rises at midnight, he has plenty of time to save the trio, > apprehend Sirius/Peter, and make it back to the castle for a dose of > wolfsbane potion. But the full moon doesn't rise at midnight, it rises in the early evening, around 6 PM. Always. It's been doing so all your life. The moon is full because it reflects the sun and so must be halfway-around the earth from it -- i.e., high in the sky at midnight when it's full. Here's a pretty lucid explanation. http://www.treasure-troves.com/astro/MoonPhase.html Likewise, sunset is very late in Scotland in mid-June, since it's so far north: 10 PM or even a little later. http://www.onlineweather.com/v4/uk/sun/June/Edinburgh.html So in reality, the moon has risen (i.e., 6 PM) long before the kids set off for the Shrieking Shack (after dark, i.e., 10 PM), and even longer before Lupin arrives at the shack. In PoA, Lupin transforms when the clouds break and the group (just emerging back on the Hogwarts grounds) is "bathed in moonlight" (PoA, p. 380 of the US version), not when the moon rises. JKR, being a novelist, can make the sun, moon, and werewoves behave just as she pleases, of course. From ftah3 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 4 16:03:20 2002 From: ftah3 at yahoo.com (ftah3) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 16:03:20 -0000 Subject: Lupin, the Moon and the Bewitching Hour (WAS TAGS and moonlight ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32745 cindysphynx wrote: > A fabulous additional benefit of Mahoney's theory is that it neatly > explains Lupin's failure to transform when the boggart turns into the > moon. The boggart can turn into the moon all it wants to, but it is > not the bewitching hour, so Lupin doesn't have to be concerned about > transforming. Recall how Lupin vanquishes the boggart moon "almost > lazily?" He isn't concerned because he knows he won't transform > because it is not the sight of the moon, his fear of the moon, or > anything else connected only with the moon that makes him transform. > It is the bewitching hour *coupled with* the moon. Hey! You're right! I'd forgotten about that. Just because the witching hour might be necessary for transformation doesn't negate the fact that the moon is the embodiment of Lupin's greatest fear; it just means that so long as he gets over the primal fear, the gut reaction to freeze upon sight of the moon, it's easier to rationalize around his fear and become quite nonchalant about the boggart/moon. %-) <--- that's me, really glad that my pet theory works on some level. lol. That doesn't often happen. Mahoney From ftah3 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 4 16:10:43 2002 From: ftah3 at yahoo.com (ftah3) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 16:10:43 -0000 Subject: Lupin, the Moon and the Bewitching Hour (WAS TAGS and moonlight ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32746 joanne0012 wrote: > But the full moon doesn't rise at midnight, it rises in the early evening, around 6 > PM. Always. It's been doing so all your life. True, but my theory is that the moon is risen, and it isn't until midnight (or whatever may be the so-called 'witching hour') on the first night of the full moon that transformation occurs. I.e., full moon rises, the evening ticks past, clock strikes midnight and bing! Grr, argh, howl, etc. And while the text says he transformed as the clearing (and he himself) was bathed in moonlight, I like to think that it *could* be a trick of coincidence (otherwise known as 'dramatic effect' ;->). Lupin seems to freeze up once the transformation starts ~ can't say "oh hey, looks like I'm about to become a killing machine, do scatter, won't you?" The fact that the moon breaks through as the witching hour strikes is a lucky event that reminds Sirius of his friend's condition. All right, all right, I admit, I'm mother hen-ing my theory. I promise, I'll stop now and let ya'll shred it to your hearts' content. :-P Mahoney From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Fri Jan 4 16:12:26 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 16:12:26 -0000 Subject: JKR's writing In-Reply-To: <3C35D097.C4385BBA@sun.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32747 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Elizabeth Dalton wrote: > Elizabeth (who does think Rowling is doing a fine job with the series, considering she says she hasn't read much fantasy, but thinks she would have done even better if she had a little more experience with the SF&F genre.) Adressing your post-name comment, I would like to point out that we're lucky she hasn't read much fantasy. While we have to suffer ocasional plot-holes and hole-devices, HP is still very different from any other fantasy I've read. If JK had read fantasy, she would've probably be contaminated (you know: beautiful, intelligent, TALL elves, dwarfs instead of gnomes, etc). I'm willing a few holes in the magical devices (explainable by the feared and hated "it's magic (shrug)") in exchange for this wonderful HP world. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From bonnie at niche-associates.com Fri Jan 4 15:53:55 2002 From: bonnie at niche-associates.com (dicentra_spectabilis_alba) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 15:53:55 -0000 Subject: Fudge's version of the Sirius/Peter encounter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32748 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Liz Sager" wrote: > > >"dicentra_spectabilis_alba" wrote: > >In PA, Fudge says that when he arrived on the scene, shortly after the > >blast that "killed" Pettigrew, Sirius was laughing. > > > >Is this an embellishment of Fudge's or was Sirius laughing (or > >something similar) and Fudge misinterpreted what he saw? > > Fudge seems to be the type of man that would embellish that kind of thing, > whether it was for motives or other things. OTOH, Sirius might have been > really laughing, though I fail to find the humor in the situation. I guess > you had to be there and not die :P Which brings up another point: how did Sirius survive a blast at close range that killed 12 muggles who were, presumably, farther away from ground zero than he was? Natural wizard durability? It's also possible that Sirius, believing that Rat Pettigrew had accidentally blown himself up, was laughing at the irony of it all. > > >If the former, did Fudge have an ulterior motive for making Sirius out > >to be the villian? Could it be linked to his refusal to take > >Voldemort's return seriously? > > Once again, Fudge seems to me the kind of man that refuses to look past the > end of his nose unless someone reaches up and grabs that nose and stretches > it out a few feet. Its easier to deny that Voldemort has been resurrected > than to seriously investigate. > > My point is I wonder how someone like Fudge got to be in charge. *I* > certainly wouldn't have voted for him (if that's how they get the > MoM...*holds up her "Arthur Weasley for MoM" sign*) > > Liz > First, I'll join the "Arthur Weasley for MoM" march, if you don't mind. That said, I agree that Fudge is your basic self-serving, short-sighted politician. But characters in this series are rarely who they appear to be. He might be closer in disposition to Rat Pettigrew, who holds to the "long live the victor" method of survival. Or he might be something else entirely. Sigh... as with everything, wait and see... From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Fri Jan 4 16:31:55 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 16:31:55 -0000 Subject: Lupin, the Moon and the Bewitching Hour In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32749 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "joanne0012" wrote: So in reality, the moon has risen (i.e., 6 PM) long before the kids set off for the Shrieking Shack (after dark, i.e., 10 PM), and even longer before Lupin arrives at the shack. In PoA, Lupin transforms when the clouds break and the group (just emerging back on the Hogwarts grounds) is "bathed in moonlight" (PoA, p. 380 of the US version), not when the moon rises. JKR, being a novelist, can make the sun, moon, and werewoves behave just as she pleases, of course. ----------------- This is just off the top of my head, so it's proably got a few holes: [non-Canon] It's not just the full-moon. Werewolves in HP reality transform because the full moon generates a powerful magical ambient that stimulates the transformation. However, this magical ambient (from now on known as "wolf-air") takes time to reach is peak in which there is enough of this especial magical energy in the air to change men into wolves. How much time, I hear you ask? Yes, you guessed it: from the moment the moon appears over the horizont to Lupin's transformation. From then on, the influence of the moon is strong enough for the wolf-air to exist even during the times in which the moon is under the horizon. At the end of the full-moon period, the wolf-air diminishes quickly, thus returning werewolves to their human form. [/non-Canon] OK, it sounds a bit forced, but you have to consider that this "wolf-air" (whatever is really called) DOES exist. In some countries (Switzerland, I think) it is consider an atenuant to a crime having comitted it during full-moon nights. This fact was known in ancient times, and is probably the origin of the werewolves mythology in the first place. Anyway, that's my colaboration to swimmerseyelids, although I hope we can convince Tabouli to make a new one which takes this newest theory into account. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From feycat at feycat.net Fri Jan 4 16:41:19 2002 From: feycat at feycat.net (Gabriel Edson) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 11:41:19 -0500 Subject: Canary-in-the-mine References: <014f01c19535$8316cf40$11ae1e3e@stephen> Message-ID: <005101c1953e$a42fedc0$0b01a8c0@enet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32750 >because of soffocation? The smaller a creature is, the less air it >needs, and the calmer you are, the less air you need. Why would, then, >the canary (small, virtually inmobile inside is cage) die sooner than >the miners (big men, sweating away while mining)? But I digress... Canaries and finches have extremely delicate respiratory systems. You can actually kill a canary by spraying something toxic in another room (like cleaner) or paint fumes from painting an outdoor deck wafting in from a window in another room. No, really, I've seen both of these. :-( Gabriel Pack House Quidditch Team Keeper "Twitchy little ferret, aren't you Malfoy?" Isn't having a smoking section in a restaurant like having a peeing section in a pool? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Fri Jan 4 16:53:30 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 16:53:30 -0000 Subject: The effects of Avada Kedavra Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32751 Some time ago, several threads sprung up about the effects of AK, but it is still way into the shadows. I, loving the cretion of theories, have one of my own on this topic (as well as many others). However, being a computer fan, my theories sooner or later reach beta status and I need other people to look it over and point at the holes. So, let me explain first what we know, and then what I suspect. We know, from GoF that AK shots a green ray that, when it touches a living being, kills instantly. However, it doesn't damage the body at all, while it seems to kill from fear. However, since death from fear is normally a heart-attack, and the Riddles were in perfect health (apart from the fact that they were dead), we should discount that posibility. Also, we know that you've got to be very powerful to use it (why Wormtail was able to cast it leads to interesting conclusions about his powers, which were suposed to be minimal... but that should go in another thread). Now, my theory. In my opinion, the AK doesn't actually kill. It's effects are much worse: it wrenches the soul from the body. This explains the horror of the Riddles, who can feal what's happening to them when LV comes to call, and explains how is it that the spider doesn't actually suffer (in Woody's lesson): the spider cannot understand what's happening. Now for the tricky part: why is Voldie's body destroyed when the AK rebounds on Harry and hits him? I'm not actually positive about it (if you've got proof against it, please refer it), but it's posible that, in fact, Voldie's body simply droped "dead" at the feet of Harry. The spell AK was supposed to wrench his soul from his body, which it did (leaving the body in perfect condition), except for the soul part. I'm a firm believer that V didn't actually HAVE a soul by then, just a malevolous spirit (a sort of very degenerated soul). Thus, the essence of evil was able to continue un-living without it's body, but reduced to a shadow. From then on, Voldemort is an un-dead, similar to a ghost, but with a limited time: it's his evil that allows him to survive without a body, but it's his power that allows him to exist as a shodow, and this power slowly depletes as he grows more and more tired (which is why he needs unicorns blood, the philosopher's stone, etc.) Why didn't he go back to his own body? I think that, once you're out, there's no way to get back in (magic cannot raise the dead in HP world). Also, Voldie was supposed to have any number of defense enchantments on himself, so he couldn't even dominate it's own body (as he would do later own with different animals to keep alive), since the encantments prevented almost any form of magic (except, obviously, for the unforgivable curses for which there is no defence). Comments? Sugestions? Other theories? Previous threads on the same topic? Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From egility at yahoo.com Fri Jan 4 17:24:05 2002 From: egility at yahoo.com (egility) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 17:24:05 -0000 Subject: Return to Muggledom or the Ruby Slippers Theory In-Reply-To: <3C35C764.62971767@sun.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32752 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Elizabeth Dalton wrote: > I like this theory, obviously. > > Now I'm wondering if that's what the "Order of the Phoenix" is/was working > toward? And if the Malfoys and others knew about this, it would be reason for a > lot of the malice we've seen between the two groups.... > > And, given that phoenixes represent (in part) rebirth, I'm wondering if in some > way this would be a redistribution of magic, rather than a draining of it? > > The thing that worries/puzzles me about this kind of apocalyptic ending is, what > would happen to the magical creatures the wizards are protecting, as described > in FB&WTFT? Elizabeth, shortly after I posted my msg I found your recent discussion of this very theory (msg 32222 "Sadness..."). Sorry I didn't find it earlier. I'm glad I'm not the only one on this wavelength, but perhaps I am not as negative about this outcome as you appear to be. While it would of course be terribly sad to lose the Wizarding world, I find this course in the end more positive because it reiterates the Choices over Destiny proposition and says to the reader that you too can have a better life, not through some magical interventions but through what you choose to do and make of yourself. What becomes of the magical creatures is something I thought about briefly, but didn't linger on probably because I think they would all have to die. Sadly, I think the same would be true of Hagrid as half giant, but this would not be inconsistent with the theory and would serve to personalize the choice Harry has to make. I can almost picture Hagrid encouraging Harry and telling him its OK (this already brings me near tears!). I like your idea of the Order of Phoenix as keepers/movers of this secret in some way. I was hoping someone would bring that up too. Anyway, there just seems to be too much heading in this direction and I am beginning to think it is better than even money that this is the way things will go. Chris:) From squireandknight at yahoo.com Fri Jan 4 17:37:51 2002 From: squireandknight at yahoo.com (Becky) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 09:37:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Accio Charm (and a bit about portkeys & apparating) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020104173751.37956.qmail@web20302.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32753 --- brewpub44 wrote: > > > > The only hole I find in this theory (which had > occoured to me, > being an > > RPG fan), is that Ron's mother accios the fake > items from the > twin's > > pockets without even knowing what they were or > even if they truly > > existed. > > > > Any views on this? > > > > Grey Wolf > > Wow! Great observation! OK, how's this: > > a) she saw them put something in their pockets (not > likely) > b) she obviously sees that "something" is in their > pockets. The > pockets themselves are visible, they're bulging out > or something. > There has to be something there, and she knows it > (more likely) > > For example, if a wizard saw a tablecloth over an > obvious object > underneath, that person could Accio it into his or > her hand. Of > course, this could be verrrrry dangerous. It could > be a bowling ball > with teeth or something. > > It would be different if there was an object in a > tablecloth in a > room not in view. Then there's nothing there as far > as the person > knows, hence, no Accio. > > A Barkeep in Diagon Alley > > But in GoF chap. 26 'The Second Task' it says, "Ron quite liked the idea of using the Summoning Charm again - Harry had explained about Aqua-Lungs, and Ron couldn't see why Harry shouldn't Summon one from the nearest Muggle town." The only objections to this is that it was unlikely for Harry to learn how to operate one in the set limit of an hour, and even more unlikely for a Muggle not to notice an Aqua-Lung zooming around the countryside. I would say that familiarity isn't really needed for an object you wish to Summon. I like the theory that there are some objects that cannot be (or it would be unwise to) Summoned. Becky ===== "Transported to a surreal landscape, a young girl kills the first woman she meets and then teams up with three complete strangers to kill again." - newspaper TV listing for "The Wizard of Oz" __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send your FREE holiday greetings online! http://greetings.yahoo.com From ctoebe at yahoo.com Fri Jan 4 16:25:53 2002 From: ctoebe at yahoo.com (Connie Toebe) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 08:25:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Untackled (?) Questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020104162553.3525.qmail@web14403.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32754 > > How did Myrtle die if she wears glasses (Colin was > > petrified using the camera)? > Hi I'm a newbie also but I had to chime in on this one. Colin might have just been petrified, not killed if he was using a SLR (single lens reflex) camera. That's the type of camera that has interchangable lenses as opposed to a point-and-shoot style. When you look through the viewfinder of an SLR your not just looking through a piece of glass. What happens is that light comes through the lens onto a mirror in the back of the camera. This then reflects onto a second mirror that is facing backwards, in the front of the camera. When your looking into the viewfinder, you are actually looking at the mirror reflection of what is directly in front of the lens. Hence, Colin wasn't actually looking at the basilisk at all but his relection in the camera. I hope that made sense and wasn't too technical. I just thought you might like "simple" and believeable theory. And besides, that art school education had to come in handy some day. ;) Connie __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send your FREE holiday greetings online! http://greetings.yahoo.com From deadstop at gte.net Fri Jan 4 17:33:34 2002 From: deadstop at gte.net (Stacy Stroud) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 12:33:34 -0500 Subject: Minerva and Myrtle? In-Reply-To: <1010158229.24311.59223.m2@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <4.3.2.20020104121618.00a79660@mail.gte.net> No: HPFGUIDX 32755 There's a scene in CoS (sorry, been borrowing the books sequentially, so I don't have it here to provide a chapter or page number) where McGonagall seems to have a rather personal reaction to the idea of students losing friends to the monster. Is it possible that McGonagall was at Hogwarts at the same time as Hagrid, Tom, and Myrtle, and that she was personally affected by Myrtle's death? That's the only other time someone was killed by the Basilisk. McGonagall is supposed to be 70. If that's a rounded-off age, or even an "as of book 4" age, she would be just about the right age to be a seventh-year when Riddle is a sixth-year and Hagrid a third-year. And of course, even if she's older, she might have attended for part of their time at the school. It certainly doesn't seem impossible that she knew Myrtle. Of course, Myrtle doesn't acknowledge ever having any friends, and it doesn't seem that McGonagall spends any time with her ghost now. It's possible that the young Minerva was one of the girls who teased Myrtle, and she now feels guilty for that just as she does for getting angry at Peter Pettigrew when he was her student. In that case, though, you'd think that she would have made some effort to make amends to the ghost by now; she doesn't seem to be a Snape-type who would let her childhood insecurities affect her as an adult. And Myrtle could still get at Minerva to haunt her, but doesn't. Hmm, perhaps this doesn't work out as well as I thought. Anyone else have this thought upon reading that bit in CoS? Stacy Stroud (deadstop at gte.net) Hex Entertainment, Inc. (http://www.hexgames.com) From ChibiAiChan at cs.com Fri Jan 4 18:00:40 2002 From: ChibiAiChan at cs.com (ChibiAiChan at cs.com) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 13:00:40 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Power of Names (WAS:[ "Remus Lupin" His Real Name?) Message-ID: <39.20686988.296747c8@cs.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32756 Speaking of names, what about Harry? Harry is such a plain name, nothing real special, (that I know of), comes from this name. It means nothing that I can think of. However, still, I think it fits him. How? Harry: it's such a plain name. Nothing so highly can be expected of such a plain boy, right? At first I was reading the posts, and his name came to mind. I was thinking, "What the heck, why doesn't the main character have a meaningful name?" And then my sister brought this up~ Anyways, yeah ^^* Hi! I'm a newbie (not so much to Harry Potter than all these groups and what not). I'm 18, and in 12th grade ^^ And I adore the Harry Potter series (AND I NEED THE 5th BOOK!!! *has withdrawal*) <3 Ai-Chan (sorry if the topic's been brought up before!!!) From grrlscout678 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 4 18:23:36 2002 From: grrlscout678 at yahoo.com (grrlscout678) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 18:23:36 -0000 Subject: Best and worst of Harry (was: Re: The worst of times... the ball) In-Reply-To: <3C35CA24.86679528@sun.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32757 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Elizabeth Dalton wrote: > >What's the worst thing *Harry's* ever done? > > Well, there are a number of candidates that are probably better for *worst*, but > this has been bugging me, so here goes: his treatment of Parvati at the Ball. > Gets her to go, even gets her to throw her sister at Ron, and then utterly > ignores her. > > Trivial, yes, but really unkind and unfair. I'm with you -- that was quite inconsiderate of him. At least he did dance with her once, though, which is more than can be said for Ron's treatment of Padma... > > Here's how I *wish* he could have invited her: > > "Hi, Parvati, got a minute? Look, I have to take a dance partner to the ball, > and I can't dance." "But I bet you can. > Would you help out a housemate and be my dance partner? Just for the first > dance. I'll try not to embarrass you too much, and I'm sure you'll get loads of > offers right after that, from guys who can appreciate a good dancer, and I'll > stay out of your way. Please?" lol! That would have been very mature. Hence, it'll probably be a few years before Harry can muster up a speech like that. After all it took every ounce of nerve he had to spit out like 10 words when he was asking Cho, and he actually *wanted* to go with her. As for Harry's best and worst moments... well there are of course a lot of candidates for his best and a few for his worst. But I'd give him a three-way tie for best moment: 1. Offering to share the Triwizard Cup with Cedric (unfortunately this had not-so-great consequences, but the gesture was very nice/selfless) 2. Giving the twins his tournament winnings, with the great line, "Buy Ron some new dress robes and say they're from you" (paraphrased, sorry) 3. Not letting Lupin/Sirius kill Pettigrew. For Harry's worst moment, one thing somewhat excusable but still irksome is his treatment of Hermione during her fight with Ron in PoA. Ron is furious with Hermione for Crookshanks' alleged assault on Scabbers, so he's ignoring her, and then when she causes McGonagall to confiscate Harry's Firebolt, Ron again starts acting hateful to her. Harry, however, doesn't seem particularly angry at Hermione for either, and doesn't openly take sides -- yet he spends all his time with Ron anyway, leaving Hermione stressed-out and friendless. In direct contrast, when Ron and Harry have their fight in GoF, Hermione spends all her time with Harry, and so neither he nor Ron (who seems to hang out with Dean, Seamus and his brothers during this period) have to be alone. I know, I know, he's thirteen and hasn't learned that much about friendship yet, but still he should have made some effort to reach out to Hermione in PoA. Scout From hollydaze at btinternet.com Fri Jan 4 19:35:35 2002 From: hollydaze at btinternet.com (Hollydaze) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 19:35:35 -0000 Subject: Lupin, the Moon and the Bewitching Hour Message-ID: <010b01c19556$fd795d40$458601d5@j0dhe> No: HPFGUIDX 32758 Mahoney came up with a new theory on why Lupin does not transform until he sees teh moon even though it has obviously been up for hours. This included solutions to: > 1. Why did he forget to take his potion, when it's so critical? (He > didn't; he just put it off, because he thought he would have time to > get to it later.) > > 2. Why did he run out of the relative security of his office on the > night of his transformation? (Again, he thought he had time to get > back to the potion/his office before he transformed.) > > 3. Why did he not transform until that one particular moment, when > it *seems* clear that the moon has been up for a while? (Because it > isn't just the appearance of the moon, but the 'witching hour' on the > first night of the full moon that dicates his transformation.) > > 4. Why did he berate himself and consent to leave Hogwarts, when > he'd only made the one mistake, and knew that so long as he stuck to > the potion he would be harmless in the future? (Because it wasn't > just that he'd put innocents in danger by forgetfulness; it was > because he'd made a conscious choice to take a risk, and in doing so > he realized that he'd taken his dangerous condition for granted. He > didn't forget his potion, he forgot to keep in mind how dangerous he > was. Which is almost scarier. Cindy backed this up by saying: > The best part is that it makes Lupin out to be a thoughtful person who made a rational > decision (consistent with his character) instead of an incompetent > who can't remember the one thing he has to remember in order to avoid > killing people. That's an improvement. The most important part of this being that it stays in character for Lupin. it has even convinced Elizabeth. However there is one adition I would like to mention if I may. I really like this idea (especially as Lupin is my fav character) but about 4 days ago someone (sorry I deleted the email and so can't find who it was) mentioned an idea about it having to be teh exact full moon for Lupin to transform. That there is only one time when it is EXACTLY the fullmoon and that it is this that causes the transformation, that the cloud was just to draw our attention to the moon. I think if this was added into Mahoney's theory as being the reason behind the "specific time", (as in he knows the EXACT moment of the full moon and so knows exactly when he is going to tranform) then that would back it up even more because I was thinking about the bit with the boggart and if it was the "witching hour" and the moon then his boggart could just as easily been a clock (probably analog) showing 12:00 on it. Also sometimes in the summer the moon doesn't always come up until after 12:00 (especially in Scotland where it is though Hogwarts is located - although this is usually in July August, rather than in June) I just think that the *full* full moon, so to speak would fit more with "traditional" ideas about werewolves than the "witching hour". Hope I'm not poking my nose in wear it is not wanted as I like this theory a lot but just thought that it might be even better if that was the reason for the specific time rather than 12:00. HOLLYDAZE!!! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Ali at zymurgy.org Fri Jan 4 19:24:11 2002 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 19:24:11 -0000 Subject: *delurk and imperius curse* In-Reply-To: <001c01c051aa$da971b00$47c44b0c@cq5wu> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32759 Sorry to be harking back to an old message - I'm a newbie, and haven't seen this as an answer to a supposed inconsistency. When we are told that Harry felt "for the 3rd time in his life the sensation that his mind had been wiped of all thought". This does not mean that he was being subjected to the Imperius course for the 3rd time. In addition to being put under the curse by Crouch, Harry was also very affected by the Veela when he first saw them. On p.94 of GoF JKR tells us that "Harry's mind had gone completely and blissfully blank" To me, this would seem to be the first occasion when his mind went blank, followed by the Crouch episode (when he in fact was placed under the curse a few times), and then correctly, for the 3rd time under the Imperius Curse be Voldemort. Does anyone else agree that this is a solutiion to a supposed inconsistency? Ali From Zorb17 at aol.com Fri Jan 4 19:21:33 2002 From: Zorb17 at aol.com (Zorb17 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 14:21:33 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] The effects of Avada Kedavra Message-ID: <81.1580788c.29675abd@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32760 Grey Wolf said: "Now, my theory. In my opinion, the AK doesn't actually kill. It's effects are much worse: it wrenches the soul from the body. This explains the horror of the Riddles, who can feal what's happening to them when LV comes to call, and explains how is it that the spider doesn't actually suffer (in Woody's lesson): the spider cannot understand what's happening." You asked for us to poke holes, and here's one that jumped out at me. If AK simply takes the soul, how then would a victim be physically dead, as its victims are? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the same effect as a Dementor's Kiss? Kiss victims, unlike AK ones, are still alive afterwards. In the Potterverse, soul-removal doesn't equal death. Zorb [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ftah3 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 4 19:53:23 2002 From: ftah3 at yahoo.com (ftah3) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 19:53:23 -0000 Subject: Lupin, the Moon and the Bewitching Hour In-Reply-To: <010b01c19556$fd795d40$458601d5@j0dhe> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32761 Hollydaze wrote: > Mahoney came up with a new theory on why Lupin does not transform until he sees teh moon even though it has obviously been up for hours. To be more specific, my theory has nothing to do with Lupin actually seeing the moon. He could be in a tunnel 50 miles under the earth; however, once the witching hour strikes on the first night of the full moon, he would transform. > I really like this idea (especially as Lupin is my fav character) but about 4 days ago someone (sorry I deleted the email and so can't find who it was) mentioned an idea about it having to be teh exact full moon for Lupin to transform. That there is only one time when it is EXACTLY the fullmoon and that it is this that causes the transformation, that the cloud was just to draw our attention to the moon. Hmm, well, as to the *exact* full moon being necessary...then when would be the cut off point? Why would he spend three days as a werewolf if there is only one 'time' when the moon is actually full. I think what I'm getting at is that the full moon cycle is conventionally set at three days ~ this is in regards what the human eye sees, and not based on scientific measurement. It is during this time period that werewolves are commonly thought, in myth, to be in wolf form. My theory accepts that convention completely. However, what I'm doing is putting the cycle into a clock-work, pre-destination format. I.e., the seasonally sliding time of moonrise is irrelevant; the whenever time of the werewolf physically catching sight of the moon is irrelevant; and even the werewolf's knowledge of clock time is irrelevant. Rather, the magic is in the hour. For example, no matter where he is, what he sees, or what he's thinking about, nor even where the moon is in regards the local horizon. A werewolf is a werewolf from midnight on the first night when the full moon cycle begins through (according to the three days) midnight on the the first night the moon moves to the waxing gibbous cycle. As for when midnight actually falls in any given place...this is why I'm less fixated on midnight per se, than on a 'witching hour.' For matter of discussion, I'll say that my theoretical 'witching hour' occurs midway through the night. Does that make sense? > Hope I'm not poking my nose in wear it is not wanted Pff. That's the whole point of a discussion group, isn't it? Pokey noses! Where would be the fun without them? :-) Mahoney From lrcjestes at earthlink.net Fri Jan 4 19:58:46 2002 From: lrcjestes at earthlink.net (siriusgeologist) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 19:58:46 -0000 Subject: Fudge's version of the Sirius/Peter encounter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32762 Oh my I'm actually posting on the main list! It's been a verra verra long time...but then this is a sirius question --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "dicentra_spectabilis_alba" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Liz Sager" wrote: > > > > >"dicentra_spectabilis_alba" wrote: > > >In PA, Fudge says that when he arrived on the scene, shortly after the > > >blast that "killed" Pettigrew, Sirius was laughing. > > > > > >Is this an embellishment of Fudge's or was Sirius laughing (or > > >something similar) and Fudge misinterpreted what he saw? > > > > Fudge seems to be the type of man that would embellish that kind of > thing, > > whether it was for motives or other things. OTOH, Sirius might have > been > > really laughing, though I fail to find the humor in the situation. I > guess > > you had to be there and not die :P I don't think Fudge was embellishing at all in this instance. What could he do but laugh. Note that he laughed hysterically. Imagine you are Sirius. You know who betrayed James and Lily, but you also know that you will be blamed since no one else knew of the secret keeper switch. You feel incredibly guilty because it was your stupid idea that sent your best friends into the hands of V. And here's your chance to make it right. But before you can act, Peter casts the spell and vanishes leaving you holding the bag for not only the 12 muggle deaths + his own but also for James and Lily's death as well. Sirius saw Peter disappear down the crater with the rest of the rats. He knew how it would look. He knew what was about to happen to him and what he faced (and no doubt felt he deserved it at that) So what do you do in that case where a surge of emotion catches up to you and your world just crumbles around you...you have a break down and either go catatonic or begin to laugh hysterically. I see it as quite a true emotion of desperation for his situation. > > Which brings up another point: how did Sirius survive a blast at close > range that killed 12 muggles who were, presumably, farther away from > ground zero than he was? Natural wizard durability? > > It's also possible that Sirius, believing that Rat Pettigrew had > accidentally blown himself up, was laughing at the irony of it all. No he saw Pettigrew transform into the rat and slither on down into the crater. As to how he survived (Penny and I wote a bit about this in our fanfic...so we've thought it all out) IMHO and this is just speculation and theory on my part...but..It states that Peter was facing Sirius and had his wand behind his back. I think the spell that was cast was cast from behind Peters back and therefore directed away from Sirius. The energy would be directed out towards the street...otherwise Peter would also be killed in the explosion. I don't think Peter wanted Sirius dead. It would be too easy for the Ministry to turn it's investigative eye to Peter. He wanted to fake his death and blame Sirius for it and J/L this meant he needed Sirius alive. carole From hollydaze at btinternet.com Fri Jan 4 20:05:17 2002 From: hollydaze at btinternet.com (Hollydaze) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 20:05:17 -0000 Subject: Uk best sellers (up to Dec 29th) - JR Vs JT Message-ID: <015001c1955b$38d91d40$458601d5@j0dhe> No: HPFGUIDX 32763 I just went downstairs and looked at the BBC teletext best-selling books list and you could say it is rather dominated by two people: 1 HP and the PS 2 HP and the CoS 3 The Fellowship of the Ring 4 HP and the PoA 5 HP and the GoF 6 Lord of the Rings (All three combined) 7 Painted House (John Grisham) 8 Two Towers 9 The Hobbit 10 The return of the King. In respect of recent conversations about comparing the two sets of books, I kind think that that shows that you don't need to compare the books, they are both great books in their own rights that people still go out and buy (over 50 years since they were first written in one case). So we have the evidence that they are both good in their own ways and we don't need to compare them and see "which one is better". HOLLYDAZE!!! Sorry if this is totally off topic and shouldn't be on this List. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zoehooch at yahoo.com Fri Jan 4 19:40:48 2002 From: zoehooch at yahoo.com (zoehooch) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 19:40:48 -0000 Subject: Genre? Or not? (was Re: Wasted Charms & other magical devices (Time Turner)) In-Reply-To: <3C35D097.C4385BBA@sun.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32764 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Elizabeth Dalton wrote: > (who does think Rowling is doing a fine job with the series, considering she > says she hasn't read much fantasy, but thinks she would have done even better if > she had a little more experience with the SF&F genre.) I'm not so sure about that statement. One of the things I dearly love about the series is that is nothing like the genre books, but are good, well-written and well-developed novels. She's created a reality that seems honest and true. Her magical community fits in well with the current Muggle community, which, in my view, make the books even more enjoyable. For me, all of this adds up to why the books are so popular with so many different people. The books don't feel like a fantasy; they feel real and it's only because we have the misfortune to be muggles that we aren't participating in it. Zoe Hooch From hollydaze at btinternet.com Fri Jan 4 20:21:21 2002 From: hollydaze at btinternet.com (Hollydaze) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 20:21:21 -0000 Subject: Lupin, the Moon and the Bewitching Hour References: Message-ID: <016001c1955d$62162480$458601d5@j0dhe> No: HPFGUIDX 32765 > Hmm, well, as to the *exact* full moon being necessary...then when > would be the cut off point? Why would he spend three days as a > werewolf if there is only one 'time' when the moon is actually full. I suppose this depends on how you see things. I always though that Lupin was only ever a wolf for one night especially as we have the evidence at the end of the book: He becomes a wolf the night that HH save Sirius and we know he is roaming the FF because Dumbledore tells us so. Harry, Ron and Hermione leave the Hospital wing at "noon next day" and it is this Day that Harry goes to see Lupin because he has resigned and it is here when Lupin give him the map back etc. So he isn't a wolf for the full three days. I always presumed he became human again when the sun came up. The way I explain his absence form lessons is that being a wolf took so much out of him that he had to take a couple of days of to recover enough to teach again. We know that it must take something out of him as Harry, Ron and Hermione continually notice that he looks weaker when he comes back after being "ill". He himself also tells us that it is very painful to become a werewolf, so I would presume he would have to rest and recuperate after the transformations. > I.e., the seasonally sliding time of moonrise is irrelevant; > the whenever time of the werewolf physically catching sight of the > moon is irrelevant; and even the werewolf's knowledge of clock time > is irrelevant. I was trying to back you up on that. I too was saying that these things are irrelevant, but that the time is always fixed to when the moon is exactly full. I worked this out using what I mentioned above rather than this three day cycle as it is pretty obvious that Lupin is not a werewolf for three days by the ending (see above) HOLLYDAZE!!! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Fri Jan 4 20:35:46 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 20:35:46 -0000 Subject: The effects of Avada Kedavra In-Reply-To: <81.1580788c.29675abd@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32766 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Zorb17 at a... wrote: You asked for us to poke holes, and here's one that jumped out at me. If AK simply takes the soul, how then would a victim be physically dead, as its victims are? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the same effect as a Dementor's Kiss? Kiss victims, unlike AK ones, are still alive afterwards. In the Potterverse, soul-removal doesn't equal death. > Zorb ----------------------- OK, sorry, that was a bad use of language on my part. By "soul" I was refering to the concious part of the life beings (also called "spark of life"). I meant whatever diferentiates an animal/person/plant/etc. from a rock, since when you get right down to it, we are basically water and carbon, and so is a river near carbon mines. So to correct my theory, substitute every "soul" by "life essence" or "life spark" or whatever you want to call it. Maybe one of these days I'll write a theory on fundamental differences between AK and a Dementor's kiss (not that I see many, right now). Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From Littlered32773 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 4 21:01:12 2002 From: Littlered32773 at yahoo.com (oz_widgeon) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 21:01:12 -0000 Subject: TAGS and moonlight (was T.A.G.S. re-opens for 2002 with another long acronym In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32767 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ftah3" wrote: > What If: he knew it was the full moon that night, and was going to go > get his potion from Snape. However, he knew the kids might sneak off > re the Buckbeak thing. He glances at the clock. It's evening, but > on the first night of the full moon the transformation does not occur > until (to pick a common 'witching hour') midnight. > > So out he runs...events happen...things get out of hand...and when > they leave the tunnel under the Whomping Willow, it's not the fact > that the moon breaks through that causes Lupin to change. The > appearance of the moon is simply what alerts Sirius to the reason > behind Lupin's sudden change in attitude. The cause of the change is > simply that Lupin's time has run out. Midnight of the first full > moon is at hand. > > Maybe? It's a theory. And, now I think of it, maybe someone has put > it forth before; sorry, if that's the case! I'm thinking it will be > easily debunked by you very intelligent people, at any rate. :-P > Ah, Mahoney, I hate to be the one to poke holes in this theory, as I really like it. I bandied it about for about a week before I realized the fatal flaw. The full moon at midnight makes perfect sense, except for one small problem. All the events are over BEFORE midnight. Chapter 21 Hermione's Secret: [In the hospital wing, Dumbledore has just told Harry and Hermione that where Sirius is being kept, and that they MUST NOT BE SEEN] '"I am going to lock you in. It is-" he consulted his watch, "five minutes to midnight. Miss Granger, three turns should do it. Good luck."' (PoA 393 US) >From all that has happened, Lupin transforming, Sirius and the kids being attacked by the Dementors, Harry 2 warding them off, Snape hauling them up to the castle, and Harry 2 and Hermione 2 flying buckbeak up to save Sirius, we can assume that a goodly amount of time passed between leaving the Shrieking Shack and midnight. We also don't know how long the kids were unconcious. From all these events, and the fact that they didn't leave until 11:55 pm it would seem that Lupin probably transformed sometime between 10:30 and 11:15. Harry and Hermione went back in time 3 hours, which would make it about 8:55 pm. It would be approx 9:15-9:30 that H1, H1, Ron, Pettigrew and Sirius went into the tunnel. Lupin followed shortly afterwards, as did Snape. If they were down under the SS for an hour and a half, that would bring them out around 10:30 (ish). They are only out of the WW for a few minutes when Lupin transforms. This leaves a little over an hour for all the other events to happen, which seems like quite a long time, as they seem to happen fairly quickly in the books, BUT we don't know how long it took Snape to get them all back up to the castle OR how long they were unconscious. Given that Dumbledore had time to hear Sirius's entire story and AND talk to Harry and Hermione plus give them instructions, it seems to make sense that this would all take about an hour or so, so it couldn't have been even close to midnight when Lupin transforms. It's really too bad. If only it had been, say 5 minutes to 1, instead of midnight, then the whole "witching hour" idea would make perfect sense and be very logical. Sadly, it just doesn't work. I'm going to stick to the 'Lupin must be touched by moonlight theory' Thanks to Tabouli for the outstanding names. Expect an owl with my sickles to help on your trip any day now. Hope you get to go. America is a cool place (yeah, yeah, I AM an American, so I'm a bit biased, but really it is, even if I don't live there right now) Slon (who feels much better and is heartily sick of Jell-O) From cindysphynx at home.com Fri Jan 4 21:11:17 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 21:11:17 -0000 Subject: Lupin, the Moon and the Bewitching Hour In-Reply-To: <016001c1955d$62162480$458601d5@j0dhe> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32768 Hollydaze wrote: > I always presumed he became human again when the sun came up. The >way I explain his absence form lessons is that being a wolf took so >much out of him that he had to take a couple of days of to recover >enough to teach again. We know that it must take something out of >him as Harry, Ron and Hermione continually notice that he looks >weaker when he comes back after being "ill". He himself also tells >us that it is very painful to become a werewolf, so I would presume >he would have to rest and recuperate after the transformations. I'm not sure we can sort this part out. When Lupin returns from being ill (that is, curling up in his office as a harmless wolf), he is drained. That could be a side-effect of the wolfsbane potion, rather than the transformation. Also, he could be spending between 1- 3 days as a harmless wolf -- who knows? For all we know, he starts teaching again while looking ill immediately after transforming back into a man without taking time to recover. When he has a full-fledged, painful transformation, however, we don't know how long that lasts. True, Dumbledore says Lupin is out of the forbidden forest the next day. But we don't know if Lupin took the potion the first two days and failed on the third day. We also have no information at all (IIRC) on what triggers Lupin's transformation back into a man, either with or without wolfsbane potion. Indeed, it could be that in a 3-day full moon cycle, Lupin transforms and untransforms three times (ouch!). Fortunately, it doesn't matter if I understand Mahoney's theory. The witching hour could be a particular time each of the three days, or it could be one particular point in the cycle. The theory works either way, I think. Cindy (wondering if the correct term is "bewitching hour" or "witching hour") From Elizabeth.Dalton at EAST.SUN.COM Fri Jan 4 21:20:59 2002 From: Elizabeth.Dalton at EAST.SUN.COM (Elizabeth Dalton) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 16:20:59 -0500 Subject: Genre? Or not? (was Re: Wasted Charms & other magical devices (Time Turner)) References: Message-ID: <3C361CBB.7B315DE6@sun.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32769 zoehooch wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Elizabeth Dalton > wrote: > > > (who does think Rowling is doing a fine job with the series, > considering she > > says she hasn't read much fantasy, but thinks she would have done > even better if > > she had a little more experience with the SF&F genre.) > > I'm not so sure about that statement. One of the things I dearly love > about the series is that is nothing like the genre books, but are > good, well-written and well-developed novels. As someone who's read a *lot* of "genre" fiction, I think you (and Grey Wolf) are selling the category short. Yes, there are plenty of hackneyed "tall-elf-short-dwarf-wizard-with-beard" stories out there, but there's plenty of good, well-conceived, well-written fiction out there, too, written by authors who would be (I believe) just as popular and successful if there were no fantasy or science fiction genre marketing category. Orson Scott Card comes to mind. So does Ian Banks, or C.J. Cherryh. Trying to argue whether the HP series is "genre" fiction or not is akin to arguing about whether it is children's literature or not, for many reasons. One is that it can expose the prejudices of some people against some categories of writing. Here, I use the word "prejudice" to mean "an opinion formed based on incomplete and often incorrect knowledge." (Sorry if that sounded pedantic-- I've been reading Lemony Snicket while waiting for OoP. ;) Elizabeth (who makes no bones about the fact that she prefers SF&F to most other kinds of fiction writing, and believes that that is *why* she likes Rowling's work so much) From Elizabeth.Dalton at EAST.SUN.COM Fri Jan 4 21:23:42 2002 From: Elizabeth.Dalton at EAST.SUN.COM (Elizabeth Dalton) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 16:23:42 -0500 Subject: Lupin, the Moon and the Bewitching Hour (WAS TAGS and moonlight ) References: Message-ID: <3C361D5E.F5E3FE0A@sun.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32770 joanne0012 wrote: > But the full moon doesn't rise at midnight, it rises in the early evening, around 6 > PM. Always. It's been doing so all your life. The moon is full because it reflects > the sun and so must be halfway-around the earth from it -- i.e., high in the sky > at midnight when it's full. > Yes, the moon rises at 6pm or whatever, depending on latitude. But it *becomes full* on its own time, which is what I think Hollydaze is trying to point out. I think this might rescue Mahoney's theory. It might not be midnight a.k.a. "the witching hour," but it might be the time when the moon is actually full, which can occur at any hour of the day earth-time, because it has to do with the moon's position with respect to the earth and the sun, not the earth's rotational position. Though this time varies, it is calculatable and Lupin would presumably be able to keep tabs on it quite easily. He could therefore, as Mahoney describes, look at the clock and know just how much time he has to work with. He might even have a special clock for the purpose, like the Weasley's have (or the watch that Dumbledore has, which still hasn't been explained). This means he can make what seems like a reasonable decision about how safe it is for him to leave his room, and how much time he has to take the potion. This gets around what would be so special about midnight, local time, as well. It also suggests that Lupin could transform in the middle of the day, so long as the moon is full. (He'd be loads of fun during an eclipse, for example.) And for what it's worth, I don't think he can transform for three days, as Hollydaze points out. We see him the next day after his transformation at the end of PoA (unless that's a Flint). Elizabeth (Lupin fan and amateur astronomer) From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Fri Jan 4 21:32:28 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 21:32:28 -0000 Subject: TAGS and moonlight (was T.A.G.S. re-opens for 2002 with another long acronym In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32771 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "oz_widgeon" wrote: > It's really too bad. If only it had been, say 5 minutes to 1, > instead of midnight, then the whole "witching hour" idea would make > perfect sense and be very logical. Sadly, it just doesn't work. > Slon (who feels much better and is heartily sick of Jell-O) ---------------- Doesn't it? I actually believe it works quite well: The fact is that, during the summer months, Western Europe works at GMT+2, which means that, when in Spain it's 12:00, our watches say it's 2:00 (the political reasons for this are quite obscure, and I'm not going to comment on this). Of course, England is different and so it only works at GMT+1, even though they are both more or less in the same meridians. This means that, when England's muggle's world is getting close to 1:00, the natural world is getting close to midnight. We know that the Wizard world is sinchronized with the muggle world, because the Hogwart's train departs at 10:00 in both worlds. Thus, the theory works even though the watches don't (after all, they never work at Hogwarts). Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From cindysphynx at home.com Fri Jan 4 21:43:25 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 21:43:25 -0000 Subject: Lupin, the Moon, the Bewitching Hour and the Timeline (WAS TAGS ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32772 Slon wrote: > I bandied it about for about a week before I > realized the fatal flaw. The full moon at midnight makes perfect > sense, except for one small problem. All the events are over BEFORE > midnight. > > Ah, but therein lies the beauty of Mahoney's theory. We are using midnight as an illustration only. The bewitching hour (or moment) might have been 11:30; it might have been 11:00. The point is that the time triggers the transformation, not the moonlight. Now, as I understand the theory, the bewitching time could well be related to some characteristic of the moon -- how full it is, how long it has been full, its color, whatever. The betwitching time could vary from month to month, or even day to day. The only thing that matters is that Lupin have some basis to calculate it. It does not have to be midnight. Slon again: >From all these > events, and the fact that they didn't leave until 11:55 pm it would > seem that Lupin probably transformed sometime between 10:30 and 11:15. Hmmm. I'm trying to work through this time-line a bit. Let's see. If we round it off, Hermione, Harry and Ron leave the castle at 9:00. They have a visit with Hagrid, and then a one-hour trip to Hogsmeade in the tunnel. According to canon, the tunnel trip Harry takes to Honeydukes takes "ages" and Harry doesn't arrive until "what felt like an hour." The Whomping Willow tunnel felt "as least as long as the one to Honeydukes." So they get to the Shrieking Shack with two hours remaining out of their three-hour window (assuming Harry and Hermione make the tunnel trip in under an hour because they are running, but they lost some time visiting with Hagrid, fighting the willow, and capturing Scabbers). We don't know how long they are in the Shack, but we know that they lose at least an hour on the return trip in the tunnel because they are walking gingerly and awkwardly with Pettigrew and Ron. Let's assume the return trip is 1 hour, 15 minutes. So now they have only 45 minutes remaining out of their three-hour window. So far, no time has been allotted for the events of the Shrieking Shack, Lupin's transformation, the dementor's attack, Snape's rescue, Dumbledore's meeting with Black, and regaining consciousness. These latter events must happen *very* quickly. If I do the math correctly, I would guess Lupin transforms pretty late -- around 11:20-11:25 would be my guess. This assumes you take 8:55, add 2:15 for tunnel travel and 15 minutes in the Shack. Cindy (wondering if this totally unnecessary timeline obsession will finally earn her status as a L.O.O.N.) From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Fri Jan 4 21:44:00 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 21:44:00 -0000 Subject: Genre? Or not? (was Re: Wasted Charms & other magical devices (Time Turner)) In-Reply-To: <3C361CBB.7B315DE6@sun.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32773 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Elizabeth Dalton As someone who's read a *lot* of "genre" fiction, I think you (and Grey Wolf) are selling the category short. Yes, there are plenty of hackneyed "tall-elf-short-dwarf-wizard-with-beard" stories out there, but there's plenty of good, well-conceived, well-written fiction out there, too, written by authors who would be (I believe) just as popular and successful if there were no fantasy or science fiction genre marketing category. Orson Scott Card comes to mind. So does Ian Banks, or C.J. Cherryh. > Elizabeth --------------- I must admit I've never read them, or even heard about them, but then again I live in a backwater country in reading terms. Most of what we get here is Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance, and a few independent authors (most of which I have read, and which unfortunately fall into two categories: Tolkienish or bad). There are exceptions, of course (Eddings being the most obvious), but are far and far between. I still doubt, nonetheless, that there are many 11 year-old wizards going to boarding schools in modern fantasy, or simply fantasy based directly in the real world (coexistant, not in distant past or future or alternate realities) and still is excelent quality. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf (He who is starting to wonder if he's about to run out of it's weekly quota of "Hope that helps") From meboriqua at aol.com Fri Jan 4 21:48:40 2002 From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 21:48:40 -0000 Subject: Best and Worst of Harry and Others Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32774 Great idea! I'm so pleased to see other people saying that it's hard to find Harry's worst thing. His goodness so far outweighs any bad things he's done, I often find myself excusing Harry. I have no problem with him throwing the badge at Ron in GoF; I felt his anger in that scene and my heart went out to Harry for feeling so isolated and about to face a dragon unprepared. His behavior at the Ball I tend to chalk up to his age and not really knowing how to act appropriately around girls. There are characters whose best and worst moments are really unclear to me. What would Hermione's worst moment be? I'd have to say the ongoing issue with Ron when she allowed Crookshanks wherever he pleased and ended up terrorizing Scabbers. Her best for me is when she slaps Draco good. Bwahahahaha. Does Dumbledore have any worst moments? McGonagall? Hmmmmmm. --jenny from ravenclaw, who loved reading Amanda's defense of Snape and wonders what Snape himself would think of all the hoopla about him ******************************************************* From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Fri Jan 4 22:00:30 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 22:00:30 -0000 Subject: Best and Worst of Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32775 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jenny_ravenclaw" wrote: What would Hermione's worst moment be? I'd have to say the ongoing issue with Ron when she allowed Crookshanks wherever he pleased and ended up terrorizing Scabbers. Her best for me is when she slaps Draco good. Bwahahahaha. --jenny from ravenclaw, who loved reading Amanda's defense of Snape > and wonders what Snape himself would think of all the hoopla about him > ******************************************************* I'm not one to back from a question, so there goes my own views: Worst moment: Going on and on with trying to destroy the elves' way of life (and refusing to understand they LIKE taking care of wizards, and that they have no use for money) Best moment: Explaining to Harry what a wizard really is. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From ftah3 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 4 22:01:35 2002 From: ftah3 at yahoo.com (ftah3) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 22:01:35 -0000 Subject: Genre? Or not? (was Re: Wasted Charms & other magical devices (Time Turner)) In-Reply-To: <3C361CBB.7B315DE6@sun.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32776 Elizabeth Dalton wrote: > As someone who's read a *lot* of "genre" fiction, I think you (and Grey Wolf) > are selling the category short. Yes, there are plenty of hackneyed > "tall-elf-short-dwarf-wizard-with-beard" stories out there, but there's plenty > of good, well-conceived, well-written fiction out there, too, written by authors > who would be (I believe) just as popular and successful if there were no fantasy > or science fiction genre marketing category. Orson Scott Card comes to mind. So > does Ian Banks, or C.J. Cherryh. Exactly. Which is part of the reason I also had a smidge of an objection to your previous statement that it would have been better if Rowling had read more sci-fi-fantasy/had left 'hokey' devices alone. The fact is, the good writers can use certain devices and they will *not* be hokey/contrived/full of holes because they are talented writers. In fact, in the hands of a talented writer, the most hackneyed idea can become (to hyperbolize) ground-breaking literature. I mean, if what if Shakespeare had decided that, what with all the murdering royals and quilt-ridden heroes floating around in peer's stage plays, he might as well pitch in the trash that little idea he'd had about a fellow named Hamlet? I don't like time travel stories, generally. Even in the hands of respected writers, I find them tiresome. But for some reason, I really like Rowling's Time Turner. I think it has something to do with jealousy. I had to take as many courses as I could fit into four years of college, due to a time-limited scholarship. And I *did* ~ but I still regret having had to give up classes in certain areas in favor of other areas. I would have loved to give Hermione's experience with the Time Turner a try. And with that introduction, the Time Turner became a fresh idea to me. Also, I felt that the contained way in which Rowling used the device kept loopholes from spiralling totally out of control; and the loopholes that *could* be brought up remained well inside my personal form of 'time structure agnosticism' (i.e., is it linear? circular? three dimensional? incomprehensible? who knows... :-P). I'm rather glad that Rowling didn't fall prey to the...hmm, sort of sci-fi/fantasy genre prejudice against time travel, nor allow herself to be intimidated by the fact that the current stock of genre fiction has a lousy track record in dealing with that particular device. Because I would miss it. Which I suppose all goes to the age old maxim "to each his own...." :-) Mahoney From christi0469 at hotmail.com Fri Jan 4 22:10:03 2002 From: christi0469 at hotmail.com (christi0469) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 22:10:03 -0000 Subject: Question about Cat, Rat, Dog Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32777 Please excuse my ignorance if this has already been discussed, but how exactly does Harry plan to kill Sirius? He doesn't know about Avada Kedavra yet, and would most likely not be able to cast it if he did. Does he plan to stab Sirius with his wand? I admit I'm not an expert on stabbing (a fact for which I am quite grateful) but it seems unlikely that a 14 year old boy would be able to stab a man through the ribcage with what Harry describes later as a thin strip of wood. Even if Harry has enough strength from an adrenaline rush, it would still seem that the wand would break before it could penetrate the rib cage, especially if he has to kill Crookshanks first. Perhaps the high emotions of the situation keep Harry from thinking things through, but he has always managed to keep his head in life-threatening situations before. When I read this scene it always just strikes me as odd. Please let me know if there is something I missed. As to the Lupin debate, I think the main reason Lupin changes when he does is because that is the point that JKR needs him to change. She may not have developed a comprehensive theory of werewolf transformation to write the book. Having said that, I suppose she could manipulate the timing of the scene to account for a werewolf theory, and the debate is fun regardless. Christi From cindysphynx at home.com Fri Jan 4 22:32:17 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 22:32:17 -0000 Subject: Best and Worst of Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32778 Jenny wrote: > What would Hermione's worst moment be? Hermione's Best Moment? I'd have to say being sensitive to Neville's reaction to Moody's torture of the spider. Fake Moody would *still* be torturing that spider if Hermione hadn't intervened. This falls under the general umbrella of Hermione's very humane treatment of Neville. She probably was very kind when she declined his invitation to the Yule Ball. Hermione's Worst Moment? Bobbing on her toes while Harry is trying to answer a question, particularly in the first Potions lesson. What a tin ear the girl had then! Harry is being publicly humiliated, and she doesn't have the sense to tune in to that and look away quietly. She wasn't trying to rescue Harry; she was trying to prove she wasn't a dunderhead. She's come a long way since then, for which I am grateful. Cindy (who is never going to get any work done with all these great ideas flying around) From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jan 4 22:41:19 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 22:41:19 -0000 Subject: Worst of Snape Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32779 Isn't it odd that everyone is willing to forgive Sirius for his excesses, even a physical attack on a student, but Snape's sneer at Hermione is nominated for the worst thing he ever did? I'd have to say the worst thing Snape ever did was joining the Death Eaters. We could speculate that he did so on Dumbledore's orders, but in that case, we could also choose to believe that he outed Lupin on Dumbledore's orders too. I don't think so. We are willing to forgive Sirius because we know what kind of pressure he was under. It takes a little more thought to realize that at the point where Snape snapped out at Hermione, the Dark Mark was just starting to become visible on his arm. That, coupled with anxiety over just how Harry ended up in the Tournament, plus being reminded of that by the Slytherin Support Cedric Diggory badges, would be enough to send anybody up the nearest wall, IMO. Pippin From ChaserChick at hotmail.com Fri Jan 4 22:36:21 2002 From: ChaserChick at hotmail.com (Liz Sager) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 16:36:21 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Question about Cat, Rat, Dog Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32780 We have discussed this at length in my time on the list (which is about three weeks this next Monday (*cheers for self*), so check the archives. I agree that the high emotions of the scene didn't allow Harry to think things through. Keep in mind, this is the man he believes at that point is responsible for his parents' deaths, hence indirectly responsible for his unfair treatment (and indeed, child abuse) up to the time that he turned eleven. If I were Harry, I would be in much the same state, and probably just want to get some sort of payback. Liz >From: "christi0469" >Reply-To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com >To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com >Subject: [HPforGrownups] Question about Cat, Rat, Dog >Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 22:10:03 -0000 > > Please excuse my ignorance if this has already been discussed, but >how exactly does Harry plan to kill Sirius? He doesn't know about >Avada Kedavra yet, and would most likely not be able to cast it if >he did. Does he plan to stab Sirius with his wand? I admit I'm not >an expert on stabbing (a fact for which I am quite grateful) but it >seems unlikely that a 14 year old boy would be able to stab a man >through the ribcage with what Harry describes later as a thin strip >of wood. Even if Harry has enough strength from an adrenaline rush, >it would still seem that the wand would break before it could >penetrate the rib cage, especially if he has to kill Crookshanks >first. Perhaps the high emotions of the situation keep Harry from >thinking things through, but he has always managed to keep his head >in life-threatening situations before. When I read this scene it >always just strikes me as odd. Please let me know if there is >something I missed. > >As to the Lupin debate, I think the main reason Lupin changes when >he does is because that is the point that JKR needs him to change. >She may not have developed a comprehensive theory of werewolf >transformation to write the book. Having said that, I suppose she >could manipulate the timing of the scene to account for a werewolf >theory, and the debate is fun regardless. > >Christi > > _________________________________________________________________ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com From IAmLordCassandra at aol.com Fri Jan 4 22:40:49 2002 From: IAmLordCassandra at aol.com (IAmLordCassandra at aol.com) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 17:40:49 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Best and Worst of Hermione Message-ID: <12.18364194.29678971@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32781 heh-I know it's not much, but... worst moment: Knocking Quirrell over at Harry's first Quidditch match (The poor baby!) best moment: Knocking Quirrell over at Harry's first Quidditch match (The broom-jinxing bastard!) ^-^ ~Cassie-who firmly believes in the 'it's the little things that count' theory ^-^~ From Edblanning at aol.com Fri Jan 4 23:00:21 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 18:00:21 EST Subject: Dumbledore's right hand man ( was Is Snape a dofus?)/ Snape and Malfoy Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32782 Athena writes >One question that bugged me is: "Why did he teach students in the first place?" >He can have other jobs like working somewhere. Is he guarding something or >someone in Hogwarts but he is using teaching in covering it (~whatever it is~) up? I believe that he is teching at Hogwarts because that is precisely where Dumbledore wants him. Dumbledore doesn't seem terribly concerned about what the rest of the world would consider as ideal qualities in teachers: he seems to have a realistically resigned attitude towards Trelawny, puts up with a History of Magic teacher who bores his class to sleep and as for Lockhart..... words fail (granted, he didn't have much choice, assuming as I do that Snape didn't want the job). So he's not there because of his teaching abilities. I don't think either Dumbledore or Snape ever believed Voldemort had gone for good. I also believe that Snape is Dumbledore's right hand man, with inside knowledge of the opposition and some compelling reason for Dumbledore to trust him (could this be linked to the great personal cost that we hear of in the pensieve sequence? Would I like to know what that was!). There are at least two incidents where he turns up with Dumbledore and McGonagall which I think illustrate his central position: after the first basilisk attack and notably at the end of GoF. In the first case, Dumbledore disagrees with his analysis of the situation, but he doesn't question his right to be involved. After all they weren't students from his house, it wasn't really his business any more than that of the other heads of houses, who seem to have been absent. (Rambling a bit , but do you get my drift? He just seems to have more weight than than the other senior and ? older staff) As for the rekindled discussion of Snape and Malfoy, surely the important point is that Malfoy almost certainly knew that Snape was a DE. Releasing that knowledge would have the same effect as Snape "accidentally" telling the Slytherins that Remus was a werewolf. (Skating on thin ice there, I feel. Fortunate for him that for once he analyses a character correctly and knows that Remus is too honorable and loyal to retalliate.) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From IAmLordCassandra at aol.com Fri Jan 4 22:51:52 2002 From: IAmLordCassandra at aol.com (IAmLordCassandra at aol.com) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 17:51:52 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Worst of Snape Message-ID: <3f.471aea0.29678c08@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32783 In a message dated 1/4/2002 5:43:14 PM Eastern Standard Time, foxmoth at qnet.com writes: > > Isn't it odd that everyone is willing to forgive Sirius for his > excesses, even a physical attack on a student, but Snape's > sneer at Hermione is nominated for the worst thing he ever did? > > We are willing to forgive Sirius because we know what kind of > pressure he was under. It takes a little more thought to realize > that at the point where Snape snapped out at Hermione, the > Dark Mark was just starting to become visible on his arm. That, > coupled with anxiety over just how Harry ended up in the > Tournament, plus being reminded of that by the Slytherin > Support Cedric Diggory badges, would be enough to send > anybody up the nearest wall, IMO. If I ever met up with the man, the first I would do is give him a hug. Seriously, I think he needs one. I can see what you mean, about Snape being stressed out, but does that make up for *all* the times he was nasty/made a snide remark? ~Cassie-who loves all the pros and cons about Snape ^-^~ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From pollux46 at hotmail.com Fri Jan 4 22:53:33 2002 From: pollux46 at hotmail.com (charisjulia) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 22:53:33 -0000 Subject: SHIP:Ginny v. Hermione as Harry's sweetheart In-Reply-To: <001701c1936f$866b0ca0$ef35c2cb@price> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32784 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Tabouli" wrote: > To counterbalance the tragic damaged Harry limping into a grim future, JKR will probably need to give him a lot of consolatory small blessings. Pick your favorite ship, perhaps... I suspect a survivor- Harry will be in need of a strong supportive woman to soothe his nightmares and weep on the shoulder of (if he can bring himself to cry by then... perhaps this would be a poignant note to sound near the end of the series... Harry finally develops the strength to show weakness). So far, risks Tabouli, I think the best candidate for the job would have to be Hermione (which rather shifts the Grim onto Ron): Ginny would need to grow a *lot* more oomph to take this job on. > I'm a newbie here so I think I'm going to have to start by apologizing to everyone else who are probably quite sick of the subject for bringing it up but I couldn't resist rising to the bait! I'm really sorry but I don't agree that Hermione would be better suited than Ginny to standing by a broken, hurt Harry after the fall of V. (if indeed things do turn out that way!) Why would you think Ginny doesn't have enough "oomph"? Do you think perhaps you're undermining her a bit? After all she was sorted into Gryffindor. Of course she's shy and unsure of her self, sure, but after all she's only 10-14. And she has matured a great deal during the course of the books, though perhaps this can be passed by quite unnoticed by the reader because Harry does not really give it (or her for the time being at least) much attention. But the timid little girl that hides behind her mother whenever she sees Harry in PS and and will hardly speak a word in CoS is very different to the one which shuts Ron and Harry up for making fun of Neville because Hermione turned him down for the Yule Ball and refuses to tell them who H.'s going with when Ron asks her. She still isn't what I'd call assertive of course but I think she does have pluck when she wants to. By the way, is it my imagination or has anyone else noticed that Ginny and Hermione seem to be much closer in GoF? Ginny did know about Hermione going to the Ball with Krum when the boys didn't and they seem to be spending much more time together too. Another thing that one has to consider is that Ginny has a mother in Molly Weasley, a woman whose life is her family. Ginny must obviously be affected by this. After all she was the last Weasley kid to leave the home and therefore the one that, out of the youngest at least, has spent the most time with Molly. Plus M. was really her only female role model till she went to Hogwarts. If Harry were to need a shoulder to cry on (by the way great point about him needing to learn to be weak. I'd never realized: Harry never cries!) wouldn't a "people" person like Molly and therefore Ginny be more appropriate than an "achievement" person like Hermione? Not that H. wouldn't be there for Harry if he needed her. She would. But I think that after she'd done all she thought she could do she could easily run off on some wild plan to save gnomes from cruel treatment leaving Harry to deal alone with wounds that don't heal that easily. Don't get me wrong. It's not that I don't like Hermione. On the contrary I love her a lot. But I do think that she needs to shine in her own right too, not just "stand by her man". And this of course is no bad thing. Quite the opposite!!! It just perhaps does not make her a good romance choice for a boy starved of love, as it were. I think Hermione would be much more suited to Ron. He'd just look on with an amused look on his face as far as his "girlfriend's"(!) escapades were concerned and also help to knock some realism into her head once in a while. And of course he'd greatly benefit from the relationship too: Hermione would help him believe in himself, something he is in great need of. So there you go. That's my opinion as far as "ships" are concerned.Just *had* to express it! Once again sorry for bringing up an old subject! Charis Julia. From srae1971 at iglou.com Fri Jan 4 22:56:16 2002 From: srae1971 at iglou.com (Shannon) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 17:56:16 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Genre? Or not? (was Re: Wasted Charms & other magical devices (Time Turner)) In-Reply-To: References: <3C361CBB.7B315DE6@sun.com> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.20020104175616.00a81510@pop.iglou.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32785 At 09:44 PM 1/4/2002 -0000, Grey Wolf wrote: > >I still doubt, nonetheless, that there are many 11 year-old wizards >going to boarding schools in modern fantasy, or simply fantasy based >directly in the real world (coexistant, not in distant past or future >or alternate realities) and still is excelent quality. You'd be wrong on both counts. :) I don't know the author's name off the top of my head but there is at least one other modern series about a wizard school. And there are *lots* of really good fantasy novels set in the here and now. One that comes immediately to my mind is Nina Kiriki Hoffman's "A Red Heart of Memories." Besides, there's nothing wrong with traditional fantasy, when it's done well. And it's done well a lot. If anything, Rowling is using the *most* overused fantasy elements...dragons, unicorns, goblins, etc. I doubt she'd be doing that so much if she were a fantasy reader. Those are becoming rather more scarce in the genre these days, as people are leery of using them. She uses them very well, however, which is the key. Shannon who also prefers fantasy & (sometimes) science fiction to other forms of literature... From muggle at hot.ee Fri Jan 4 23:09:18 2002 From: muggle at hot.ee (lv) Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 01:09:18 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Accio Charm / Wasted Charms Message-ID: <000401c19575$401deda0$f006eb50@Sumps.AAA> No: HPFGUIDX 32786 -----Original Message----- From: Gabriel Edson >My theory on that is that she knew they were there, and could visualize them. After all, >she's seen them before. Note that she said "Accio!" not "Accio Ton-Tongue Toffee" or >"Accio Fake Wand!" because she's not sure *exactly* what they have, just that they >definately have naughty gags on their person. I guess you can say "Accio!" only if you can see the object(s) (or their location, as in the Molly Weasley case) so that you can point at them with your wand (to make sure you get the right thing and not something else). If the object is not in sight, you must call it by name (Harry called "Accio Firebolt!" when he needed his broom for his first task). Ron's idea of Accio'ing a diving gear always seemed a little weird to me. I doubt that it would have really worked (if Hermione would have proposed that, I wouldn't). By the way, I also think that the Accio charm can only be used on objects that one could physically move without the use of magic, i.e. you couldn't use it on a 300 kg barrel (I hope you get my point). -----Original Message----- From: cindysphynx >Another is Hermione's failure to attempt to move the Whomping Willow >with "Mobilarbus." Another is Lupin and Black's failure to just >apparate out of the Shrieking Shack rather than be taken to the >dementors. Another is Lupin's failure to just "Accio" Scabbers out >of Ron's hands when Ron was reluctant to hand him over. I am pretty content with the explanation that you can't use the "Mobiliarbus" spell on things that can't normally be moved (like trees, houses, etc). If we assume that, Hermione must have known this (she doesn't know?? you're kidding) and it's logical that she didn't try to do it as something impossible. Hm.. what if Lupin and Black can't apparate? I guess that it's not a common skill. Scabbers.. maybe you can't "Accio" a living being? Although Neville could make porfessor Flitwick fly through the class... lv, just guessing From ChaserChick at hotmail.com Fri Jan 4 23:03:02 2002 From: ChaserChick at hotmail.com (Liz Sager) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 17:03:02 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Keeping up with Muggle events (Was: What to do with the Quidditch team? ) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32787 Martin wrote: >Friends, I bid you welcome to speculate on how Muggle-borns, half-bloods >and >most likely some Muggle-interested purebloods keep themselves up to date on >Muggleverse news while spending most of their time at Hogwarts. The >discussion is opened! I imagine that mum and dad write them and keep them up-to-date with life back home, and such like that. And if they go home on vacations, I imagine there is quite a bit of catching up to do then. :) Liz _________________________________________________________________ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com From srae1971 at iglou.com Fri Jan 4 23:15:45 2002 From: srae1971 at iglou.com (Shannon) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 18:15:45 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Worst of Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.20020104181545.00a81510@pop.iglou.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32788 At 10:41 PM 1/4/2002 -0000, Pippin wrote: > Isn't it odd that everyone is willing to forgive Sirius for his >excesses, even a physical attack on a student, but Snape's >sneer at Hermione is nominated for the worst thing he ever did? Not really. Sirius is trying to avenge his best friend and protect Harry. Now, he might not have chose the best ways to do those things and made some rather bad choices, but his intentions were good and he never meant to harm anyone other than Peter. On the other hand, Snape had *absolutely* no reason to say such a thing to Hermione. Anyone who's lived as long as Snape as would be able to spot Hermione's insecurity from the get-go a mile away. Heck, most 12 year old girls are insecure about something even without Hermione's circumstances, and their appearance is starting to be a big thing at that age. 12 year old girls who have iffy self confidence to start with can be devastated by such a petty, nasty thing. And then for that thing to be deliberately said by a teacher, who is supposed to be someone you can trust even when they are kind of nasty and mean...well. If he's so weak under pressure that he has to take it out on the self esteem of a little girl then Dumbledore better be finding someone else to do whatever it was he sent Snape off to do, else the wizard world is in deep doo doo. Shannon From aromano at indiana.edu Fri Jan 4 23:27:52 2002 From: aromano at indiana.edu (Aja) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 18:27:52 -0500 (EST) Subject: Snape and Malfoy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32789 On Fri, 4 Jan 2002 Edblanning at aol.com wrote: > As for the rekindled discussion of Snape and Malfoy, surely the important > point is that Malfoy almost certainly knew that Snape was a DE. I'm not sure I believe that. The more I think about it the more in the dark I believe Malfoy is about the activities of the DEs. For one thing, Malfoy knew nothing about Tom Riddle or the identity of Slytherin's Heir in book 2, even though his father definitely knew and was responsible for incriminating Ginny. For another thing, in PoA at one point, he mocks Harry by saying, "I'd go after him, I'd want revenge if I were you," in regard to the murderer Sirius Black. Granted, at that point *everybody* thinks Sirius is evil, but I have a strong suspicion that Lucius Malfoy would have known that Sirius wasn't the spy who betrayed the Potters. As a close supporter of Voldemort he would have been aware that Pettigrew was working for LV--however, Malfoy seems to have no knowledge of this. Then again, I'm of the opinion that things are working towards a rude awakening for Malfoy when he finds out in later books just *how* nasty/evil the DEs are and just how involved his father is. I see his response to Snape as hinging around two things: a shared dislike of Harry Potter, and a shared worldview--Purebloods are superier to Half-bloods and Muggles--that has never really come up for questioning in his experiences. I'm not holding out for Reformed!Malfoy or anything but I think he's got a lot to learn, information about the Deatheaters included. Aja "Awww, idn't dat sweet? Wook at the widdle witchy conjuring the dark forces of Satan. Awwwww. See, this is what happens if you let your kids read those damn Harry Potter books." --www.capnwacky.com From boggles at earthlink.net Sat Jan 5 00:10:54 2002 From: boggles at earthlink.net (Jennifer Boggess Ramon) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 18:10:54 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ron's death, Neville's role and Harry's travel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32790 At 9:14 AM +0000 1/4/02, grey_wolf_c wrote: > >Th. 1: Ron's Death >I think JRK told us his longing to be better >than all his ther brothers becuase she's planning to make it so. Nice, but she's produced a lot more rumblings about killing Harry than about killing Ron. (I think she's bluffing about that, too, but only time will tell.) If Ron became Harry's strtegist-in-chief, put himself in another sacrifice position, and (as on the chessboard) ended up only receiving an incapacitating wound, rather than dying, wouldn't that serve the same purpose? He would still be a greater hero than any of his brothers, for being willing to make that sacrifice. >Th. 2: Neville's role in the books >In a much less dark tone, I've been thinking about what's to come for >Neville. I don't know if you're aware that the only enemy of a dragon, >by oriental mythology, is a small yellow bird (I remembered this during >the Weasel/Basilisk discussion). We know that Neville turned into a >canary (which suits him quite well, really), and the "dragon" of the >series is: Draco Malfoy (who's name means "dragon"). Thus, my theory >suggests, Draco will turn bad after all (as if it didn't look that way >already), and Neville's the one who's going to defeat him. I find this unconvincing, for a number of reasons: (1) There's no such thing as "Oriental mythology;" there's Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Vietnamese, Thai, etc. mythology. The dragons of these mythologies are related, as are the dragons of the Western mythologies, but they're not all the same, just as a dragon in the ancient Greek myths is not the same as the one in the legend of St. George. (2) In many Chinese dragon tales, at least, the enemy of the dragon is the phoenix (itself different from the Western one). Different dragons have different enemies. I've never heard the "yellow bird" theory, so I suspect it's attached to a particular strain of Eastern dragon. (3) Most of the dragons of the Far East are not evil. (As a dedicated dragon fan, I would stop here and point out that many of the dragons of the West are also not evil, but unfortunately that does not hold in Britain, so I'll skip it.) (4) While the snakelike, wingless dragon with the forked horns and the mane is often called "Draco orientis" in the faux-Linnean classification of dragon fans, if Draco had been named after it, his name would be Lung. He is almost certainly named after "Draco europa". (Although perhaps we should re-vamp the species names after the species given in FBaWTFT - Draco hebrideae, Draco norweii, Quetzalcoatlus peruvii, Lunga sinesis, etc. Yes, my dog-Latin is bad, but so is it on most genus-species names.) (5) There's no connection between yellow birds and any of the the Euroepan dragons. Okay, so I'm a dragon geek. Sorry about that . . . -- - 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 ChaserChick at hotmail.com Fri Jan 4 23:32:27 2002 From: ChaserChick at hotmail.com (Liz Sager) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 17:32:27 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape?... A question... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32791 Joanne wrote: In some ways, Snape's >treatment of Harry is a continuation of the sheltering that Dumbledore >sought >at the Dursleys -- too much adulation would spoil the kid. I agree. In this world of every kid's fantasy (suddenly being brought into an entire new world where they're rich and famous), Snape is definitely a HUGE reality check for Harry. But we know we wouldn't want him any other way, right? :D Liz _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com From andrew_macian at yahoo.com Sat Jan 5 00:27:24 2002 From: andrew_macian at yahoo.com (Andrew MacIan) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 16:27:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lupin, the Moon and the Bewitching Hour In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020105002724.23147.qmail@web9505.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32792 Greetings from Andrew! Some comments in re traditional/folklore lycanthropy... --- cindysphynx wrote: {snip} of description and hypothesis of effect of were transformation. The folklore that describes wereX transforms points to the 'overnight' duration of the effect. Part of this is a survival of the Sun-based Diety, of course, but it can also be seen as a direct link to the 'Moonlight' effect. It seems to me that, given that we know the JKR has not read all that much genre fiction, she has had a fair background in popular myth. Her use of the 'classic' werewolf appears to be a good example of this. > > I'm not sure we can sort this part out. When Lupin > returns from > being ill (that is, curling up in his office as a > harmless wolf), he > is drained. That could be a side-effect of the > wolfsbane potion, > rather than the transformation. Also, he could be > spending between 1- > 3 days as a harmless wolf -- who knows? For all we > know, he starts > teaching again while looking ill immediately after > transforming back > into a man without taking time to recover. If one were to understand the effects of the potion, we might have an answer that is more satisfactory. However, leaning on Romany sources again, even if the wereX is not 'drugged' and can run free, the 'hangover' is usually taken to be of three days duration. > > When he has a full-fledged, painful transformation, > however, we don't > know how long that lasts. True, Dumbledore says > Lupin is out of the > forbidden forest the next day. But we don't know if > Lupin took the > potion the first two days and failed on the third > day. We also have > no information at all (IIRC) on what triggers > Lupin's transformation > back into a man, either with or without wolfsbane > potion. Indeed, it > could be that in a 3-day full moon cycle, Lupin > transforms and > untransforms three times (ouch!). Again, without more canonic fact, we cannot say for certain. However, since there is no English/British folklore about weres (that I can find, at least) that is not borrowed from Central and Eastern European sources, I'll 'vote' for the 'one night of were, three days of deahtly ill' cycle. > > Fortunately, it doesn't matter if I understand > Mahoney's theory. The > witching hour could be a particular time each of the > three days, or > it could be one particular point in the cycle. The > theory works > either way, I think. I consider it to be the 'high point' or perilunian of the Full. The question of when the strongest point of that cycle is w.r.t. to civil day has been handled quite well by Liz in one of her posts. This strongest point would be the one where I would expect a were to change. > > Cindy (wondering if the correct term is "bewitching > hour" > or "witching hour") Probably 'bewitching hour'; another survival from the Western European dark ages, I'd say. 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 your FREE holiday greetings online! http://greetings.yahoo.com From lrcjestes at earthlink.net Sat Jan 5 01:34:45 2002 From: lrcjestes at earthlink.net (siriusgeologist) Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 01:34:45 -0000 Subject: SHIP:Ginny v. Hermione as Harry's sweetheart In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32793 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "charisjulia" wrote: > Another thing that one has to consider is that Ginny has a > mother in Molly Weasley, a woman whose life is her family. Ginny must > obviously be affected by this. After all she was the last Weasley kid > to leave the home and therefore the one that, out of the youngest at > least, has spent the most time with Molly. Plus M. was really her > only female role model till she went to Hogwarts. If Harry were to > need a shoulder to cry on (by the way great point about him needing > to learn to be weak. I'd never realized: Harry never cries!) wouldn't > a "people" person like Molly and therefore Ginny be more appropriate > than an "achievement" person like Hermione? Now how do we know that Ginny is going to mimic her mothers qualities and not rebel against them? If I were Ginny I'd feel a bit overprotected and a bit suffocated in the womb of my family. Some people take to it and some people rebel against it. I think it's too early in the series as far as Ginny's development goes to guess which way she will head. Carole From brewpub44 at earthlink.net Sat Jan 5 01:40:43 2002 From: brewpub44 at earthlink.net (brewpub44) Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 01:40:43 -0000 Subject: Neville's role/Canary-in-the-mine In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32794 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > Going a bit off-topic, though, I always had doubts > about the whole canary-in-the-mine theory. It was suposed to die > because of soffocation? The smaller a creature is, the less air it > needs, and the calmer you are, the less air you need. Why would, then, > the canary (small, virtually inmobile inside is cage) die sooner than > the miners (big men, sweating away while mining)? But I digress... > > Hope that helped, > > Grey Wolf Actually, it's the poison gasses the canary is detecting. It would react much quicker than a man. They'd all probably die at the same time if air simply ran out. Now, to be totally stupid: where does Neville turn into a canary? I read all four books, twice, and don't remember that at all! Someone help me out! A Barkeep in Diagon Alley From christi0469 at hotmail.com Sat Jan 5 01:48:38 2002 From: christi0469 at hotmail.com (christi0469) Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 01:48:38 -0000 Subject: How many DEs have kids in Harry's year Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32795 In Voldy's speech to the DEs(aside from Wormtail) he singles out Malfoy, Macnair, Avery, Nott, Crabbe and Goyle(he also mentions the Lestranges, who are in Azkaban). We know that Malfoy, Crabbe, and Goyle have sons in Harry's year at Hogwarts. There is also a Nott sorted in SS, but we don't know what gender or house. Unfortunately I don't have a copy of SS with me (I borrowed it when I read it, and the copy I ordered has not yet been delivered) so I cannot check the sorting scene to see if there was also a Mcnair and an Avery. Still, 4 out of 6 seems a high number, especially as we know that 3 of that 4 are boys Harry's age. It has also been theorized that the number of students in Harry's year is smaller due to Voldy's activities at the time they would have been babies. To put out a really wild theory, what if all the Slytherins in Harry's year are the children of DE's. We have no reason to suspect this, but it would be an interesting turn of events. In any case, we do know that Draco is Lucius' son, and it seems likely that the Crabbe and Goyle(Harry's age) are the sons of Crabbe and Goyle(DEs). These do not strike me as highly common names, such as Smith and Jones. For those who have been following the symbols from JKR's BBC interview, do you think they could be related to the affiliation of those students' parents? Just something to think about, probably completely off base-Christi says in a tone reminscent of Eeyore From boggles at earthlink.net Sat Jan 5 02:02:38 2002 From: boggles at earthlink.net (Jennifer Boggess Ramon) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 20:02:38 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lupin, the Moon and the Bewitching Hour In-Reply-To: <20020105002724.23147.qmail@web9505.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20020105002724.23147.qmail@web9505.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32796 At 4:27 PM -0800 1/4/02, Andrew MacIan wrote: > >I consider it to be the 'high point' or perilunian of >the Full. The question of when the strongest point of >that cycle is w.r.t. to civil day has been handled >quite well by Liz in one of her posts. This strongest >point would be the one where I would expect a were to >change. Here are two explanations, one "in character" and one "out". In: The werewolf changes at the exact moment when the moon is full, no matter what - if that moment is after sunset fore the werewolf. Otherwise, s/he changes as soon as the sun sets after that moment. It does not matter whether s/he is bathed in moonlight or not. However, the change can be set off earlier if the moon is near-full (say, within the traditional three days of the "full" portion of the lunar cycle) if the wolf is bathed in direct moonlight. Since the night was cloudy, Lupin didn't think he'd be a danger until the moment of the true full moon, but was caught early when the clouds broke. He changes back into a human at dawn, and is sick for a day; the cost of the wolfsbane potion is to extend the sick period after the night of wolfishness. The boggart doesn't transform him because it doesn't shed enough light; it's too small and not high enough. Out: The werewolf transforms at the _dramatically appropriate_ moment. When, exactly, that is varies from month to month. He is then ill for a dramatically appropriate ammount of time afterwards, which also varies from month to month. Lupin, not realizing he's a character in a drama, has tried to figure out a pattern to his transformations, and has come up with something that does have some predictive power, involving timing, moonlight, and the ammount of stress he's under - but it doesn't pan out this time because of the drama factor. The boggart doesn't transform him because it's not dramatically appropriate. -- - 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 brewpub44 at earthlink.net Sat Jan 5 02:06:14 2002 From: brewpub44 at earthlink.net (brewpub44) Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 02:06:14 -0000 Subject: The effects of Avada Kedavra In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32797 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > I, loving the cretion of theories, > have one of my own on this topic (as well as many others). However, > being a computer fan, my theories sooner or later reach beta status and > I need other people to look it over and point at the holes. Well, as a computer-weenie myself, I have to tell you that you put in a colon instead of a semicolon, which would crash your entire post and cause the Blue Sceen of Death ;-) But seriously, > > > However, since death from fear > is normally a heart-attack, and the Riddles were in perfect health > (apart from the fact that they were dead), we should discount that > posibility. I'm not so sure you can discount that. I think if an autopsy was done, a coroner would have detected they did die of a heart attack, but they were also in perfect health. In other words, their hearts just gave out, but there was no reason for it (no congenital defects, no weight problem, arteriosclerosis, etc.) > > Now for the tricky part: why is Voldie's body destroyed when the AK > rebounds on Harry and hits him? There are a couple of examples in GoF where spells "colliding" cause totally unintended circumstances. The most famous is the "wand brothers" odd spell effects when Harry duels LV. But also, remember when several people curse Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle at the end? It creates a mess, and not exactly what anyone expects. So the combination of LV's Avada and Lillies "special protection" spell on Harry causes an unintended effect: LV becomes some sort of toxic cloud. A Barkeep in Diagon Alley From brewpub44 at earthlink.net Sat Jan 5 02:10:55 2002 From: brewpub44 at earthlink.net (brewpub44) Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 02:10:55 -0000 Subject: Accio Charm (and a bit about portkeys & apparating) In-Reply-To: <20020104173751.37956.qmail@web20302.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32798 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Becky wrote: > > > But in GoF chap. 26 'The Second Task' it says, "Ron > quite liked the idea of using the Summoning Charm > again - Harry had explained about Aqua-Lungs, and Ron > couldn't see why Harry shouldn't Summon one from the > nearest Muggle town." > > The only objections to this is that it was unlikely > for Harry to learn how to operate one in the set limit > of an hour, and even more unlikely for a Muggle not to > notice an Aqua-Lung zooming around the countryside. > > I would say that familiarity isn't really needed for > an object you wish to Summon. I like the theory that > there are some objects that cannot be (or it would be > unwise to) Summoned. > Another good point, here is my cop-out: Ron isn't the brightest student, we all know, and also they are just learning how to do it, not all the theory behind it. But then again, Hermione is pretty bright, she would have known. I think if they had tried, it wouldn't have worked, unfortunately we'll never know. But still a valid argument on your part. A Barkeep in Diagon Alley From christi0469 at hotmail.com Sat Jan 5 02:03:30 2002 From: christi0469 at hotmail.com (christi0469) Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 02:03:30 -0000 Subject: Neville's role/Canary-in-the-mine In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32799 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "brewpub44" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > > > Now, to be totally stupid: where does Neville turn into a canary? I > read all four books, twice, and don't remember that at all! Someone > help me out! > > A Barkeep in Diagon Alley It's in the scene where the Gryffendors are celebrating Harry's success at the first task. Neville turns into a canrary after eating of of the twins' Weasly Wizzard Wheezes. I hope that helps(to borrow Grey Wolf's tag line)-Christi From andrew_macian at yahoo.com Sat Jan 5 02:21:28 2002 From: andrew_macian at yahoo.com (Andrew MacIan) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 18:21:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lupin, the Moon and the Bewitching Hour In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020105022128.27941.qmail@web9505.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32800 Greetings from Andrew! Interesting notions in re the 'how' of were alteration... --- Jennifer Boggess Ramon wrote: {snip} of my interpretation of the critical moment. > > Here are two explanations, one "in character" and > one "out". > > In: The werewolf changes at the exact moment when > the moon is full, > no matter what - if that moment is after sunset fore > the werewolf. > Otherwise, s/he changes as soon as the sun sets > after that moment. Interesting. Do I read this correctly as implying that the power of the Sun is stronger than the syndrome (lycanthropy being the result of an inoculation, I cannot call it anything else)? > It does not matter whether s/he is bathed in > moonlight or not. > However, the change can be set off earlier if the > moon is near-full > (say, within the traditional three days of the > "full" portion of the > lunar cycle) if the wolf is bathed in direct > moonlight. Sidebar: I quibble about this 'three-day' umbration of the Full. In both astro9nomy (as specifically applied to navigation) and in astrology, the Moon is exactly Full or she's not. Thus, the issue of umbration, for me at least, is moot. Perhaps I'm overeducated as well {grin}. > Since the > night was cloudy, Lupin didn't think he'd be a > danger until the > moment of the true full moon, but was caught early > when the clouds > broke. He changes back into a human at dawn, and is > sick for a day; > the cost of the wolfsbane potion is to extend the > sick period after > the night of wolfishness. The boggart doesn't > transform him because > it doesn't shed enough light; it's too small and not > high enough. Good reasoning, and absent my quibble, I can accept the notions. In re the boggart, I would also say that the Rule of Similarity is in effect. The boggart *portrays* the Moon, but it doesn't have the *effect* of the Moon. After all, in the other scenes with that particular creature, the fear is due to the subject accepting the illusion as the reality. Lupin cannot accept that, as the effect must bring on transmogrification if the effect is real. > > Out: The werewolf transforms at the _dramatically > appropriate_ > moment. When, exactly, that is varies from month to > month. He is > then ill for a dramatically appropriate ammount of > time afterwards, > which also varies from month to month. {laughter} Ars gratia artis. > Lupin, not > realizing he's a > character in a drama, has tried to figure out a > pattern to his > transformations, and has come up with something that > does have some > predictive power, involving timing, moonlight, and > the ammount of > stress he's under - but it doesn't pan out this time > because of the > drama factor. The boggart doesn't transform him > because it's not > dramatically appropriate. {applause} Well done! This explains much, and in a more general from, explains a couple of rather sore points that I've had with Rowling's 'theory of magic(k)' as it were. Thanks for your thoughts/response. 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 video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ From andrew_macian at yahoo.com Sat Jan 5 02:26:29 2002 From: andrew_macian at yahoo.com (Andrew MacIan) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 18:26:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: TAGS and moonlight (was T.A.G.S. re-opens for 2002 with another long acronym In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020105022629.82284.qmail@web9504.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32801 Greetings from Andrew! A minor surprise.... --- grey_wolf_c wrote: {snip} > Thus, the theory works even though the watches don't > (after all, they > never work at Hogwarts). > {BLINK} Say again? There are numerous instances IIRC of Harry checking his watch...or after immersion, asking Ron for the time. This in addition to the clock that is beside his bed in the dormitory. Or have I joined Nash at last? 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 video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ From alexpie at aol.com Sat Jan 5 02:51:20 2002 From: alexpie at aol.com (alexpie at aol.com) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 21:51:20 EST Subject: Snape as Teacher Message-ID: <54.20b75b66.2967c428@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32802 In a message dated 1/4/02 10:32:58 AM Eastern Standard Time, HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com writes: > I don't think Snape is a dofus at all. I like Snape because I > consider him sort of, 'intelligent' because he manages to excel both > in Potions and Dark Arts. But yes, I think he's mean not only to > Harry and his friends but the rest of his students (~but perhaps some > Slytherins too~). One question that bugged me is: "Why did he teach > students in the first place? Actually, Snape, in some ways, reminds of a friend of mine who coached hockey. The coach in question was in the Hockey Hall of Fame, wanted to convey what he knew, and simply could *not* understand players who could not play as well as he did during his career(to reverse an old saying, do as I did, not as I say). I think that Snape just becomes very frustrated with students who don't have the skill or patience to purse potions in the way he would like (not forgetting the prejudice against Gryffindor). As far as the Barney Fife comparison is concerned...Barney was inept but lovable. Snape is the reverse of both, although a good man in the end, I think. Barbara [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From editor at texas.net Sat Jan 5 03:23:58 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Lewanski) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 21:23:58 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: snape is a dufus References: Message-ID: <3C3671CD.E85EE5A8@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 32803 jrober4211 wrote: > Snape may not give preferrential treatment as far as grading the > students, but he does give preferrential treatment to the Slytherins > when there is a confrontation between them and the Gryffindors and > there are numerous examples of this in CoS, not to mention the other > books. I agree with the statement about Snape being happy to nail any > student he finds breaking the rules.I personally got the impression > he enjoys it. He must be lying in wait for them because I have not > always gotten an explaination as to why Snape is roaming the castle in > the middle of the night. Maybe he's not married...? Or maybe he *is*....? > Like Harry, I think sometimes it was because he suspected something > going on and was doing his own snooping. Just about everything Snape > does for Harry is because Dumbledore has instructed him to do so, Where do you get this? I mean, it's implied, but I don't know that, other than Harry's suspecting that Snape didn't fail him because Dumbledore stopped him, there is any particular thing Snape does for Harry on Dumbledore's orders. Dumbledore didn't tell Snape to watch out for Harry in book 1; Dumbledore didn't tell Snape to keep a particular eye on Harry at all (that we know for certain). If you state a certainty, it should either *be* a certainty (like Harry's eyes are green), or you should back it up. > Snape is good about following orders because he is a follower not a > leader( much like Barney Fife), thus far in the books. I disagree. He's taken the initiative in several instances--my favorite, the staffroom scene (can't wait to see that, they better not cut it from the next movie!); in his attempts to handle Quirrell; in his following of Lupin on the night Lupin wasn't there to take his potion; etc. There's probably more, but I'm tired. I have a half-done analysis of the books, looking at the number of instances where the phrase "Snape stepped forward" occurs, along with the number of times Snape takes action, takes the lead, and it's substantial. So my analysis is that Snape is rather a force to be reckoned with, who follows Dumbledore out of respect and love rather than because he is a natural follower. > Sirius and Lupin seem to think Snape is an idiot in alot of ways as > evidenced by Sirius's comment in the shrieking shack " How did an > idiot like that become a professor?" That wasn't a comment in the Shack; that was what Sirius had recorded in the Marauder's Map for his alter-ego to say. This was something Sirius said at, oh, sixteen or so. And Sirius' judgement at sixteen was less than stellar. Lupin has quite a professional respect for Snape, and is mostly impatient with him in the Shack, that he is letting his emotions cloud his reason (and he is). But that doesn't mean Lupin thinks Snape is an idiot; far from it, or he wouldn't waste time even *trying* to make him listen. --Amanda, evidently in full Snape Defense Mode [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From pennylin at swbell.net Sat Jan 5 03:35:57 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny & Bryce) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 21:35:57 -0600 Subject: Ginny & Hermione (small bit on SHIPs) References: Message-ID: <3C36749D.2050502@swbell.net> No: HPFGUIDX 32804 Hi -- charisjulia wrote: > Why would you think Ginny doesn't have enough "oomph"? Do you > think perhaps you're undermining her a bit? Nope. As far as canon Ginny is concerned, she's just a background character we don't know much about. Doesn't mean JKR can't or won't do more with her, but *for now,* the fact is that Hermione *is* the only female character strong enough to be the love interest of the hero. IMHO of course. > By the way, is it my imagination or has anyone else noticed that > Ginny and Hermione seem to be much closer in GoF? Ginny did know > about Hermione going to the Ball with Krum when the boys didn't and > they seem to be spending much more time together too. I don't see that they are spending "much more time" together. They are forced to spend some time together by virtue of being the only girls in a sea of boys at the Burrow & at the QWC. She does know about Hermione's date, which indicates some amount of friendship between the two girls, presumably anyway. But, as of now, we don't have evidence of exactly how much. We also don't really know *how* Ginny came by this information. What if she was eavesdropping & overheard Hermione telling Seamus Finnegan? What if she overheard Hermione's conversation with Neville for that matter? Just a few possibilities that don't involve any sort of friendship between the girls. There's also nothing textually to say that Neville isn't the one who informed Ginny of Hermione having a date. > > Another thing that one has to consider is that Ginny has a > mother in Molly Weasley, a woman whose life is her family. Ginny must > obviously be affected by this. After all she was the last Weasley kid > to leave the home and therefore the one that, out of the youngest at > least, has spent the most time with Molly. She spent the same amount of time with Molly as all the other kids, right? Mathematics isn't my strong suit, but didn't they all spend 10.5/11 yrs with their mother before leaving for Hogwarts? Being the youngest doesn't translate into *more* time, just different time. :--) Plus M. was really her > only female role model till she went to Hogwarts. If Harry were to > need a shoulder to cry on (by the way great point about him needing > to learn to be weak. I'd never realized: Harry never cries!) wouldn't > a "people" person like Molly and therefore Ginny be more appropriate > than an "achievement" person like Hermione? Hermione-the-Crusader for House Elves & the giants & the downtrodden not a "people" person? I beg to differ. Seriously, Hermione is showing more & more of a heart as the books progress; as Hagrid says in PoA, Hermione has her heart in the right place. She also is the first female to hug Harry in a non-motherly way in PS/SS (Harry thinks to himself that Mrs. Weasley's GoF hug is motherly; he obviously doesn't think of Hermione's hug from 3 yrs earlier quite in the same vein, eh?). She is also presumably the first girl to kiss him, even if it is a peck on the cheek & might well be only sisterly. It is still affectionate. It still shows Hermione's warmth & humanity. But I do think that she needs to shine in her own right > too, not just "stand by her man". And this of course is no bad thing. > Quite the opposite!!! It just perhaps does not make her a good > romance choice for a boy starved of love, as it were. Harry needs a little woman to just "stand by his side" then? Harumph. We have a very different idea of what *Harry* might need then. > > I think Hermione would be much more suited to Ron. He'd just look on > with an amused look on his face as far as his "girlfriend's"(!) > escapades were concerned and also help to knock some realism into her > head once in a while. Or, perhaps he'd express his prejudices some more & they'd kill each other in the resulting fracas? :--) Sorry, couldn't resist. Yeah, I don't see it quite like that, but that's okay. We each have our own idea of what a romance ought to be, for ourselves & for others. I'll skip the non-stop bickering & arguing myself (and I wouldn't wish it on Hermione either). Penny From dani at skygawker.com Sat Jan 5 03:30:44 2002 From: dani at skygawker.com (Dani Alex) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 22:30:44 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] How many DEs have kids in Harry's year References: Message-ID: <3C367364.FB42FB96@mediaone.net> No: HPFGUIDX 32805 > << To put out a really wild theory, what if all the > Slytherins in > Harry's year are the children of DE's. >> Who's to say the children of DE didn't end up in other houses than Slytherin? Sometimes the apple falls a far hop, skip and a jump from the tree. Just a thought. Another thing, who's a little tired of the one-sided, 'Slytherin's are bad' aspect. I highly doubt they're all mean people. I'd like to see some Slytherins with a different spin on them for once. And more characters from other houses in general, I love the Gryffindors, but I'm also interested in the other kids. Anyone else feel the same way? Dani Alex [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From blenberry at altavista.com Sat Jan 5 03:58:20 2002 From: blenberry at altavista.com (blenberry) Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 03:58:20 -0000 Subject: Lupin, the Moon and the Bewitching Hour In-Reply-To: <20020105022128.27941.qmail@web9505.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32806 >In re the boggart, I would also say that the Rule of >Similarity is in effect. The boggart *portrays* the >Moon, but it doesn't have the *effect* of the Moon. >After all, in the other scenes with that particular >creature, the fear is due to the subject accepting the >illusion as the reality. Lupin cannot accept that, as >the effect must bring on transmogrification if the >effect is real. In this case, how do you explain the boggart-dementor's effects on Harry? He *knows* it's a boggart. sorry if this has been addressed elsewhere... I'm new :) From hazel-rah7 at juno.com Sat Jan 5 00:01:59 2002 From: hazel-rah7 at juno.com (hazel-rah7 at juno.com) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 18:01:59 -0600 Subject: Acronyms Guide Message-ID: <20020104.215519.-3788257.0.hazel-rah7@juno.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32807 ~*If this group has a key for all of Tabouli's acronyms, I missed it. Has someone created a guide for all of the various "clubs" and what they stand for? It would sure be helpful for a relative newbie like myself if I could understand what everyone meant when tney said they were a member of ...[insert obscure word]. Don't get me wrong - I enjoy the acronyms. I just want to know what they stand for!*~ ~*Amanda Snape*~ ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. From margdean at erols.com Sat Jan 5 04:44:45 2002 From: margdean at erols.com (Margaret Dean) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 23:44:45 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore's right hand man ( was Is Snape a dofus?) References: Message-ID: <3C3684BD.1934D0D5@erols.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32808 Edblanning at aol.com wrote: > I believe that he is teching at Hogwarts because that is precisely where > Dumbledore wants him. Dumbledore doesn't seem terribly concerned about what > the rest of the world would consider as ideal qualities in teachers: he seems > to have a realistically resigned attitude towards Trelawny, puts up with a > History of Magic teacher who bores his class to sleep and as for > Lockhart..... words fail (granted, he didn't have much choice, assuming as I > do that Snape didn't want the job). > > So he's not there because of his teaching abilities. Although Snape certainly scores points over Lockhart, and possibly over Binns and Trelawney as well, by knowing his =subject.= (Binns may be knowledgeable, but tends to, er, overspecialize; Trelawney it's hard to tell about. I'm convinced that her actual Sight is erratic and uncontrollable, but that doesn't mean she can't teach method.) Granted that interpersonal relations are not Snape's strong suit *ahem*, if a student can get past that, s/he will certainly get a thorough and accurate grounding in Potions from Snape. I do agree, though, that Dumbledore wants to have Snape at hand, partly because of his knowledge and competence, and also perhaps partly to keep him safe. We're still not sure how much Voldy and/or the DE's know about Snape's spying career, or on the other side, how many people in the wizarding world know he was a DE. There might be any number of people gunning for Our Severus if he wandered far from Hogwarts. (Though I have this feeling he's =not= going to be one of the ones to die. I keep thinking of JKR's remark about him: "He's tough." He won't go down easily, any road.) --Margaret Dean From jmmears at prodigy.net Sat Jan 5 06:15:40 2002 From: jmmears at prodigy.net (serenadust) Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 06:15:40 -0000 Subject: Ginny & Hermione (small bit on SHIPs) Long In-Reply-To: <3C36749D.2050502@swbell.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32809 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Penny & Bryce wrote: > Nope. As far as canon Ginny is concerned, she's just a background > character we don't know much about. Doesn't mean JKR can't or won't do > more with her, but *for now,* the fact is that Hermione *is* the only > female character strong enough to be the love interest of the hero. > IMHO of course. Hi Penny, I was hoping this topic would flush you out, and I wasn't disappointed > I don't see that they are spending "much more time" together. They are > forced to spend some time together by virtue of being the only girls in > a sea of boys at the Burrow & at the QWC. She does know about > Hermione's date, which indicates some amount of friendship between the > two girls, presumably anyway. But, as of now, we don't have evidence of > exactly how much. We also don't really know *how* Ginny came by this > information. What if she was eavesdropping & overheard Hermione telling > Seamus Finnegan? What if she overheard Hermione's conversation with > Neville for that matter? Just a few possibilities that don't involve > any sort of friendship between the girls. There's also nothing > textually to say that Neville isn't the one who informed Ginny of > Hermione having a date. One thing that's always bothered me with respect to Hermione, is her complete lack of same-sex friends. I agree with you that there really isn't much of anything to indicate any real closeness with Ginny, so far, and she never seems to have much to do with the other girls in her year. Parvati and Lavender don't even seem to know that she has a date for the ball until Harry tells them, and Parvati doesn't even seem to have laid eyes on her while getting ready for the ball, as shown by her shock at how nice Hermione looks when she appears with Victor. This is pretty strange for girls who have been roommates for 3+ years and are getting ready for their first formal occasion. It's pretty standard for girls in early adolesence to form close friendships with other girls their age, as part of the whole "becoming a woman"-thing. While Harry and Ron are certainly her closest friends, you never hear her share anything really personal with them (not that they'd be much use to her if she did). I really hope JKR gives her a close girl friend soon, because if she continues to hang out with the boys exclusively, she's going to find herself excluded more and more. It was ok when they were younger, but now they can't pretend that it doesn't make any difference that they are boys and she's a girl, as GOF made so obvious. > Penny writes: > > She spent the same amount of time with Molly as all the other kids, > right? Mathematics isn't my strong suit, but didn't they all spend > 10.5/11 yrs with their mother before leaving for Hogwarts? Being the > youngest doesn't translate into *more* time, just different time. :--) But don't you think that being the youngest girl would probably mean that she would be especially close to Molly? Penny writes: > Harry needs a little woman to just "stand by his side" then? Harumph. > We have a very different idea of what *Harry* might need then. > Now, be fair Penny. I don't think anyone thinks that Harry needs "a little woman to just stand by his side". However, I do think that he would tend to appreciate someone a lot more easygoing who was secure enough in herself that she wouldn't need to be constantly proving that she's the smartest one in the room. The last thing he needs in a romantic partner is someone who would feel that she needs to compete with him for attention. I've always thought that as fond as Harry surely is of Hermione, he would find her exhausting as a constant companion (as he does when he and Ron are on the outs in GOF, and he's forced to spend more time one on one with Hermione). I really don't want to make a case for H/G, R/H, or Harry with anyone else, at this point. Still, everytime someone suggests that Hermione belongs with Harry, something inside me cringes and says "surely not!". Still I love hearing your arguments on this topic, so fire away! Jo, Who really loves Hermione and wishes she could introduce her to some smart, cool chicks with whom she could argue elf rights as well as swap hair care charms From zoehooch at yahoo.com Sat Jan 5 06:44:33 2002 From: zoehooch at yahoo.com (zoehooch) Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 06:44:33 -0000 Subject: Viktor Krum and an Unforgivable Curse Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32810 In the last task of the Triwizard Tournament, Krum hits Cedric with the Crucitas curse, and, we suspect, Fleur as well. After Harry helps Cedric, he says "I can't believe this ... I thought he was alright." But at the end of the book,as the Durmstrang students are preparing to leave, everything is quite happy; Krum says goodbye to Hermione and Ron asks for his autograph. Why isn't Harry concerned? How would he let Hermione go off in private with a wizard who had performed one of the unforgivable curses? Then again, Harry must not have told anyone or surely some action would have been taken against Krum. Is this an oversight by the author? Any ideas? Zoe Hooch From Calypso8604 at aol.com Sat Jan 5 09:07:28 2002 From: Calypso8604 at aol.com (Calypso8604 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 04:07:28 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Viktor Krum and an Unforgivable Curse Message-ID: <79.20dfc23f.29681c50@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32811 In a message dated 1/5/2002 4:03:56 AM Eastern Standard Time, zoehooch at yahoo.com writes: > In the last task of the Triwizard Tournament, Krum hits Cedric with > the Crucitas curse, and, we suspect, Fleur as well. After Harry helps > Cedric, he says "I can't believe this ... I thought he was alright." > > But at the end of the book,as the Durmstrang students are preparing > to leave, everything is quite happy; Krum says goodbye to Hermione > and Ron asks for his autograph. > > Why isn't Harry concerned? How would he let Hermione go off in > private with a wizard who had performed one of the unforgivable > curses? Then again, Harry must not have told anyone or surely some > action would have been taken against Krum. > > Is this an oversight by the author? Any ideas? > Erm...Because Harry was told by fake Crouch or somebody that Krum was under the imperious curse. Why should Harry be concerned after the fact? Krum wasn't at any fault, it was an evil guy controlling him. Was it cruciatus curse that was used though? For some reason I thought it was something milder that Imperio-controlled Viktor used. Calypso "Writing is easy. All you do is stare at a blank sheet of paper until drops of blood form on your forehead." - Gene Fowler [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From andrew_macian at yahoo.com Sat Jan 5 06:16:20 2002 From: andrew_macian at yahoo.com (Andrew MacIan) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 22:16:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lupin, the Moon and the Bewitching Hour In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020105061620.9929.qmail@web9507.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32812 Greetings from Andrew! An interesting question.... I said in a previous post: > >In re the boggart, I would also say that the Rule > of > >Similarity is in effect. The boggart *portrays* the > >Moon, but it doesn't have the *effect* of the Moon. > > >After all, in the other scenes with that particular > >creature, the fear is due to the subject accepting > the > >illusion as the reality. Lupin cannot accept that, > as > >the effect must bring on transmogrification if the > >effect is real. --- blenberry wrote: > In this case, how do you explain the > boggart-dementor's effects on > Harry? He *knows* it's a boggart. > > sorry if this has been addressed elsewhere... I'm > new :) Not to worry; I'm not excatly one of the Founders, either (interesting joke there, given the topic...) As I said at the end of the paragraph (and it does help to identify the person you're quoting, BTW), the question is one of the actual effect of the Moon on a were-- Lupin, in this case. He *knows* it cannot *be* the Moon for various reasons, one of the most telling being that he must know where and when he is in any given lunation (cycle of the Moon). It has been speculated in both mythological studies and modern magickal theory that a were is, in essence, one of the best state-shape clocks in existence for this reason. Thus, Lupin can tell that the boggart knows what frightens him more than anything else, but Lupin also knows at his basic level of existence that the boggart is nothing but a sham. Harry, on the other hand, sees the dementor and believes what is in essence the boggart's lie. After all, the effects that are produced are Harry's; all the boggart does is to read a person's fears. Thus, all the boggart appears to do is induce the fear-state from the target (Harry's) memories and previous experience. Clearer? If not, don't hesitate to tell me so. 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 video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ From andrew_macian at yahoo.com Sat Jan 5 07:15:38 2002 From: andrew_macian at yahoo.com (Andrew MacIan) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 23:15:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Accio Charm (and a bit about portkeys & apparating) In-Reply-To: <20020104173751.37956.qmail@web20302.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20020105071538.91365.qmail@web9502.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32813 Greetings from Andrew A hypothesis from 'real world' magick... --- Becky wrote: {snip} of potenially interesting flying Aqua-Lungs(tm) scene. > > I would say that familiarity isn't really needed for > an object you wish to Summon. I like the theory that > there are some objects that cannot be (or it would > be > unwise to) Summoned. However, as has been speculated here, it requires either an almost total familiarity with a given object, or fairly 'strong' magical ability to Summon something. As for objects that cannot be Summoned, I would offer that some are inherently immune, some creatures are so immune, and others simply require too much effort. Something here about flying mountains, perhaps? > > Becky > If you knew the person's True name, then perhaps so. Unless, of course, you're a small person trying to Summon (e.g.) Nero Wolfe. I doubt even Archie would contemplate that task! 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 video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ From elfriede.schaden at chello.at Sat Jan 5 09:09:20 2002 From: elfriede.schaden at chello.at (gypaetus16) Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 09:09:20 -0000 Subject: Viktor Krum and an Unforgivable Curse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32814 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "zoehooch" wrote: > In the last task of the Triwizard Tournament, Krum hits Cedric with > the Crucitas curse, and, we suspect, Fleur as well. After Harry helps > Cedric, he says "I can't believe this ... I thought he was alright." > > But at the end of the book,as the Durmstrang students are preparing > to leave, everything is quite happy; Krum says goodbye to Hermione > and Ron asks for his autograph. > > Why isn't Harry concerned? How would he let Hermione go off in > private with a wizard who had performed one of the unforgivable > curses? Then again, Harry must not have told anyone or surely some > action would have been taken against Krum. > > Is this an oversight by the author? Any ideas? > > Zoe Hooch What I can remember Krum was under the magical pressure of Crouch jr. so Krum himself was totally innocent. Gabriele From fuelchic at edsamail.com.ph Sat Jan 5 09:57:10 2002 From: fuelchic at edsamail.com.ph (Reese) Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 17:57:10 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Viktor Krum and an Unforgivable Curse Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32815 "zoehooch" wrote: >Why isn't Harry concerned? How would he let Hermione go off in private with a wizard who had performed one of the unforgivable curses? Then again, Harry must not have told anyone or surely some action would have been taken against Krum.Is this an oversight by the author? Any ideas? I don't have the book right now with me, but if I'm not mistaken, Viktor Krum was under the Imperius curse, when he performed the Cruciatus curse on Cedric, wasn't he? I recall vaguely that someone had uttered the word "Imperio" before Krum casted the Cruciatus curse. Who that person was, I'm not really sure. That means, he did not do it intentionally, and I think Harry knew this. But I'm sure some one else out there could explain much better. Reese __________________________________ www.edsamail.com From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Sat Jan 5 09:58:43 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 09:58:43 -0000 Subject: Neville's role In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32816 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Jennifer Boggess Ramon wrote: >Th. 2: Neville's role in the books > > I find this unconvincing, for a number of reasons: > > (1) There's no such thing as "Oriental mythology;" there's Chinese, > Korean, Japanese, Vietnamese, Thai, etc. mythology. The dragons of > these mythologies are related, as are the dragons of the Western > mythologies, but they're not all the same, just as a dragon in the > ancient Greek myths is not the same as the one in the legend of St. > George. My sources in this case are not the best authority in mythology, but making a little investigation, I arrive to the conclusion that the legend is part of the Japanese folklore. I said "Oriental" mythology to place more or less the legend in it's proper place, since I didn't have the sources with me at that moment. > (2) In many Chinese dragon tales, at least, the enemy of the dragon > is the phoenix (itself different from the Western one). Different > dragons have different enemies. I've never heard the "yellow bird" > theory, so I suspect it's attached to a particular strain of Eastern > dragon. The quote is (translated by me) "the dragon fears only one animal, the small yellow bird, for only that small bird is capable of killing him". I think it's an allegory about how small things can overcome poweful beings, which is why I used it in the first place. > (3) Most of the dragons of the Far East are not evil. (As a > dedicated dragon fan, I would stop here and point out that many of > the dragons of the West are also not evil, but unfortunately that > does not hold in Britain, so I'll skip it.) Interestingly enough, we've got no dragons in my country's folklore, even though it's in Europe. Anyway, I never said that dragons are evil (or good; it's irrelevant for the theory). If you're offended by me drawing a pararelism between Draco and dragons, sorry, but it fit's quite well. > (4) While the snakelike, wingless dragon with the forked horns and > the mane is often called "Draco orientis" in the faux-Linnean > classification of dragon fans, if Draco had been named after it, his > name would be Lung. He is almost certainly named after "Draco > europa". (Although perhaps we should re-vamp the species names after > the species given in FBaWTFT - Draco hebrideae, Draco norweii, > Quetzalcoatlus peruvii, Lunga sinesis, etc. Yes, my dog-Latin is > bad, but so is it on most genus-species names.) Canon says Draco's name means dragon (PS/SS). This is the true origin of the pararelism of my theory. Nothing else was intended. > (5) There's no connection between yellow birds and any of the the > European dragons. I didn't know that. But then again, I never said that, either. > Okay, so I'm a dragon geek. Sorry about that . . . > - Boggles, aka J. C. B. Ramon Nah, don't woory. I'm a (Tolkien's) dwarf fan myself Hope that clears thing a bit, Grey Wolf From aromano at indiana.edu Sat Jan 5 10:02:06 2002 From: aromano at indiana.edu (Aja) Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 05:02:06 -0500 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Viktor Krum and an Unforgivable Curse In-Reply-To: <200201050946.g059ksk19661@mask.uits.indiana.edu> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32817 On Sat, 5 Jan 2002, Reese wrote: > I don't have the book right now with me, but if I'm not mistaken, Viktor > Krum was under the Imperius curse, when he performed the Cruciatus curse > on Cedric, wasn't he? I recall vaguely that someone had uttered the word > "Imperio" before Krum casted the Cruciatus curse. Barty Crouch put Krum under the Imperius curse before the final challenge of the tournament to administer the Cruciatus curse to Cedric sometime during the match. One would have to assume he was also under orders to sabotage his own progress in order to allow Harry to win, but he was stunned by Harry before we could see this leg of the Imperius curse unfold. In either case, he was completely innocent--one of many past, present, and future pawns of Voldemort... Aja (who sometimes feels the impact of the Imperius Curse in her mind has been lessened by JKR's enabling Harry to shake it off so easily...) "Awww, idn't dat sweet? Wook at the widdle witchy conjuring the dark forces of Satan. Awwwww. See, this is what happens if you let your kids read those damn Harry Potter books." --www.capnwacky.com From tabouli at unite.com.au Sat Jan 5 12:02:22 2002 From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli) Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 23:02:22 +1100 Subject: Old ideas, time travel, & Ginny's Oomph: new (!) thoughts on H/H? Message-ID: <004c01c195e0$ef0241c0$e92bdccb@price> No: HPFGUIDX 32818 Mahoney: > In fact, in the hands of a talented writer, the most hackneyed idea can become (to hyperbolize) ground-breaking literature.< I totally agree. I think there's nothing wrong with re-doing something that's been done before... So Long As You Do It BETTER! (or at least in a new, fresh way which invigorates the idea so much that people would never think of accusing you of plagiarism) >I don't like time travel stories, generally.< Oh, I do, I love 'em, and I don't really care whether the author's produced a watertight loophole-free paradox-slaying storyline either, so long as it's done convincingly to me. Give me a bit of the ol' 'Sliding Doors', 'Run Lola Run' and 'Back to the Future' any day (OK, so they're all films, but anyway). Charis Julia: > Why would you think Ginny doesn't have enough "oomph"? Do you think perhaps you're undermining her a bit? After all she was sorted into Gryffindor. Of course she's shy and unsure of her self, sure, but after all she's only 10-14. And she has matured a great deal during the course of the books< I think she undermines herself where Harry's concerned. Certainly at the start of the series she seems to have a serious case of "baby of the family and only girl". A very young 10, IMO, probably from being home schooled and having all those big brothers being alternately overprotective and teasing, plus a mother who wants to keep her little girl little and does things like keeping her away from scary sections of the pyramids in PoA (I mean: she's 12. Think of the things her ickle Ronniekins saw at the age of 12 and coped with!). Now, to pre-empt accusations of me "hating Ginny" let me say that I like the girl well enough. It's not her fault she's been so sheltered. She's sweet and kind and loyal, she can keep secrets, and yes, she *has* grown up quite a bit, but I think she has a lot more growing up to do to win Harry's respect, let alone be strong enough to be his rock if he and his world falls apart. On the other hand, it's pretty clear that he already respects and trusts Hermione, and has already leant on her for support and emergency assistance in times of crisis. At 11 Hermione is already strong, smart and assertive, even if she's socially insecure and her self-esteem hinges on her academic achievements (though I'm sure there are many rabid H/Hers out there who could put this argument far more strongly than a vague theorist like myself). And I don't think being Harry's "rock" in any way means she would be a stand by her man sidekick who can't achieve things in her own right. People can play a supporting role in their partner's, children's or family members' lives without sinking their own lives for the other party's sake, and we know Hermione can definitely cope with a *lot* on her plate. Back to Ginny. I covered this a few months ago, but to reiterate, why does Ginny develop a crush on Harry? For the same reason little girls develop crushes on Prince William and other boys they know nothing about... because he's Famous! She's a groupie! Given that Harry doesn't like playing the celebrity and feels very uncomfortable when people stare at his scar or try to pull him unwillingly into the limelight like Lockhart, he's hardly likely to warm to someone who fancies him primarily because he's famous. In GoF, he even specifically recognises that girls only want to go to the Ball with him because he's a Triwizard Champion, and doesn't like the idea (though could probably cope if it were Cho!). OK, so she gets to meet Harry properly at the start of CoS, and presumably learns he's nice as well as famous, but she's far too bashful to actually have a conversation with him (not a good start to a prospective relationship: power imbalance, for a start). She's hopelessly shy and embarrassed around him and also causes him a lot of embarrassment, albeit unintentionally, by hovering around Hagrid's hut (reminiscent of groupies hanging around backstage to meet their idols), sending him an annoying singing get well card, and humiliating him in public with that Valentine's Day card (though there's some debate about whether this was actually her). All very loyal and devoted, like her stand against Draco on his behalf, but hardly the way to get Harry to respect her and take her seriously, especially not at his age (embarrassing a teenage boy, especially one like Harry, not being a good recipe for making him fancy you). Then we have the Yule Ball business. A while ago some people were arguing that Ginny dealt with her lost opportunity to go to the Ball with Harry in a very mature way, because she didn't burst theatrically into tears and try to guilt trip him. OK, so an improvement on elbow in the butter... her emotional control (aka Stiff Upper Lip) is certainly coming along nicely. All the same, I think this is an English thing... the last thing an embarrassment prone English family like the Weasleys would produce is a daughter who would sob in public and try to blackmail someone into liking her if she could possibly help it. More likely she would force a brave smile to hold in the tears, make some excuse, and then flee to a bathroom so no-one saw her being emotional! She *has* grown up, but I don't see her reaction as evidence of incredible new depths of strength and maturity myself. (Now, on the other hand, actually asking Harry to the Ball herself would have impressed me). And yes, she does seem to have become close to Hermione behind the scenes in GoF, though I don't think this bears much on the debate. I get the impression that Hermione, with her two best friends being boys, must sometimes crave a female friend to talk to about the girlier things they would scoff at (like what to wear to the Ball and who to take, relationships, Love Potions with Mrs Weasley...!), and has bonded with Ginny in that department. We don't know much about this friendship, though it would be interesting to hear more! In fact, now I think about it, I think I may have hit on a new and previously unexplored dimension of the shipping debates! Will wonders never cease?? (though of course I may be hit within minutes by a post from an older timer than I who will point out that the list has, in fact, devoted several weeks to this speculation which may be found in the archives, the Lexicon and several thousand fanfics). Surely if Ginny and Hermione have become friends on a girly-bonding level, an absolutely mandatory topic of conversation is Which Boy They Like!! Given that Harry is one of Hermione's best friends, how could Ginny *not* have talked to Hermione about her undying love for Harry, is there any hope, how can I get him to notice me as more than Ron's baby sister, you know him so well, what sort of girls does he like, does he ever mention me, etc.? Now, it's obvious that Hermione has at least told Ginny that Krum has a thing for her and invited her to the Ball. Might she also have shared the one piece of information all warring shippers would dearly like to know... which boy of Ron and Harry she is most attracted to? AHAAA!! Now the plot thickens. Does Ginny know that Ron is interested in Hermione? If she does (as well she might if she's kept her eyes and ears open), mightn't she have asked Hermione whether she has any interest in her brother? No doubt she'd keep the answer to herself if so, but all the same, the thought is intriguing. If Hermione does fancy Ron, Ginny, a trustworthy and good-hearted girl, would surely be able to provide some discreet help in getting the two together. OTOH, the plot is even *thicker* if Hermione fancies Harry!! Hoo hoo hoo. Knowing of Ginny's infatuation, what would Hermione do? I think her best bet in this case would be not to tell her, focus on the Krum situation and remain neutral and non-committal about Ron and Harry, "No, we're all just friends", rather than wrack poor Ginny with anguish and jealousy by telling her that she wants Harry too (and gets to see him every day, etc.etc.). All the same, if things were to develop between Hermione and Harry, this could put serious stress on Hermione's friendship with Ginny... Ginny might well feel hurt and betrayed to find that her confidante about Harry had run off with Harry herself! Hmmm. Of course, it's also quite likely that Hermione, being inexperienced and naive in the relationship department, hasn't figured out her own feelings with regard to Krum, Ron and Harry at this stage. The idea of boys finding her attractive is novel at this point, and it may take a while for her to sort out feeling flattered, feeling friendship and feeling attractive into clear enough categories to develop a definite interest of her own. Tabouli (who truly isn't judging Ginny's groupiedom that harshly: she's groupied herself on several embarrassing occasions) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Edblanning at aol.com Sat Jan 5 12:48:03 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 07:48:03 EST Subject: ] Re: Snape and Malfoy Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32819 On Fri, 4 Jan 2002 Edblanning at aol.com wrote: > As for the rekindled discussion of Snape and Malfoy, surely the important > point is that Malfoy almost certainly knew that Snape was a DE. I'm not sure I believe that. The more I think about it the more in the dark I believe Malfoy is about the activities of the DEs. For one thing, Malfoy From heidit at netbox.com Sat Jan 5 12:55:06 2002 From: heidit at netbox.com (heidit at netbox.com) Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 07:55:06 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Viktor Krum and an Unforgivable Curse In-Reply-To: a7 Message-ID: <16600678.674477186@imcingular.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32820 ZoeHooch asked about Krum performing crucio on Cedric and the lack of reprucussions: I always presumed that there were no reprucussions because Fake!Moody had Krum under Imperio and forced him to perform the curse. We don't know whether the Life Term in Azkaban applies when someone does an unforgivable curse while *under* an unforgivable curse, but it would seem reasonable (even though wizarding law isn't, necessarily) Heidi Tandy Follow me to FictionAlley - Harry Potter fanfics of all shapes, sizes and ships - 7 sickles an ounce http://www.FictionAlley.org From Edblanning at aol.com Sat Jan 5 12:58:57 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 07:58:57 EST Subject: ] Re: Snape and Malfoy Message-ID: <145.759965a.29685291@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32821 On Fri, 4 Jan 2002 Edblanning at aol.com wrote: Aja replied to my posting, > As for the rekindled discussion of Snape and Malfoy, surely the important > point is that Malfoy almost certainly knew that Snape was a DE. >I'm not sure I believe that. The more I think about it the more in the >dark I believe Malfoy is about the activities of the DEs. Sorry, this comes of posting when I should be tucked up in bed. I meant Lucius Malfoy, not Draco. I do think that Snape's attitude to Draco has to stem from the message he wants to get back to Lucius as he is predisposed to "like" him from their first recorded encounter, although I suppose he could have met him socially in the past and probably recognises a young version of himself. Apologies, Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Edblanning at aol.com Sat Jan 5 13:24:15 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 08:24:15 EST Subject: (no subject) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32822 Megan refers to the incident where Snape gets Lupin to floo into his office. This raises some security issues in my mind. Why don't the students use floo powder to get around the school? Is it just that the school is so complex that they wouldn't be able to get off at the right stop? Or is there some enchantment which stops them? Can you floo in and out of Hogwarts? The head in the fire thing which Sirius uses seems to be related. No-one , as far as I can remember either considers that this may be how he gets into the castle, or equally, states that it is impossible, as we are told several times about dis/apparation. How on earth do you keep anything secure with locks, standard or magical, when a first year can open both the door behind which Fluffy lurked and Snape's office, which he tells us was locked with a spell which only a wizard could break. The place is full of wizards, so what's the point? Why doesn't he have a password , like the dorms and Dumbledore's office? Just wondering Eloise From heidit at netbox.com Sat Jan 5 14:06:27 2002 From: heidit at netbox.com (heidit at netbox.com) Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 09:06:27 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Best and Worst of Draco In-Reply-To: 96 Message-ID: <16600678.1275012615@imcingular.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32823 As one of the leading "draco redemption *is* possible" proponents, I take this task cheerfully. Best moment: warning the trio away at the World Cup. I have tried and tried to see how warning them to get away would've been of any benefit to him, in contrast to, say, Petrificusing one of them to hand over to the Death Eaters, or even keep them talking long enough for the bad guys to get there (if he didn't think he could best all 3 of them at once). Yes, he's rude and obnoxious in his word choice but no matter how you look at this, he did the right thing. Close second- telling on Harry re: his being in hogsmeade. For those of you who think that going was the worst thing Harry's done, I am sure you agree that he needed to get caught and get told off regarding just what kind of danger everyone thought he was in. Draco's motivations were certainly in anger and not concern but the result was necessary and positive. Worst thing? Not saying he wished Hermione was dead, which was likely motivated by jealousy - and how many 12 year olds don't say to their friends on occasion "I'm gonna kill him!" ? No, what he said on the train was the worst. He may've been warning them again-it's possible - but he wasn't telling them anything that he didn't know they already knew. Pointless. And mean. Not evil but mean. Heidi Tandy Follow me to FictionAlley - Harry Potter fanfics of all shapes, sizes and ships - 7 sickles an ounce http://www.FictionAlley.org From gwynyth at drizzle.com Sat Jan 5 01:03:44 2002 From: gwynyth at drizzle.com (Jenett) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 19:03:44 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Genre? Or not? (was Re: Wasted Charms & other magical devices (Time Turner)) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32824 At 9:44 PM +0000 1/4/02, grey_wolf_c wrote: > >I still doubt, nonetheless, that there are many 11 year-old wizards >going to boarding schools in modern fantasy, or simply fantasy based >directly in the real world (coexistant, not in distant past or future >or alternate realities) and still is excelent quality. Let me recommend the subgenre of 'urban fantasy' to your attention, in that case. If you can dig up a copy of it, one of my all time favorites is Pamela Dean's "Tam Lin". Or Charles de Lint's work (I'd suggest starting with his "Jack of Kinrowan" which is a two in one volume edition.) Or Emma Bull's "War for the Oaks". Gael Baudino's "Gossamer Axe". Tanya Huff's "Circle of Light, Gate of Darkness". In a more young-adult aimed one, Diane Duane's "So you want to be a wizard" series, or the classic Susan Cooper "The Dark is Rising" series. Dean, de Lint, Bull, and Duane all have the sort of clearly developed dual-world thing going on that the Potter books have (though you see less of it in some cases than in others). The others, the fantasy world is somewhat more removed and not nearly as accessible. There's also a number of Mecedes Lackey novels set in 'our world' ("Knight of Ghosts and Shadows" is the beginning of one series, "Born to Run" is the start of another.) Some people don't care for Lackey's stuff as 'excellent quality' but the others all definitely qualify in my mind. (I tend to think that her early stuff is substantially better than much of what she's written in the last 4 years or so, but they're still stuff I find 'fun' reading) Pamela Dean's stuff is, IMHO, completely brilliant, as are Emma Bull and Charles de Lint. All of the above are fantasy, all set directly in the modern world (albeit with some alterations, obviously). Some of them involve younger protagonists than others (erm: college, just post-colllege, just post-college, mostly just-post-college-age, various, middle school, middle school, and various in that order.) To bring this back to Harry Potter, however, one of the reasons booted around in the circles I hang out in (heavy readers of a variety of subgenres in speculative fiction, including science fiction, fantasy, etc.) that they're so successful is that she's managed to explain a lot of the *assumptions* in fantasy writing without either boring people who are familiar with those conventions, or without confusing people who *aren't* familiar with those conventions. For example, to take the invisibility cloak, which is a pretty standard concept - she sets it up by having Harry discover it, but not reallly know how it works (so we find out along with him) We eventuallly learn that *some* stuff can see him even without it, and it's pretty cleara that it doesn't muffle sound, just visibility. However, she also tidly reveals that they're rare, that most people never see them, etc... But she reveals the information in a way that isn't tedious to people who go "Oh, yes, invisibility cloak" - and which leaves a few surprises for them, too. Ditto with learning about Fawkes and the power of the phoenix. Most people who read much mythology or fantasy literature might be at least passingly familiar with the concept - but again, she quite handily outlines what they do without dumping the information on an uniformed reader (and boring those people who sit there and go "Yes, duh, it's a phoenix...") and there are sufficient twists in how the basic information is used in her world to keep people alert even if they're familiar with the basic legends. I think the *only* place I've ever felt annoyed by the 'supply information to the reader' stuff is the actual discussion of the philosopher's/sorceror's stone - and I've read enough about alchemy and some other related areas that I suspect I was unusually well aware of what one was even compared to regular readers of the fantasy genre. -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 meboriqua at aol.com Sat Jan 5 14:34:40 2002 From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw) Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 14:34:40 -0000 Subject: Why so many unpopular teachers at Hogwarts? In-Reply-To: <3C3684BD.1934D0D5@erols.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32825 Edblanning at a... wrote: > Dumbledore doesn't seem terribly concerned about what the rest of the world would consider as ideal qualities in teachers: he seems to have a realistically resigned attitude towards Trelawny, puts up with a History of Magic teacher who bores his class to sleep and as for Lockhart..... words fail (granted, he didn't have much choice, assuming as I do that Snape didn't want the job).> There may be other reasons why some of these teachers still work at Hogwarts. I'm thinking as a teacher here, and as someone who has colleagues who make Professor Binns seem innovative and exciting in comparison. I'd love to see what teachers like Snape, Trelawney and Binns were like when they started out. Trelawney has an enormous ego (much like Lockhart, IMO) that often gets in the way of her teaching. She *wants* her students to idolize her, to run to her for answers, to ooh and aah over her. Her ego almost prevented Harry from going to Dumbledore when he had that dream in her class in GoF, because she was more concerned with proving what a great Seer she was than in finding out if Harry was okay. When she first started teaching, I bet her ego wasn't so big. Like many others, she developed a reputation (from her occasional true Seeing moments and from her students being fascinated with her) and began to rely on it. Also, as was mentioned by someone else, she is quite capable of teaching her students a whole lot about Divination, even if she is personally full of sh**. Binns I imagine, has been at Hogwarts for a veeeeerrrrrryyyyyyy long time. He may not be interesting, but he gets the facts out that his students need to know. He's also dead now, but when he first started teaching, he may have had more energy. :-) Snape, while not nice, actually seems to enjoy teaching Potions. His introduction speech to Harry's first year class was quite poetic. There is also never a mention of Harry and his peers being bored with or disbelieving of the things Snape teaches. Evidence of Snape's success at teaching, IMO, is when Hermione makes the Polyjuice Potion in CoS. Snape may not have taught that in class, but Hermione knew enough about potions at that point to be able to brew a pretty complicated one on her own. The other thing I wonder is if teachers at Hogwarts get tenure the way we do here in the US. If so, it is hard to fire them, resulting in some pretty poor teachers staying around for a long time. JKR seems to have set up Hogwarts very traditionally, which includes teachers instructing and students taking notes or following directions. In my school, sometimes we have discussion, sometimes my students work in groups, sometimes they do individual projects and *sometimes* I put notes on the board and they copy them in their notebooks. I can't really see Snape or Trelawney saying "Okay, everyone. Let's talk about that article in "The Daily Prophet" about Sirius Black. How do you think he escaped?" --jenny from ravenclaw, who left out Hagrid's methods because I really don't have anything nice to say about them ************************** From muggle at hot.ee Sat Jan 5 13:08:41 2002 From: muggle at hot.ee (lv) Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 15:08:41 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lupin, the Moon, the Bewitching Hour and the Timeline (WAS TAGS ) Message-ID: <00bd01c195ea$51dcdf40$a5767ec2@Sumps.AAA> No: HPFGUIDX 32826 -----Original Message----- From: cindysphynx >Hmmm. I'm trying to work through this time-line a bit. Let's see. > >If we round it off, Hermione, Harry and Ron leave the castle at >9:00. They have a visit with Hagrid, and then a one-hour trip to >Hogsmeade in the tunnel. According to canon, the tunnel trip Harry >takes to Honeydukes takes "ages" and Harry doesn't arrive until "what >felt like an hour." The Whomping Willow tunnel felt "as least as >long as the one to Honeydukes." >So now they have only 45 minutes remaining out of their three-hour >window. So far, no time has been allotted for the events of the >Shrieking Shack, Lupin's transformation, the dementor's attack, >Snape's rescue, Dumbledore's meeting with Black, and regaining >consciousness. These latter events must happen *very* quickly. I'd argue a bit with the timeline. The tunnel trip to Hogsmeade could have *felt* to Harry like an hour, but it could have been only half an hour or so. I can tell from my experience that an unknown road feels much longer than a well-known one and since the "felt like an Hour" quote is from Harry's first time in the tunnel, I think that it's possible that he didn't judge it properly. He'd never been to the Whomping Willow tunnel before as well, so it must have seemed longer to him than it really is. This way, there would be more time for the latter events. > >If I do the math correctly, I would guess Lupin transforms pretty >late -- around 11:20-11:25 would be my guess. This assumes you take >8:55, add 2:15 for tunnel travel and 15 minutes in the Shack. I'd calculate abut 1:15 for tunnel travelling, up to 45 minutes in the Shack and have lupin transforming at about 11. That would also leave more time for Dumbledore to listen to Sirius etc. lv From anakzaman at yahoo.com Sat Jan 5 13:25:51 2002 From: anakzaman at yahoo.com (anakzaman) Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 13:25:51 -0000 Subject: SHIP: Old ideas, time travel, & Ginny's Oomph: new (!) thoughts on H/H? In-Reply-To: <004c01c195e0$ef0241c0$e92bdccb@price> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32827 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Tabouli" wrote: > > Now the plot thickens. Does Ginny know that Ron is interested in Hermione? If she does (as well she might if she's kept her eyes and ears open), mightn't she have asked Hermione whether she has any interest in her brother? No doubt she'd keep the answer to herself if so, but all the same, the thought is intriguing. If Hermione does fancy Ron, Ginny, a trustworthy and good-hearted girl, would surely be able to provide some discreet help in getting the two together. OTOH, the plot is even *thicker* if Hermione fancies Harry!! Hoo hoo hoo. Knowing of Ginny's infatuation, what would Hermione do? I think her best bet in this case would be not to tell her, focus on the Krum situation and remain neutral and non-committal about Ron and Harry, "No, we're all just friends", rather than wrack poor Ginny with anguish and jealousy by telling her that she wants Harry too (and gets to see him every day, etc.etc.). All the same, if things were to develop between Hermione and Harry, this could put serious stress on Hermione's friendship with Ginny... Ginny might well feel hurt and betrayed to find that her confidante about Harry had run off with Harry herself! Another interesting angle would be between Harry and Ron. Obviously Ron likes Hermione. But if Hermione ends up liking Harry instead of Ron, what would Ron feel? He's already jealous of Harry's fame, of Harry's Quidditch ability, and now Harry goes off with a girl Ron likes. This would easily make Ron turn against Harry. At the end of GoF, Hermione did give Harry a kiss on the cheek, and it didn't mention her doing the same to Ron. Being 14 years old and inexperienced, Ron probably would be jealous if he didn't get the same. I would prefer to see Harry go out with another girl, most likely Cho. And then let Ron go out with Hermione, which definitely ends up in a lot of arguing between those two, and Harry being the middleman again. As for Ginny, she started out as a groupie, but in the end I think she'll become a close part of the innercircle, and Harry ends up having a soft spot for her. Maybe at the end of book 7, Harry finally realizes that he likes Ginny all along, and they end up together. -indra- if Harry doesn't get Cho, then I will.. From marybear82 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 5 14:06:09 2002 From: marybear82 at yahoo.com (Mary Shearer) Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 06:06:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: SHIP: Old ideas, time travel, & Ginny's Oomph: new (!) thoughts on H/H? In-Reply-To: <004c01c195e0$ef0241c0$e92bdccb@price> Message-ID: <20020105140609.52671.qmail@web14006.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32828 Oh am I LOVING this latest topic! Haven't been on for a day or two, and woke to find the SHIPS afloat. I, too, was intrigued by the little hint in GoF that Ginny and Hermione may be forming a female bond. It's long past due for Hermione, who, as best friends with a couple of 14-yr-old boys, is by default dealing with insensitive clods. (the 14-yr-old boy who is NOT an insensitive clod when confronted with girls' issues is truly extraordinary :) Example: Hermione's tearful relief when Ron and Harry finally make up - they look at each other and agree that she's "barking mad," when they should both be apologizing for what they've put her through. Very typical, and very astute for JKR. Boy, does she know her characters! --- Tabouli wrote: > Hmmm. Of course, it's also quite likely that > Hermione, being inexperienced and naive in the > relationship department, hasn't figured out her own > feelings with regard to Krum, Ron and Harry at this > stage. The idea of boys finding her attractive is > novel at this point, and it may take a while for her > to sort out feeling flattered, feeling friendship > and feeling attractive into clear enough categories > to develop a definite interest of her own. I agree. It will be interesting to see how she handles her newfound feminine confidence. I don't think she will change much, as evidenced by her morning-after- the-dance comments. She is back in the common room with her frizzy hair, and tells her friends that it would be way too much trouble to keep the sleek, attractive style she had worn to the ball. (If everyone had dropped their jaws over a new 'do when I was fourteen, I'd have moved heaven and earth to keep it that way.)But I don't think that she will put up with being ignored (as a girl) anymore, either. She pretty effectively put Ron in his place there, even though he may be too dense to "get the point." As for Ginny, I would dearly love to see her get a little Hermione-like revenge. It would be great to see Harry's interest in Ginny piqued, right about the time she's noticing that there are other, less distracted fish in the ocean. Yeah! That's it! Make HIM work to bring HER around...BwaaHaHaHaHa! -Mary (who's O.K. now...just had a little flashback to a high school crush finally asking her out in college (giggles) and as a fellow redhead, sides with poor Ginny.) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ From hollydaze at btinternet.com Sat Jan 5 16:38:23 2002 From: hollydaze at btinternet.com (Hollydaze) Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 16:38:23 -0000 Subject: Time scales at the end of PoA (LONG) References: Message-ID: <005f01c19607$6fcc9320$9400073e@j0dhe> No: HPFGUIDX 32829 There are two sections to this email, on is in regard of how long it takes to get to the Whomping Willow and the other as to how I see the time line of all the events that took place. I have just spent 2 1/2 hours working this out so please be gentle when you point out all the holes that are in it! Cindy Wrote: > If we round it off, Hermione, Harry and Ron leave the castle at > 9:00. They have a visit with Hagrid, and then a one-hour trip to > Hogsmeade in the tunnel. According to canon, the tunnel trip Harry > takes to Honeydukes takes "ages" and Harry doesn't arrive until > "what felt like an hour." The Whomping Willow tunnel felt "as > least as long as the one to Honeydukes." I can see what your getting at, but the downfall of that is that it says it "felt" like an hour, not that it *was* an hour. There are many times that something can feel like an hour and yet only be say 15 minutes, or half an hour. If your waiting for a friend to come round, the day before your birthday when your younger can feel a lot longer than it really is, if your on a journey that you haven't done before. In regards this last one (which is the one that applies to Harry and his trip to Hogsmeade/the SS) I always find that if I am going somewhere (either walking or in the car or whatever) and I have never been there before or I am using a new route, the journey always seems to take longer than it really does, plus the trip back always seems shorter. This way I can feel like I have been in the car (or walking) for maybe an hour, when in fact it has only been 30 minutes. I don't think we can really take this "felt like an hour" thing as a fact that that is how long it actually does take, especially as Harry is quite likely to loose track of time when he is in a long dark passage with nothing to give him an clue as to what the time might be. I can't see it taking an hour for the pupils at the school to get from the school to Hogsmeade by the normal route, and it would only take Harry a little bit longer (it must be less than 10 minutes) to get there below ground (because he is actually travelling to a shop plus he has to go down as well as along) The reason I think that Harry's route does take longer but not that much longer is because when Malfoy runs off Harry does say (or think) that he can't beat Malfoy back to the school even if he runs, (this implies that his route does take a bit longer) however if it was too much longer then Malfoy would have time to get back to the school, warn Snape and then Snape would not just have caught Harry in the corridor but he would have caught him coming out of the witch. I basically think that comment about it "(feeling) like an hour" is just to emphasis that it is a long passage and so it does take some time to travel down it, but I don't think you are meant to take it literally as otherwise none of the events in the SS really fit in a time scale and I would think that that is one of the things that JK would have worked out because otherwise that would be something really obviously wrong. ************************************************************************************************************** TIME LINE OF EVENTS? Here is a time line of when things could have happened, underneath is an explanation of why I think things happened in this order: / = between (depending on the time before hand was generally: all the first times go together and all the second times go together) I know people will argue with this but I have used the book the whole way, as well as comparing the events as they take place (twice) form each chapter. Just to make sure everything is as it should be. 8:55 HRH go to Hagrid's, HH2 waiting in Cupboard. (From the book) 9:05 HRH arrive at Hagrid's, HH2 just behind them. 9:15/9:20 Hagrid sees the committee leaving the school. 9:20/9:25 HRH leave Hagrid, The committee arrive, HH2 hiding behind a tree. 9:23/9:28 HH2 rescue Beaky and are behind the tree again. 9:25/9:30 Scabbers has escaped, Committee in Hagrid's hut, HH2 + B hidden behind tree. 9:26/9:31 Ron catches Scabbers, Sirius turns up as a Dog. 9:29/9:34 Sirius drags Ron into the WW and HH1 have followed. 9:29/9:34 Committee go back up to school. 9:34/9:39 Committee back inside the school. 9:36/9:41 Lupin "sprints" out of the front doors. 9:39/9:44 Lupin is inside the WW. 9:39/9:44 Hagrid leaves his hut. 9:42/9:48 Hagrid arrives at the school front doors. 9:44/9:50 Snape leaves the school. So by around 9:50 everyone who should be in the Willow is inside (Sn, Si, L, P/Sc, H, H, R and C). 10:55 Everyone leaves the WW. (They have been in the willow for about 60 - 65 minutes - there is no way AT ALL that it can logically take 1 hour to get along the track) 10:00 Lupin transforms and Sirius chases him into the FF, HH2 move to Hagrid's hut. 10:05 Sirius has chased Peter and HH1 go to find Sirius, Dementors turn up. 10:05 H2 is on the opposite bank. 10:06 HH1 try to cast patronus. 10:07 H2 casts patronus. 10:08 HH2 see Snape putting people on stretchers. 10:10 Snape sets of for the school with his four stretchers following. (From the book) 10:13 Snape arrives at the school. 11:15 Dumbledore, Snape, and Sirius are in Flitwicks office. 11:20 Dumbledore talks to Sirius, Snape and Fudge leave to go to Hospital wing (presumed). 11:30 HH1 wake up. 11:35 Dumbledore leaves Sirius. 11:40 Dumbledore turns up at the Hospital wing, Fudge, Snape and Madam Pomfrey leave. 11:41 Snape and Fudge send McNair to get the Dementors. 11:42 HH2 see McNair at the front of the school 11:43 HH2 rescue Sirius. 11:45 HH2 start down the West tower. (From the book) 11:50 Snape and Fudge walk past HH2 and the west tower, on their way to Flitwick's office. 11:54 Peeves leaves and HH2 carry on to Hospital wing 11:55 HH1 leave the Hospital wing, HH2 arrive back at the Hospital wing. (From the book) Here is the Explanation of why things seem to have happened this way. I have used the books to find all the events that took place and any mentions of the time (including the four that have been pointed out above.) Everything starts at 8:55 (3 hours before the time turner), HHR go down to Hagrid's and HH2 follow them, it probably takes them 10 minutes (they have to walk slowly) to get there under the cloak and they stay for between 10 and 15 minutes (in that time they talk and find Scabbers) then Hagrid stands up and sees the committee with Dumbledore coming down the steps, it probably only takes the committee about 5 minutes to walk to Hagrid's hut as they don't have to walk slowly and they are older (have longer legs) so walk quicker. That takes us to between 9:20 and 9:25, we have about 1 1/2 hours left. HH2 see HHR leave, then McNair looks out of the window and leaves to look at the form, they probably then have about 2 or 3 minutes to get Beaky away. The committee come out and we have the thud of the axe and Hagrid's wails, these are heard by HHR. When HHR set of back to the school they try to speed up but are slowed down by Ron trying to control Scabbers. They are probably half way back up to the school when Scabbers escapes. Now we know that HH2 have already rescued Becky when they see Ron dark after Scabbers, we also know that there has been some discussion between the committee about what happened to Beaky and then they went back into Hagrid's hut. This probably takes about 2-3 minutes, so Scabbers probably ran for it about this time. This brings us to about 9:25 - 9:30. So then within the next minute, H and H run after R -who has finally caught Scabbers- (with HH2 still watching) and Sirius turns up. it takes about 3 minutes for Sirius to drag Ron (and Scabbers) under the tree and for HH1 to follow. So by 9:29 - 9:34 SSHHR are in the Tunnel, Only a matter of seconds later Dumbledore and the committee members come out of Hagrid's hut and go back up to the castle, this takes about the same amount of time as before, 5 minutes and a "few minutes later" Lupin appears. Lets say 2 minutes after the committee disappeared through the doors. This brings us to 9:36 - 9:41. Lupin is "sprinting" down the steps, so we can presume it takes him less than 5 minutes to reach the Whomping willow, lets say 3. A couple of seconds after that Hagrid appears from his hut and goes up to the castle. Being the size he is we can presume it take him maybe 3-4 minutes to get there.Then "barely two minutes later" Snape appears. This brings us to 9:44 - 9:50. So now everyone is in place, Sn Si P L H H R and C are in the Shrieking Shack, HH2 are waiting with B by Hagrid's hut and everyone else is up in the school, all by about 9:45. Now, we know that it is 11:10 when Snape comes too and takes everyone on stretchers to the school from this quote and the fact that Dumbledore locked the door at 11:55 "Together (Harry and Hermione) peered around the bush at the other bank. Snape had regained consciousness. He was conjuring stretchers and lifting the limp forms of Harry, Hermione and Black onto them. A fourth stretcher no, doubt bearing Ron, was already floating at his side. Then, wand held out in front of him, he moved them away towards the castle. 'Right, it's nearly time,' said Hermione tensely,looking at her watch. 'We've got about forty-five minutes until Dumbledore locks the door to the hospital wing' ". Then we say it takes 5 minutes for L to transform and Si to send him into the forest (at this point HH2 and B run for Hagrid's hut) , another 5 minutes for Sirius to go after Peter and then for HH1 to find him and the Dementors. By this time Ha2 is on the other side of the lake. Then say maybe 2 minutes before Ha2 casts his patronus to save HH1 and Si on the other bank. He2 dashes up to him and then they watch as about 1 min later Snape turns up, this gives a Time-span of about 15 minutes for all of the stuff with the Dementors to happen. This means it was about 10:55 when they all came out of the WW (11:10 - 15 minutes). This means that they were in the shack for between 1 hour and 10 minutes or 1 hour and 5 minutes (that is plenty of time for everything that is supposed to happen especially as they would have been running along the track the first time) and we now have 45 minutes for everything else to happen. So Snape takes them all back up to the school, that takes about 3 minutes (they are already half way there and Snape is dragging them by magic). Then HH and R are taken to the hospital wing and Sirius is taken to Flitwick's office. This is where it gets difficult to work things out: Again we will have to work backwards. HH2 turn up at the hospital wing door just as D is about to lock it, so they must turn up at 11:55. They get from the west tower (where they said bye to Sirius) to the hospital wing in 10 minutes (Hermione says they have 10 minutes to get there and they make it). At the bottom of the West tower they meet Snape and Fudge. They run down some more stairs and then meet Peeves and by the time Peeves has gone they have one minute left. This means that they were at the top of the west tower at 11:45. and must have rescued Sirius about 2 minutes before that, meaning they rescued Sirius at around 11:43. They headed up to Flitwicks window as soon as they had seen McNair rush off to get the Dementors, so this must have been about 1 minute before they were at Sirius's Window, so that would make it 11: 42. This means that Dumbledore was probably talking to Sirius from about 11:15/11:20 (allow 2 minutes to get to Flitwicks office) until about 11: 35 (give or take a min), that gives just under half an hour which is probably enough time for Dumbledore to get all the info that he needs to know. Fudge and Snape were probably with him but left at some point although I don' t think they would have got McNair to go and get the Dementors yet (the times scale doesn't work if they did). And they were talking outside the hospital wing by 11:30. HH 1 wake up and argue with them about Sirius being innocent and they say they are confunded or ill. By 11:40 Dumbledore turns up (having talked to S and taken about 5 minutes to get the Hospital wing) Snape and Fudge leave, and send McNair to get the Dementors, he takes a few minutes to get to the castle entrance and then HH2 wait the a few minutes before going up to rescue Sirius. On their way down, HH2 bump into Snape and Fudge on their way to Flitwicks office, having sent McNair off they are now going to wait for the Dementor to turn up). There is one problem with this time line and that is that while it take Dumbledore five minutes to get from Flitwicks office to the hospital wing it takes Fudge and Snape 10 minutes to return there. However this may be explained by the fact that they had to go and find McNair fist and may also have been walking slower because they were talking. Dumbledore may also have been walking faster because he knew how quickly he would have to work if Sirius was to escape. The other thing I find a bit far fetched is that Fudge would have waited to send for the Dementors rather than sending for them immediately, but he must have done or else Dumbledore would never have had time to talk to Sirius, or else (as was stated above) HH2 would have turned up when Dumbledore was still in the room! HOLLYDAZE!!! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Joanne0012 at aol.com Sat Jan 5 16:58:46 2002 From: Joanne0012 at aol.com (joanne0012) Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 16:58:46 -0000 Subject: Time scales at the end of PoA (LONG) In-Reply-To: <005f01c19607$6fcc9320$9400073e@j0dhe> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32830 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Hollydaze" wrote: . . . > I have just spent 2 1/2 hours working this out so please be gentle when you point out all the holes that are in it! > >. . . 8:55 HRH go to Hagrid's, HH2 waiting in Cupboard. (From the book) > 9:05 HRH arrive at Hagrid's, HH2 just behind them. Yikes, Holly, that WAS a labor of love (and LOON-iness)! It seems completely consistent with the descriptions in the book . There are only two small problems that I can spot: Almost certainly typos: From 10:00 Lupin transforms until 10:13 Snape arrives I think you meant those time to be after 11 o'clock, not 10 The other problem, which I think is a Flint or some other error on JKR's part, is that sunset occurs long after 9 PM in Scotland in mid-June. The text contains multiple references to the setting sun and growing darkness (as a suspense-building technique, I suppose) before the kids even enter Hagrid's and the whomping willow, but this would not have been happening until closer to 10 PM. But since JKR send them back 3 hours, I guess she has decided that sunset is 9 PM. Shall we just decide that wizards don't keep daylight savings time (or whatever they call it in Britain), though this complicates the train-departure schedule of every Sept. 1? From Elizabeth.Dalton at EAST.SUN.COM Sat Jan 5 17:14:55 2002 From: Elizabeth.Dalton at EAST.SUN.COM (Elizabeth Dalton) Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 12:14:55 -0500 Subject: Genre? Or not? (was Re: Wasted Charms & other magical devices (Time Turner)) References: Message-ID: <3C37348F.FC0E07B8@sun.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32831 Since I started this ridiculous thread, I guess I should follow up on at least *some* of the comments.... If you don't want to read a long email, the summary is this: Rowling is a good writer (and becoming an excellent one), capable of making even a fairly cliched device seem new in her world, but she's not always consistent in this ability, and I still hold that her skill in this area would likely be helped by some research into how other authors have handled some of the devices she uses, such as time travel. I wrote some stuff about how there's good sf & fantasy out there (which other list members have helpfully backed me up on), and ftah3 (Mahoney) responded: > > Exactly. Which is part of the reason I also had a smidge of an > objection to your previous statement that it would have been better > if Rowling had read more sci-fi-fantasy/had left 'hokey' devices > alone. The fact is, the good writers can use certain devices and > they will *not* be hokey/contrived/full of holes because they are > talented writers. In fact, in the hands of a talented writer, the > most hackneyed idea can become (to hyperbolize) ground-breaking > literature. Wait up a sec-- I agree with this. And Rowling is *becoming* a very good writer, the kind who could take on these old ideas and make them seem fresh and interesting. I don't doubt her general ability. But I still say the Time Turner wasn't her best example. More below.... > > I don't like time travel stories, generally. Even in the hands of > respected writers, I find them tiresome. But for some reason, I > really like Rowling's Time Turner. > I would have loved to give Hermione's > experience with the Time Turner a try. And with that introduction, > the Time Turner became a fresh idea to me. Also, I felt that the > contained way in which Rowling used the device kept loopholes from > spiralling totally out of control; and the loopholes that *could* be > brought up remained well inside my personal form of 'time structure > agnosticism' (i.e., is it linear? circular? three dimensional? > incomprehensible? who knows... :-P). I'm rather glad that Rowling > didn't fall prey to the...hmm, sort of sci-fi/fantasy genre prejudice > against time travel, nor allow herself to be intimidated by the fact > that the current stock of genre fiction has a lousy track record in > dealing with that particular device. Because I would miss it. > I wouldn't have wanted her to necessarily skip the Time Turner altogether -- it was an interesting idea, and good character development for Hermione. I actually like time travel stories well enough, when they're well-done. (Card's _Pastwatch_ comes to mind.) It's just that more commonly, they are written with too little thought and care, and I'm afraid I feel this was an example. I've had some more time to think about this since my earlier post, and here's how I would explain my point of view now: Rowling does a really good job with some "cliche" devices, like the invisibility cloak. She gives a light introduction, is careful to ensure consistent use, has her consequences thought through, etc., as others have described. But she's still a little spotty with some other devices, like the Time Turner. I truly do believe that if she were more familiar with the bumps other science fiction or fantasy authors have gone through in thinking about time travel, she would have made this device work a lot better. I don't care if she does the "time is inevitable & can't be changed" Heinlein method, or the "multiple alternate worlds" Piper method, or the "paradox destroys reality" Frankowski method, or the "if you change the past you write yourself out of existance" Card method. Or she could work up a plausible new theory and stick with that. But quite a bit of SF effort has been devoted to working out different ways to handle the paradox problem in time travel stories. Do you have to read every other time-travel story before you write your own? Not necessarily, but if you don't at least survey where others have gone before, you have to work an awful lot harder to make the device convincing to readers who have. If you don't believe me (after all, I'm unpublished to date), here's a quote from Orson Scott Card (winner of both Hugo and Nebula awards), from his excellent book, _How to Write Science Fiction and Fantasy_. Card is talking about the rules of space travel in this passage, but he goes on to detail the kinds of rules that one must establish for time travel later in the same chapter. -- Why must you establish clearly what the rules of space travel are? So that the reader understands why the characters are getting so upset -- or why they're *not* getting terribly puset -- when things go wrong. So that the reader knows just what's at stake. And -- not a trivial consideration -- so that the experienced science fiction reader will recognize your proper use of a standard device and feel confident that the story is being written by somebody who knows how this is done. Even if you plan to be rebellious and *not* use standard devices, you still must address the same issues; the effect on the reader is still reassuring. -- Rowling has done, I would guess, a fair amount of reading about mythological creatures such as unicorns and phoenixes, and it looks like she's investigated the mystical properties of woods in certain cultures, as well. All of this effort enriches her stories and makes *her* unicorns, phoenixes, and wands more than just stereotyped cliches. I don't think it's unreasonable to hold her use of elements like time travel to the same standard. Especially when it was a major plot element in PoA. The same thing holds for veritaserum. The question of absolute truthfullness and how a device that could guarantee it would affect a culture and its legal system has been explored in any number of SF & fantasy stories (including my own unpublished short story, "Contagious Truth"). In GoF, Snape threatens Harry with veritaserum fairly casually, and then we see it used at the end on Crouch/Moody, but though Rowling makes some remarks about its use being "restricted by the Ministry," she hasn't given us enough details to make this restriction seem real or the use of veritaserum by wizards understandable. I'm still hoping that she'll follow up with more of an explanation of the limitations or drawbacks of veritaserum in her remaining books. (For that matter, she could patch up the problems with the Time Turner in a future book, and I'd stop quibbling about it.) I'm also still hoping that she'll fix the problem she introduced with the Portkeys in GoF. She's effectively defined two completely different behaviors: timed departure and touch-activated departure and return. I'm guessing this device was written in haste, rather than as a logical error that she wouldn't have noticed given a bit more time, and I'm just hoping she can patch it up in the next book. (And I'm willing to wait a little longer for OoP to let her do so.) BTW, for those who are interested in reading other well-written school-age wizard stories, Diane Duane's _So You Want to be a Wizard_ has already been mentioned, to which I would add Diana Wynne Jones' "Chrestomanci" stories (particularly _Witch Week_ and _Charmed Life_) and _Archer's Goon_, Tamora Pierce's "Song of the Lioness", "Wild Magic", and "Protector of the Small" quartets, Mercedes Lackey's original "Arrows of the Queen" series (I agree that her earliest work is her best), Sherri S. Tepper's "End of the Game" series, R.A. MacAvoy's "Damiano" trilogy, Patrica A. McKillip's "Riddlemaster of Hed" series, and Robin McKinley's _The Blue Sword_ and _The Hero and the Crown_. Also worth checking are Garth Nix's _Sabriel_ and Philip Pullman's "His Dark Materials" series, though I think the first book (_The Golden Compass_) is significantly better than the other two. You may also like much of Andre Norton's "Witch World" series. If you're interested in extending to a science fantasy or science fiction direction, you might also try Anne McCaffrey's "Harper Hall" trilogy, and possibly James H. Schmitz' _The Witches of Karres_ and "Telzey" series (_The Universe Against Her_, _The Telzey Toy_, and _The Lion Game_.) Most of these should be fairly easily available through your online book vendor of choice, or via interlibrary loan. Sadly, I am not yet aware of any science fiction and fantasy specific online new and used book stores. :( Elizabeth (who is seriously considering starting a separate list for discussing these other children's and young-adult science fiction and fantasy stories in more detail.) From hollydaze at btinternet.com Sat Jan 5 17:18:53 2002 From: hollydaze at btinternet.com (Hollydaze) Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 17:18:53 -0000 Subject: CORRECTION to my timeline: Message-ID: <00ed01c1960d$23769600$9400073e@j0dhe> No: HPFGUIDX 32832 The bit that says: 10:00 Lupin transforms and Sirius chases him into the FF, HH2 move to Hagrid's hut. 10:05 Sirius has chased Peter and HH1 go to find Sirius, Dementors turn up. 10:05 H2 is on the opposite bank. 10:06 HH1 try to cast patronus. 10:07 H2 casts patronus. 10:08 HH2 see Snape putting people on stretchers. 10:10 Snape sets of for the school with his four stretchers following. (From the book) 10:13 Snape arrives at the school. 11:15 Dumbledore, Snape, and Sirius are in Flitwicks office. 11:20 Dumbledore talks to Sirius, Snape and Fudge leave to go to Hospital wing (presumed). is a mistake all of those items should not say 10 they should say 11:... so it should say 10:55 Everyone leaves the WW. (They have been in the willow for about 60 - 65 minutes - there is no way AT ALL that it can logically take 1 hour to get along the track) 11:00 Lupin transforms and Sirius chases him into the FF, HH2 move to Hagrid's hut. 11:05 Sirius has chased Peter and HH1 go to find Sirius, Dementors turn up. 11:05 H2 is on the opposite bank. 11:06 HH1 try to cast patronus. 11:07 H2 casts patronus. 11:08 HH2 see Snape putting people on stretchers. 11:10 Snape sets of for the school with his four stretchers following. (From the book) 11:13 Snape arrives at the school. 11:15 Dumbledore, Snape, and Sirius are in Flitwicks office. 11:20 Dumbledore talks to Sirius, Snape and Fudge leave to go to Hospital wing (presumed). Sorry about that I got all the spellings (or most of them) but missed that bit by accident! HOLLYDAZE!!! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From macloudt at yahoo.co.uk Sat Jan 5 17:59:26 2002 From: macloudt at yahoo.co.uk (macloudt) Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 17:59:26 -0000 Subject: Hermione's female friends(was: Ginny & Hermione) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32833 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "serenadust" wrote: > One thing that's always bothered me with respect to Hermione, is her > complete lack of same-sex friends. I agree with you that there > really isn't much of anything to indicate any real closeness with > Ginny, so far, and she never seems to have much to do with the other > girls in her year. Parvati and Lavender don't even seem to know that > she has a date for the ball until Harry tells them, and Parvati > doesn't even seem to have laid eyes on her while getting ready for > the ball, as shown by her shock at how nice Hermione looks when she > appears with Victor. This is pretty strange for girls who have been > roommates for 3+ years and are getting ready for their first formal > occasion. First of all, having spent a bit of time in a boarding school myself I can assure you that sharing a room with other girls does not assure friendship. Tolerance, yes, to preserve the general sanity, but not necessarily friendship. What strikes me is the difference in character between Hermione and her room-mates. I can't give any direct quotes because I don't have my books here...sorry...but from memory Parvati and Lavender are the Valley Girl types who are into make-up and dressing up and boys and such. Personally I always wanted to throttle such girls in my classes ("GET A BRAIN!!!"), and I'm sure Hermione has no time for such characters either. My guess is that JKR purposely made Parvati and Lavender shallow-like so that there wouldn't be much of a chance of Hermione forming a friendship with them rather than with Harry and Ron. And who's to say that those two girls haven't taken the mickey out of Hermione for being so square (gads...I'm showing my age with that cliche!) I'm not saying that Parvarti and Lavender are totally brainless (they're obviously not), but outside the classroom they're not interested in intellecual pursuits. > It's pretty standard for girls in early adolesence to form close > friendships with other girls their age, as part of the > whole "becoming a woman"-thing. While Harry and Ron are certainly > her closest friends, you never hear her share anything really > personal with them (not that they'd be much use to her if she did). > I really hope JKR gives her a close girl friend soon, because if she > continues to hang out with the boys exclusively, she's going to find > herself excluded more and more. It was ok when they were younger, > but now they can't pretend that it doesn't make any difference that > they are boys and she's a girl, as GOF made so obvious. > > Hear, hear! My guess is that Hermione and Ginny do become closer, since H. hasn't formed any friendships with any other female Gryffindor in four years, or she makes friends with a classmate from another house. But haven't the Gryff's taken classes with all the other houses already? Please correct me if I'm wrong. Mary Ann (who just came off work and probably made no sense whatsoever) From cindysphynx at home.com Sat Jan 5 18:32:12 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 18:32:12 -0000 Subject: Time scales at the end of PoA (LONG) In-Reply-To: <005f01c19607$6fcc9320$9400073e@j0dhe> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32835 Hollydaze wrote: > I have just spent 2 1/2 hours working this out so please be gentle >when you point out all the holes that are in it! I certainly believe it took 2.5 hours, as this stuff is really complicated. :-) I didn't do a comprehensive analysis, but that won't stop me from arguing about this anyway. Let me state up front that my goal isn't to cram the events into the timeline, because I don't think that can be done consistent with the descriptions in canon. Frankly, my preliminary view is that JKR must not have prepared a detailed timeline when she wrote this because certain things just don't add up. In other words, if you accept what JKR literally tells us, it can't be squared with the events very easily. My thoughts are: 1. I'm not ready to concede the point that JKR's two references to the time to reach Honeydukes and the Shrieking Shack are way off. Yes, "felt like an hour" is not the same as "exactly an hour." But unless we stray far from canon and rely instead on our own experiences with time in our daily lives, it is hard to shrink "felt like an hour" to 15 minutes or so. 2. The trip to Hogsmeade was long and arduous. The tunnel to Hogsmeade has many "twists and turns," and Harry "hurried along it." The passage starts to rise after what "felt like an hour", and by this time, JKR tells us that Harry is "panting, his face hot, his feet very cold." PoA 195. Then "10 minutes later" Harry came to the foot of some worn stone steps" and starts to climb out. So we know that Harry is worn out *before* he gets to the last 10-minute segment of the trip. Granted, we could try to say that the Honeydukes tunnel twists and winds and the Shrieking Shack tunnel is straight, so the Shrieking Shack tunnel must be a lot shorter. But Harry tells us the opposite: "On and on went the passage; it felt at least as long as the one to Honeydukes." So I don't see how the total Shrieking Shack journey gets to be substantially shorter than an hour -- unless you depart from canon. 3. I don't think we can draw any meaningful conclusions from the comparison of Malfoy's return journey to Hogwarts compared to Harry's. We have no idea how long it took Malfoy to find Snape and for Snape to reach the corridor where Harry emerged. JKR gives us no references to time in that sequence, so it just isn't very helpful. 3. In the time-turner sequence, once everyone has gone into the tunnel headed toward the Shrieking Shack, Hermione and Harry sit and wait for them to come back out. JKR tells us how long this takes: "And then, at last, after over an hour . . . " PoA 408. If the Shrieking Shack trip is 40 minutes each way (averaging a fast trip on the way there and a slow trip on the way back), and the Shrieking Shack takes 15 minutes, that is 95 minutes, consistent with JKR's description in canon. OK, on to specifics in Holldaze's timeline: > 10:55 Everyone leaves the WW. (They have been in the willow for >about 60 - 65 minutes - there is no way AT ALL that it can logically >take 1 hour to get along the track) I'm having trouble understanding the basis for the statement that it can't be a long journey to and from the Shrieking Shack, so let me just ask the question: Hollydaze, what is the total time from the moment Harry and Hermione enter the Whomping Willow to the time the entire group leaves the Whomping Willow with Pettigrew in tow? I'm also unclear on how long you think they were in the Shrieking Shack (not considering travel time). Are you saying it is 60-65 minutes of chit chat in the Shack, because that seems much too long. I doubt that it takes that long to read the entire Shrieking Shack scene out loud. My preliminary guess is something like 80 minutes total travel time plus 15 minutes of confrontation time in the Shrieking Shack, for a total of 95 minutes. Anyway, if we know for certain that Snape appears bearing Ron on a stretcher at 11:10, it makes sense that everything that happens before Lupin transforms occurs before 11:05. That means we have 2:10 for the Hagrid visit and Whomping Willow/Shrieking Shack/tunnel journey stuff. That's a very tight timeline, indeed. Bottom line: I think the only place we really differ is in figuring out how much time is spent in tunnel travel and how much is in the Shrieking Shack confrontation. That said, I know what you're all thinking: who cares, and what difference does it make? No one, and none, really. But it is interesting to try to figure out whether this is a big Flint, or whether JKR just cut it very close. Cindy From pennylin at swbell.net Sat Jan 5 19:42:52 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny & Bryce) Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 13:42:52 -0600 Subject: Ginny's Oomph & New (!) Thoughts on H/H (SHIP) References: <004c01c195e0$ef0241c0$e92bdccb@price> Message-ID: <3C37573C.1030903@swbell.net> No: HPFGUIDX 32836 Hi -- Anything with "New thoughts on H/H" in the subject is sure to get my attention. Tabouli wrote: > Charis Julia: > > Why would you think Ginny doesn't have enough "oomph"? Do you > think perhaps you're undermining her a bit? After all she was sorted > into Gryffindor. Of course she's shy and unsure of her self, sure, > but after all she's only 10-14. And she has matured a great deal > during the course of the books< Tabouli responded: > > I think she undermines herself where Harry's concerned. Certainly at > the start of the series she seems to have a serious case of "baby of the > family and only girl". A very young 10, IMO, probably from being home > schooled and having all those big brothers being alternately > overprotective and teasing, plus a mother who wants to keep her little > girl little and does things like keeping her away from scary sections of > the pyramids in PoA (I mean: she's 12. Think of the things her ickle > Ronniekins saw at the age of 12 and coped with!). Indeed. I wrote a long discourse on the Molly-Ginny mother-daughter relationship in Message 21306. In summary, I agree with Carole that Molly is likely smothering Ginny & the most likely response is going to be rebellion at some point. However, there are some strange inconsistencies in the way that Ginny is depicted in canon, which leads me to conclude that maybe she isn't ever going to rebel. I'm utterly convinced that JKR must not have intended her to be 9/10 when she wrote PS/SS; no one could possibly think that Ginny's actions in the book are typical of girls that age. If she doesn't ever rebel against Molly though, I don't see how she'll ever have the strength & the spirit to be Harry's rock as Tabouli says. Take a look at message 21306 -- Ginny is depicted as far, far younger than her actual age (and far younger than just one year shy of Ron) IMHO. > On the other hand, it's pretty clear that he already respects and trusts > Hermione, and has already leant on her for support and emergency > assistance in times of crisis. At 11 Hermione is already strong, smart > and assertive, even if she's socially insecure and her self-esteem > hinges on her academic achievements (though I'm sure there are many > rabid H/Hers out there who could put this argument far more strongly > than a vague theorist like myself). Nope -- couldn't have said it better myself, Tabouli. And I don't think being Harry's > "rock" in any way means she would be a stand by her man sidekick who > can't achieve things in her own right. People can play a supporting > role in their partner's, children's or family members' lives without > sinking their own lives for the other party's sake, and we know Hermione > can definitely cope with a *lot* on her plate. Again, absolutely agreed. > > Back to Ginny. I covered this a few months ago, but to reiterate, why > does Ginny develop a crush on Harry? For the same reason little girls > develop crushes on Prince William and other boys they know nothing > about... because he's Famous! She's a groupie! Given that Harry > doesn't like playing the celebrity and feels very uncomfortable when > people stare at his scar or try to pull him unwillingly into the > limelight like Lockhart, he's hardly likely to warm to someone who > fancies him primarily because he's famous. He also barely interacts with Ginny. He is kind to Ginny. He's certainly not mean to her in hopes of dashing her romantic interest, which many boys that age would do. But, he & the Trio actively exclude her from their interactions (in at least 2 instances in GoF it's very clear that they don't want her around). > Then we have the Yule Ball business. She *has* > grown up, but I don't see her reaction as evidence of incredible new > depths of strength and maturity myself. (Now, on the other hand, > actually asking Harry to the Ball herself would have impr essed me). Not only that, but as I mentioned in #21306, *where* is Ginny in the aftermath of the 3rd Task? If she was watching the Task with her family & Hermione, did Molly scivvy her off to Gryffindor Tower? If so, why didn't she stand her ground? She's presumably 14 or close to it by that point; she's old enough to take a stand. Does this cast some doubt on whether or not she's still got a crush on Harry? We don't see Ginny *at all* after her appearance at the Yule Ball with Neville (which is briefly noticed by Harry). So ... *where* is she when her supposed love interest is possibly dead or severely injured and/or has undergone what she must know was a harrowing experience (even if she doesn't know the details)? The only scenario I've been able to envision whereby Ginny *wanted* to go with her mum & the others to see about Harry & doesn't involve a confrontation with her mum is this: if she watched the final task with friends, saw all the hoopla at the end & tried to reach her family & Hermione to go with them but was intercepted by another teacher (McGonagall?) who herded her & other students back to the dorms. I don't think this scenario is necessarily a testament to her strength of character or growing maturity necessarily either, but it's the most plausible explanation that I could come up with that doesn't involve her still being a young immature kid with a case of groupiness. > In fact, now I think about it, I think I may have hit on a new and > previously unexplored dimension of the shipping debates! Will wonders > never cease?? Surely if > Ginny and Hermione have become friends on a girly-bonding level, an > absolutely mandatory topic of conversation is Which Boy They Like!! Too true. AFAIK, no one has ever touched on this before Tabouli so kudos to you! > Now the plot thickens. Does Ginny know that Ron is interested in > Hermione? If she does (as well she might if she's kept her eyes and > ears open), mightn't she have asked Hermione whether she has any > interest in her brother? No doubt she'd keep the answer to herself if > so, but all the same, the thought is intriguing. If Hermione does fancy > Ron, Ginny, a trustworthy and good-hearted girl, would surely be able to > provide some discreet help in getting the two together. You would think so, wouldn't you? Of course, as someone mentioned, it wouldn't be surprising if Hermione were a bit confused about her romantic feelings for any of the 3 boys we're discussing (Harry, Ron & Krum). She might have some level of interest in all 3 of them for all we know. But .. moving on ... OTOH, the plot > is even *thicker* if Hermione fancies Harry!! Hoo hoo hoo. Knowing of > Ginny's infatuation, what would Hermione do? I think her best bet in > this case would be not to tell her, focus on the Krum situation and > remain neutral and non-committal about Ron and Harry, "No, we're all > just friends", rather than wrack poor Ginny with anguish and jealousy by > telling her that she wants Harry too (and gets to see him every day, > etc.etc.). Yeah, I can't see Hermione owning up to feelings for Harry. She wouldn't want to admit it to Ginny since Ginny so clearly does have feelings for Harry & would feel disadvantaged (and perhaps alot less likely to be friends with Hermione if she felt she was competing in the romance field with her. As Tabouli said so well, Hermione might well need this female companionship that she hasn't been able to achieve with Parvarti, Lavender or seemingly any other girl at Hogwarts that we're aware of). She wouldn't want to jeopardize her seemingly only female friendship .... I can see that. That's one more reason that Hermione's feelings are so ambiguous & open to more than one spin. If she's concerned about losing another female friend (maybe her *only* female friend) AND both her other best friends (Harry & Ron), she'd for sure keep her own counsel. See ... the plot does indeed thicken (potentially anyway). Penny From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jan 5 20:43:47 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 20:43:47 -0000 Subject: Ginny's Oomph & New (!) Thoughts on H/H (SHIP) In-Reply-To: <3C37573C.1030903@swbell.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32837 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Penny & Bryce wrote: > I'm utterly convinced that JKR must not have intended her to be 9/10 when she wrote PS/SS; no one could possibly think that Ginny's actions in the book are typical of girls that age. << I have to disagree. I've raised two boys and observed my 6 neices growing up, and I can tell you that a child can be clingy at age nine and announce at age twelve that they don't care to be hugged anymore. Ginny does seem young for her age at the station, but then it could well be her first ever exposure to the Muggle world, which would be enough to throw any child into a bout of regressive behavior. Penny: >> Not only that, but as I mentioned in #21306, *where* is Ginny in the aftermath of the 3rd Task? If she was watching the Task with her family & Hermione, did Molly scivvy her off to Gryffindor Tower? << As I've mentioned before, it makes sense that the students were mustered off to their Houses as soon as Dumbledore knew something was wrong. That would be no later than when Snape felt the Dark Mark burn and before Harry returned. The evacuation, which Harry naturally knows nothing about, is in progress when he returns, which is why people are running all over the place. Molly would insist that all her children and Hermione go back to the dorms, because that's the safest place for them. So Ginny may not know that Harry's been hurt. After they reach the Tower Hermione and Ron sneak back out to find out what *has* happened to Harry and end up at the hospital wing where they find Molly and Bill. So the confrontation, if there was one, would be with Hermione and Ron, not Molly. Fred and George weren't at the Hospital Wing either, which supports my theory, I think. Pippin From ChaserChick at hotmail.com Sat Jan 5 19:42:23 2002 From: ChaserChick at hotmail.com (Liz Sager) Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 13:42:23 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why so many unpopular teachers at Hogwarts? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32838 Jenny wrote: I believe that there are people truly talented in the Divination field...Trelawney just isn't one of them, I think she takes a lot of shots in the dark during class, and can only go into a trance and make a true prediction when she thinks about it. Like during Harry's Divination exam in the third year, it was just her and Harry and she wasn't interested at that point in time at showing off, and the prediction and trance just came to her. >Binns I imagine, has been at Hogwarts for a veeeeerrrrrryyyyyyy long >time. He may not be interesting, but he gets the facts out that his >students need to know. He's also dead now, but when he first started >teaching, he may have had more energy. :-) I have compared Dead!Professor Binns to my eigth grade science teacher Mrs. Rogis. She has the droning voice and everything, she's just not dead. *snores* Its rather intriguing to think about what Alive!Professor Binns would be like. He was probably a bit like McGonagall, strict but still nice and fair to everyone. >Snape, while not nice, actually seems to enjoy teaching Potions. His >introduction speech to Harry's first year class was quite poetic. >There is also never a mention of Harry and his peers being bored with >or disbelieving of the things Snape teaches. Evidence of Snape's >success at teaching, IMO, is when Hermione makes the Polyjuice Potion >in CoS. Snape may not have taught that in class, but Hermione knew >enough about potions at that point to be able to brew a pretty >complicated one on her own. I believe that Snape, however grouchy and mean he may be, is a perfectly competent teacher. He knows his stuff, and teaches it well. I've compared Snape to my Environmental science teacher last year. I had him for that class and homeroom, and I didn't like him, but I still managed to learn a lot in his class and put my learnings to good use. >I can't really see Snape or Trelawney saying "Okay, everyone. Let's talk >about that article in "The Daily Prophet" about Sirius Black. How do you >think he escaped?" LOL that would have hapenned in my World Geography class last year. I loved Mr. Butler to death but he had an opinion and idea for everything, and every opinion and idea had a story to go with it...its amazing we ever got anything done. :P Liz _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com From andrew_macian at yahoo.com Sat Jan 5 19:54:40 2002 From: andrew_macian at yahoo.com (Andrew MacIan) Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 11:54:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The effects of Avada Kedavra Message-ID: <20020105195440.80907.qmail@web9502.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32839 Greetings from Andrew! A comment on what constitutes proof of cause of death (COD) drawn from forensics and writing... --- brewpub44 wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" > > > > > > However, since death from fear > > is normally a heart-attack, and the Riddles were > in perfect health > > (apart from the fact that they were dead), we > should discount that > > posibility. > > I'm not so sure you can discount that. I think if an > autopsy was > done, a coroner would have detected they did die of > a heart attack, > but they were also in perfect health. In other > words, their hearts > just gave out, but there was no reason for it (no > congenital defects, > no weight problem, arteriosclerosis, etc.) And in the end, *all* deaths can be ascribed to cardiac failure. No matter that the victim has a hole blown in his chest from a .45 from short range, or has been done in by method X. However, given the state of forensics when the Riddles died, it would have been difficult to derive a valid COD from the bodies that would have justified any other inquest verdict than 'cardiac failure'. The level of knowledge about derivative enzymes and their levels, or amino acid levels after (e.g.) a myocardial infarct simply weren't at the level of knowledge that we have today. So being able to say that they were in perfect heath, just dead, is reasonable. These days, given that a corpse is not left in the desert or in sea water for a week, the level of sensitivity available in a modern forensic lab would given a more definitive answer as to the COD of a person hit with the applicable spell. Cheers, Drieux ..see what being handfasted with a bio-sciences person can do to...ewrm...*for* an author? ===== 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 video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ From ChaserChick at hotmail.com Sat Jan 5 19:18:44 2002 From: ChaserChick at hotmail.com (Liz Sager) Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 13:18:44 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] (no subject) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32840 Eloise wrote: >Why don't the students use floo powder to get around the school? >Can you floo in and out of Hogwarts? My guess would be is that you can floo in and out and around, but its only something that works in teacher's offices, so there is controlled access to it, and they don't have kids sneaking into Hogsmeade that way ;) >No-one , as far as I can remember either considers >that this may be how he gets into the castle, or equally, states that it is >impossible, as we are told several times about dis/apparation. I never thought of it! Very clever, many schnoogles! >How on earth do you keep anything secure with locks, standard or magical, >when a first year can open both the door behind which Fluffy lurked and >Snape's office, which he tells us was locked with a spell which only a >wizard >could break. Its my guess that there's an additional charm or spell that you have to use if you want a lock to be "Alohomora proof". :) In the movie (*waits for mods to beat her with the Off Topic Stick) Ron couldn't open the door in the room full of keys, and IIRC they couldn't open the door that way in the book either. Liz _________________________________________________________________ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com From muridae at muridae.co.uk Sat Jan 5 20:58:53 2002 From: muridae at muridae.co.uk (Muridae) Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 20:58:53 +0000 Subject: Snape on the prowl - Lupin's name - Snape and the Marauders' Map In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32841 Jo Ellen wrote: >I agree with the statement about Snape being happy to nail any >student he finds breaking the rules.I personally got the impression >he enjoys it. He must be lying in wait for them because I have not >always gotten an explaination as to why Snape is roaming the castle >in the middle of the night. Chronic insomniac, perhaps? All the events of his Death-Eater days may come back to haunt him in the wee small hours, prompting him to combat it by taking a little relaxing stroll around the castle before returning to bed to catch a few more hours of fitful sleep. If he manages to feel better about himself by catching a few students up to no good in the process, then he might well account it a sleepless night well spent. Martin Smith wrote: >So, okay, "Lupin" is derived from the latin word for wolf, lupus. >And "Remus" brings to mind the legend of Romulus and Remus, who were brought >up by a she-wolf. >But, is not lupin also a flower? Yes it is (just watch the MP Flying Circus >episode where gentleman/robber Dennis Moore steals lupins from the rich and >hand to the poor). >And what is Remus other than "summer" spelt backwards and missing a not so >important m? >Therefore, the PoA DADA professor's name does not always mean "Werewolf" but >sometimes "summer flower". Which, IMHO, describes his personality rather >well: most of the time being a calm, friendly man, like a summer flower, and >sometimes a ferocious killer werewolf. Perhaps mum and dad Lupin first >thought of the flower meaning of the name, and never considered the >possibility of him becoming a werewolf. >Which (if this even by my standards far-fetched theory holds) would put him >in the ever-growing family of florists in Potterverse: Lily, Petunia, >Sprout, Narcissa... meet Lupin! And head of the family, the creature who >makes all flowers come to life, the bumblebee, aka Dumbledore. This was very much my thought also, as Lupin's big secret was slowly revealed. When we first met him on the train I had him pegged as yet another flower name having, like Martin, noticed that the wizarding world has a great fondness for "nature" names. It also likes to use Latin, or at least names that have Roman origins, and that seemed as good an origin for "Remus" as any. I found myself having to reassess the name at the point where Snape assigned the Gryffindor DADA class that werewolf essay for homework, and was pretty much convinced that both of Lupin's names had double meaning when Lupin himself was so very happy to assure the kids that they didn't need to do that homework assignment after all. But I do think that the double meaning is deliberate. Rowling clearly likes to play with her characters names, and makes many of them appropriate to the characters talents and circumstances, and that's something that you learn to look out for. When the werewolf hints and evidence start stacking up, Lupin's name becomes more and more damning in its connotations. But if all we'd ever heard of werewolves was the rumour that they might be roaming the Dark Forest, wouldn't it have been possible to take a certain DADA professor's name at face value? Even if he *is* the DADA professor and experience tells us that therefore something *must* be up with him? Besides, Mum and Dad Lupin wouldn't have had much choice about saddling their soon-to-be-bitten-by-a-werewolf child with their surname. Although, I guess, if the irony had occurred to them later on after Remus had suffered that life-changing bite, they *could* have changed their family's name by deed poll. Brian Yoon wrote: >The Map had already been confiscated once. Even though the authorities >never actually figured it out (I still wonder how the Weasley twins did), It was probably easier for the twins to work it out than it was for the person who confiscated it. Filch is a Squib, after all. And as it had been locked away in one of the filing cabinets in his office, it's quite likely that it went no further than Filch himself. If he'd taken it to Dumbledore to show him, Dumbledore would most likely have recognised the type of magical artefact it had to be in the same way as Snape did, but he'd also probably have held on to it. And Filch would have been unlikely to take it to him in the first place, because it would have been admitting that he didn't know how to figure it out for himself, and we *know* that he's touchy on the subject of his lack of wizarding aptitude. >it >might have been involved in some mischief beforehand to warrant being taken. >Perhaps Snape had been involved in an accident with the Map before? He >might just think it was Dark Magic, as he accused it of being. I don't think that Snape knew it was a map. Just that he knew enough to know that it was an enchanted parchment with hidden writing on it. In some ways it's a little similar to Tom Riddle's diary (it even writes back), and he knew enough about such things in general terms to be able to force it to activate itself. But it had clearly been password protected, quite likely specifically against him (and others), so although he gets a barrage of insults from MWPP, he doesn't actually get to see the map in action until he goes to Lupin's office to remind him about taking his potion. If it had been lying on Lupin's desk in its blank and dormant state he might not have been able to break through the layers of protection, but Lupin had rushed off to the Shrieking Shack and left it working, so all he had to do was look. >He might not have known it was a Map until he actually saw it on Lupin's >desk. I agree. I think that as a result of the insults that appeared when he tried to activate it earlier he had a pretty good idea who might have written it though. -- Muridae From muridae at muridae.co.uk Sat Jan 5 20:29:42 2002 From: muridae at muridae.co.uk (Muridae) Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 20:29:42 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups]The ~*BEST*~ of Severus Snape (was: The Worst of Severus Snape) In-Reply-To: <20020103.190955.-3906561.2.hazel-rah7@juno.com> References: <20020103.190955.-3906561.2.hazel-rah7@juno.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32842 Amanda wrote: >On Thu, 03 Jan 2002 15:58:58 -0000 "cindysphynx" >writes: >> But what is the very worst, single most terrible thing Snape has >> done and why? > >~*Now now, I think that's just a tad bit negative. Let's be fair. >::innocent smile:: You can all come up with your "I Hate Snape" slogans >and bash him until the cows come home, but I think we should reserve >judgement until we know for sure that he's not Satan incarnate. Okay, so >that might take most of the fun out of discussing everyone's _favorite_ >character, but anyway.... why not focus on the positive -- the BEST of >Severus Snape? Using his powers of sarcasm for good. In other words, any opportunity he gets to undercut Gilderoy Lockhart is okay with me. The duelling club scene, where he runs rings around the person he's supposedly "assisting". And the scene where he hoists him with his own petard by suggesting that - as a self-confessed hero type - he's clearly the obvious person to send to open up the Chamber of Secrets and sort out the monster once and for all. Not perhaps "the best of Severus Snape" in the sense of showing him undertaking actions of unimpeachable motivation, but certainly those scenes demonstrate the sort of Snape motivation where you can really get behind him and cheer him on all the way... -- Muridae Who is, incidentally, slightly worried by the thought of Cindy's "Expelliar-mouse" charm... From Chelsea2162 at aol.com Sat Jan 5 22:01:59 2002 From: Chelsea2162 at aol.com (Chelsea2162 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 17:01:59 EST Subject: Worms in HP and LOTR Message-ID: <3f.47ac8d6.2968d1d7@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32844 I found something interesting in both the Harry Potter books, and the Lord of the Rings books. Look at this: In HP, Peter Pettigrew, seemingly innocent, is the friend of the popular (and powerful) James Potter. To everyone observing them, Peter seems a good friend, and one who's willing to do anything to help out his own friends. However, WORMTAIL, as he's also known, is actually a traitor, who is plotting against James and his other friends. When this is found out, he tries to act as though he has done nothing, and has not turned over to the side of evil. Eventually, he dismisses his entire notion of still being on the side of good, and flees off to join his master, the evil Lord Voldemort. In LOTR, Grima, who also seems on the side of good, is friends of Theoden, who is a mighty ruler. He's also in on things, as was Peter iin James' affairs. However, we find out that Grima, who's also known as WORMTOUNGE, is on the side of evil, and serves his master, the evil Saruman. Both of these men, Peter/Wormtail and Grima/Wormtounge, pose as innocent friends, who seem to care greatly about their "friends", but who later betray them by being seduced by the powers of evil. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? Thanks for listening!! *Chelsea* (who really enjoyed HP and LOTR as movies, especially Legalos the Elf :) From Ryjedi at aol.com Sat Jan 5 23:08:30 2002 From: Ryjedi at aol.com (rycar007) Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 23:08:30 -0000 Subject: Hand of Glory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32845 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "christi0469" wrote: > I looked up the lore on the Hand of Glory. Supposedly it had to be > cut from the body of a hanged criminal, drained of blood, and > treated with certain materials and incantations. It was used by > thieves to give light while the household in question slept. It's a bit more complicated than that, but yeah, that's correct. There's another type of Hand of Glory as well, in which the hand is actually a snake. It involves the conjuration of a spirit in the form of a snake by mixing some things together and saying "Dragne, Dragne, Dragne"; in four days a serpent will appear; you are then to say "I accept the pact." The operator is to place an amount of money in it, and the next day it will be doubled. Take out the amount of money you placed in it, and leave the rest. When you want all the money, you dismiss the serpent. Probably no relation to HP, but I can't resist :) Rycar -PS I read an article the other day about this intelligence officer (ie spy), and he has a little amulet in the shape of the Hand of Glory. From brewpub44 at earthlink.net Sat Jan 5 23:45:37 2002 From: brewpub44 at earthlink.net (brewpub44) Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 23:45:37 -0000 Subject: Viktor Krum and an Unforgivable Curse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32846 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Aja wrote: > > > Barty Crouch put Krum under the Imperius curse before the final challenge > of the tournament to administer the Cruciatus curse to Cedric sometime > during the match. You're right as far as the book goes, but I really think this is a plot hole by JKR. It seems to me that spell casting requires concentration and thought (see the Lexicon for more on that), and it really bugs me that someone can cause another to cast a spell. Look at it this way: if someone was holding a gun to your head and making you do something bad, even if you're totally trained to do it, you're not going to do a good job. Your hands will shake, you'll drop things, etc. Especially if it's complicated. And if they totally controlled their mind and made you cast that spell, isn't it *them* that is casting the spell, and not you? Because you can't concentrate to cast hte spell, you're Imperio'd! It really seems wrong that someone can Imperio to cast a spell. Simple actions, yes, but casting curses? I just don't buy it. A Barkeep in Diagon Alley From virtualworldofhp at yahoo.com Sun Jan 6 00:05:11 2002 From: virtualworldofhp at yahoo.com (virtualworldofhp) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 00:05:11 -0000 Subject: Hermione with fellow gals & feminine characteristics(was Ginny's Oomph) In-Reply-To: <3C37573C.1030903@swbell.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32847 Tabouli wrote: > > In fact, now I think about it, I think I may have hit on a new and > > previously unexplored dimension of the shipping debates! Will wonders > > never cease?? Surely if > > Ginny and Hermione have become friends on a girly-bonding level, an > > absolutely mandatory topic of conversation is Which Boy They Like!! Unless...as evidenced so far in HP, Hermione tends to lean towards less-feminine. She also strikes me as a very private person. I can easily see her as keeping any sort of fancying completely to herself until it's so strong she can't bear not to tell anyone. Then, and only then, she would tell the very, very select few people she knows she can absolutely trust with this morsel of information (in this case, I would assume Ginny). I can speak of this from experience. More on this below. > > Now the plot thickens. Does Ginny know that Ron is interested in > > Hermione? If she does (as well she might if she's kept her eyes and > > ears open), mightn't she have asked Hermione whether she has any > > interest in her brother? No doubt she'd keep the answer to herself if > > so, but all the same, the thought is intriguing. If Hermione does fancy > > Ron, Ginny, a trustworthy and good-hearted girl, would surely be able to > > provide some discreet help in getting the two together. Penny: > You would think so, wouldn't you? Of course, as someone mentioned, it > wouldn't be surprising if Hermione were a bit confused about her > romantic feelings for any of the 3 boys we're discussing (Harry, Ron & > Krum). She might have some level of interest in all 3 of them for all > we know. But .. moving on ... > As commented above, Hermione would definitely only share her feelings with those she can absolutely trust *and* those which could potentially help her situation. She could also (as gross as Ginny would find it) be asking Ginny for advice for approaching her brother, but somehow I can't picture Hermione asking for advice. Come to think of it, I can't really picture Hermione fancying *ANY* one at this point in HP. I think JKR would have to establish some more female aspects and dimensions to Hermione before we go to the crucial step of those first /real/ stirrings of a first true, strong, deep like for someone. Hermione essentially makes a huge character jump (in this department) during two chapters in GoF during the Yule Ball. She has essentially shown no signs of real mature feelings for a guy thus far. I really see Krum as more of still borderline fling. She wanted to go to the Yule Ball, another definite step for Hermione's character, and when Krum starts paying attention to her she ups her friendly feelings (if even those) to a more romantic touch to justify to herself going with him. I don't think she truly feels for him like a typical teenage girl with that *true* crush (not just flighty fancy). I can really understand with Ron's sudden enlightenment that Hermione is a "girl", because we as readers have seen very little to attribute to her feminimity. A future relationship with Ginny would be a great step to establishing a serious "crush" (if JKR chooses this path) for Hermione in the future. > OTOH, the plot > > is even *thicker* if Hermione fancies Harry!! Hoo hoo hoo. Knowing of > > Ginny's infatuation, what would Hermione do? I think her best bet in > > this case would be not to tell her, focus on the Krum situation and > > remain neutral and non-committal about Ron and Harry, "No, we're all > > just friends", rather than wrack poor Ginny with anguish and jealousy by > > telling her that she wants Harry too (and gets to see him every day, > > etc.etc.). > > Yeah, I can't see Hermione owning up to feelings for Harry. She > wouldn't want to admit it to Ginny since Ginny so clearly does have > feelings for Harry & would feel disadvantaged (and perhaps alot less > likely to be friends with Hermione if she felt she was competing in the > romance field with her. As Tabouli said so well, Hermione might well > need this female companionship that she hasn't been able to achieve with > Parvarti, Lavender or seemingly any other girl at Hogwarts that we're > aware of). She wouldn't want to jeopardize her seemingly only female > friendship .... I can see that. That's one more reason that Hermione's > feelings are so ambiguous & open to more than one spin. If she's > concerned about losing another female friend (maybe her *only* female > friend) AND both her other best friends (Harry & Ron), she'd for sure > keep her own counsel. She may also be slightly embarrassed if she fancies Harry. Since Hermione has had little femal counsel and on outwards appearances looks a little behind in that "department", she could feel guilty about seeing one of her best friends as "something else". This would also causes her not to admit to anyone her true feelings. From a girl's perspective, admitting "crushes" and similar things outloud is just some kind of weird, ultimate, and scarily final sort of conviction--like once you actually admit to someone, it's permenant and you get to the oh-so-scary part of "is it returned?". I can't really put it in words, but I know some females out there might know what I'm saying. -Megan (who doesn't like the idea of H/H but finds this discussion interesting nonetheless) From cindysphynx at home.com Sun Jan 6 00:07:59 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 00:07:59 -0000 Subject: Imperius Curse (WAS Viktor Krum and an Unforgivable Curse) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32848 Barkeep wrote: > You're right as far as the book goes, but I really think this is a > plot hole by JKR. It seems to me that spell casting requires > concentration and thought (see the Lexicon for more on that), and it > really bugs me that someone can cause another to cast a spell. > > And if they totally controlled their mind and made you cast that > spell, isn't it *them* that is casting the spell, and not you? > Because you can't concentrate to cast hte spell, you're Imperio'd! > > It really seems wrong that someone can Imperio to cast a spell. > Simple actions, yes, but casting curses? I just don't buy it. > The way I see it, the Imperius Curse overcomes the will completely. So the Curse would force someone to focus their mind to perform a spell, just as though they were committed to do it otherwise. The other thing that we know about Imperius is that the victim will be able to do things he/she otherwise could not do at all. This explains Neville's complex gymnastics moves under Imperius. There's certainly no reason to think Moody and his wooden leg could execute those gymnastics moves, either. That scene suggests that neither the person casting the Imperius nor the victim must be otherwise capable of the act that is commanded. Apparently, Imperio overcomes the will *and* forces the person to concentrate on and perform feats they otherwise could not. A very neat trick, actually. Cindy (who thinks that if we try really, really hard, we can come up with some Imperius theory to explain Neville's poor memory) From fuelchic at edsamail.com.ph Sun Jan 6 01:04:21 2002 From: fuelchic at edsamail.com.ph (Reese) Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 09:04:21 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Imperius Curse (WAS Viktor Krum and....) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32849 "cindysphynx" wrote: >The way I see it, the Imperius Curse overcomes the will completely. So the Curse would force someone to focus their mind to perform a spell, just as though they were committed to do it otherwise. > >The other thing that we know about Imperius is that the victim will be able to do things he/she otherwise could not do at all. This explains Neville's complex gymnastics moves under Imperius. There's certainly no reason to think Moody and his wooden leg could execute those gymnastics moves, either. That scene suggests that neither the person casting the Imperius nor the victim must be otherwise capable of the act that is commanded. Apparently, Imperio overcomes the will *and* forces the person to concentrate on and perform feats they otherwise could not. A very neat trick, actually. ****** I think we can apply the line, "Mind over matter" when we talk about the Imperius curse. I agree on what you said that when one is under the Imperius curse, that person can almost do anything or shall we say everything? Because of the total control of the mind of the person by an outside source. It does not matter if the person, can not physically do it, because there is a voice in his brain/mind that is repeatedly telling him otherwise.And also it is not called the Unforgivable curse for nothing. I think for me, this curse can do more damage to a person than the Cruciatus. Imagine the damage done to that person after realizing the horrible act/s that they did when they regain their right mind. At least in the Cruciatus curse, only that person suffers. But in Imperio a lot of people can be damaged. When one has complete control over another persons' actions, you can't deny that there will abuses in this kind of power. Reese __________________________________ www.edsamail.com From earthman007 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 6 01:53:21 2002 From: earthman007 at yahoo.com (Stephanie Gates) Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 17:53:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: Why I think Neville is the way he is... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020106015321.94573.qmail@web10403.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32850 I've been giving some thought to the way Neville acts, and it seems to me as if his horrible memory is a way to cope with the way his parents are right now. Obviously his father was a good wizard: he was an Auror. I think that subconsciously he might think that if he never becomes a good wizard, than he can't be hurt like his parents were. When someone has been hurt, they each react differently. For example, my best friend and her sister were hurt by their father for much of their lives. My best friend failed everything so her father wouldn't pay attention to her, while her sister excelled so she could get away even faster. So maybe Neville's forgetfullness is just his way of coping with his tragedy. But that's only my opnion. Steph __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ From bethz1 at rcn.com Sun Jan 6 02:44:01 2002 From: bethz1 at rcn.com (Ms. Found in A Bottle) Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 21:44:01 -0500 Subject: The worst of times... References: Message-ID: <002401c1965b$ffe3e400$7d3bfea9@cable.rcn.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32851 Aja wrote: > For whatever reason, I feel like leveling that subjectivity in a > completely different direction, out of fairness to our enigmatic > professor--so here comes a completely idle question to turn the tables a > bit: > > What's the worst thing *Harry's* ever done? I had to really think of this, but I feel the worst is the way that Harry if often kinda rubbing in Ron's face the fact that he's rich and Ron's not (esp. in GoF). But then at the end of GoF when he gives F&G the TriWizard Tournament winnings...I would have thought he might consider giving it to his best friend. I just always kinda feel sorry to Ron when he mentions how much it sucks being poor, so that's why I chose that. Beth From Ryjedi at aol.com Sun Jan 6 02:54:18 2002 From: Ryjedi at aol.com (rycar007) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 02:54:18 -0000 Subject: Accio Charm / Snape / Wasted Charms In-Reply-To: <008701c1952e$6eb9f740$0b01a8c0@enet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32852 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Gabriel Edson" wrote: > > RPG fan), is that Ron's mother accios the fake items from the > > twin's pockets without even knowing what they were or even if they truly > > existed. > > My theory on that is that she knew they were there, and could visualize them. After all, she's seen them before. Note that she said "Accio!" not "Accio Ton-Tongue Toffee" or "Accio Fake Wand!" because she's not sure *exactly* what they have, just that they definately have naughty gags on their person. > Exactly. If JKR is going at all by the theory and practice behind the magical arts, then it's based in belief and imagination. In short, "Accio" works because Mrs. Weasily believes it will work. Magic words, rituals, wand-waving, and sigils are there purely to fool the left side of the brain into believing that magic can happen, that it is a logical, thought out process. This is why Mrs. Weasly can zoom things around the house as well, eventually magic words are no longer needed; the brain has instictually learned that this will work. The wands are simply a focusing point for the creativity of the wizard. -Rycar From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com Sun Jan 6 03:35:59 2002 From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze) Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 21:35:59 -0600 Subject: Harry and Ron's views of each other. References: <002401c1965b$ffe3e400$7d3bfea9@cable.rcn.com> Message-ID: <3C37C61F.EEF67961@kingwoodcable.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32853 "Ms. Found in A Bottle" wrote: > > What's the worst thing *Harry's* ever done? > > I had to really think of this, but I feel the worst is the way that Harry if > often kinda rubbing in Ron's face the fact that he's rich and Ron's not > (esp. in GoF). But then at the end of GoF when he gives F&G the TriWizard > Tournament winnings...I would have thought he might consider giving it to > his best friend. I just always kinda feel sorry to Ron when he mentions how > much it sucks being poor, so that's why I chose that. I suspected that Harry would offer to the Weasley parents (I guess he sort of did in the hospital), but I never thought he'd offer it to Ron, because Ron wouldn't take it. He feels sorry for himself, but I don't think expects other people to fix it. I think Harry knows this, and this is why he made the request for the robes to come from F&G. Ron could accept the robes from his family, but not his best friend. Had Harry given him the robes, I think Ron might have seen it as Harry pitying him, and that would make him (Ron) feel worse. I'm still debating why, out of all the people sitting in the hospital wing after the third task, it is Ron that Harry doesn't want watching when he starts to breakdown in Mrs. Weasley's arms. That was an emotional clincher for me. I think Harry believe that Ron sees him as strong and a survivor (which he is), and perhaps the breakdown would diminish Ron's view of him, or that he was acting like a girl (they constantly tease Hermione about her crying). Thoughts? -Katze From aromano at indiana.edu Sun Jan 6 03:49:28 2002 From: aromano at indiana.edu (Aja) Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 22:49:28 -0500 (EST) Subject: Is Harry a stoic? In-Reply-To: <3C37C61F.EEF67961@kingwoodcable.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32854 On Sat, 5 Jan 2002, Katze wrote: > I'm still debating why, out of all the people sitting in the hospital > wing after the third task, it is Ron that Harry doesn't want watching > when he starts to breakdown in Mrs. Weasley's arms. That was an > emotional clincher for me. I think Harry believe that Ron sees him as > strong and a survivor (which he is), and perhaps the breakdown would > diminish Ron's view of him, or that he was acting like a girl (they > constantly tease Hermione about her crying). Thoughts? I'm so delighted that you brought this up because I was going to ask this question tonight anyway, and this segues perfectly into it. That scene has been bothering me lately. It doesn't say specifically that Harry *cries*--only that he had a "burning, prickling feeling" in his eyes and throat and screwed up his face in order not to scream out in pain. Is Harry on record as ever crying? Surely nights alone in a dark scary cupboard as a kid might have hardened him, but he must have cried for his parents too. I know 14-year old boys have a hard time feeling like it's okay to express their emotions, but after such a horrendous ordeal, it strikes me almost as extreme that Harry should try so hard not to cry. I understand he's trying admirably to be strong, to be a man, to accept and deal with all that he has seen--but sometimes you just need to cry, and I think this was definitely one of those extreme moments. And this makes me wonder whether, if he keeps repressing his emotions--we know Harry is very private--a moment will come when they have been stretched to the breaking point and he'll snap, perhaps in a volatile, self-destructive way. Does anyone else see potential danger in this personality trait of Harry's? Aja "You know you have a problem when you start saying things like Harry Potter and coital in the same sentence." --Cathryn From Joanne0012 at aol.com Sun Jan 6 04:26:38 2002 From: Joanne0012 at aol.com (joanne0012) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 04:26:38 -0000 Subject: Is Harry a stoic? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32855 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Aja wrote: > Is Harry on record as ever crying? Surely nights alone in a dark scary > cupboard as a kid might have hardened him, but he must have cried for his > parents too. . . . I > understand he's trying admirably to be strong, to be a man, to accept and > deal with all that he has seen--but sometimes you just need to cry, and I > think this was definitely one of those extreme moments. And this makes me > wonder whether, if he keeps repressing his emotions--we know Harry is very > private--a moment will come when they have been stretched to the breaking > point and he'll snap, perhaps in a volatile, self-destructive way. > > Does anyone else see potential danger in this personality trait of > Harry's? I agree that Harry is a Stoic, but I think that's why he will NOT break down. Sotics accept fate, destiny, the inevitability of things. Sh*t happens, it's not our fault. That acceptance is not the same as being "hardened." I'm sure that the Dursleys treatment of Harry bothered him at one time, but he got over it. He realized that it's not his fault, it's nothing he did or is, they're jerks, it doesn't reflect on him. This realization made him stronger, that's why he didn't turn into some sort of angry delinquent despite the Dursleys. Different people cope in different ways. Just because Harry hasn't cried, or doesn't want to cry in front of his friends, doesn't mean that he's bottling up something that will inevitably overflow or explode. (An example, on a personal note, my kids are still wondering why I haven't cried over their dad dying.) From ebonyink at hotmail.com Sun Jan 6 04:29:40 2002 From: ebonyink at hotmail.com (selah_1977) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 04:29:40 -0000 Subject: Hermione and Femininity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32856 Discussion of my favorite character never fails to bring me out of lurkdom... --- In HPforGrownups at y... Megan wrote: Unless...as evidenced so far in HP, Hermione tends to lean towards > less-feminine. She also strikes me as a very private person. I can > easily see her as keeping any sort of fancying completely to herself > until it's so strong she can't bear not to tell anyone. Then, and > only then, she would tell the very, very select few people she knows > she can absolutely trust with this morsel of information (in this > case, I would assume Ginny). I can speak of this from experience. > More on this below. I both agree and disagree with the above. You are right when you say that Hermione is a private person. If there's one thing we know about Hermione's character, it is that she knows how and when to keep her own counsel. Consider the Time-Turner incident. Consider Krum- as-Yule-Ball-escort. Consider the fact that she knows about Sirius and quite a lot of other Harry-business. Consider the fact that she's a good observer of character--Sirius noted this in GoF, and she was the one who psychoanalyzed Ron's behavior for Harry's benefit post-Goblet champion selection. She's proven that she can keep her mouth shut when it counts, which makes her like gold in her friendship with the boys as many aspects of Harry's quest/the main plot hinge upon this. (One wonders if Ginny has this same quality... I am curious.) Our opinions differ when it comes to Hermione's femininity. When I first entered the fandom a year and a half ago, I incited a flame skirmish on another grown-up Harry Potter list for stating that Hermione was "all girl". I don't care if some think that's an anti- feminist statement, she is just as feminine in her own way as Lavender and Parvati are, and as Ginny (in the very limited glimpses we get of her) is. That's not a feminine vs. non-feminine thing; it's a personality thing. She is not portrayed as a tomboy or as an asexual nerd. She's just a smart girl. That's all. > As commented above, Hermione would definitely only share her feelings with those she can absolutely trust *and* those which could > potentially help her situation. She could also (as gross as Ginny > would find it) be asking Ginny for advice for approaching her brother, but somehow I can't picture Hermione asking for advice. Come to think of it, I can't really picture Hermione fancying *ANY* one at this point in HP. I think JKR would have to establish some more female aspects and dimensions to Hermione before we go to the crucial step of those first /real/ stirrings of a first true, strong, deep like for someone. > We've established the fact that Hermione is a pretty deep character, keeping a lot to herself. As of the end of GoF I could make the case that at least three teenage guys are at least mildly interested in her--Krum, Ron, and Neville. Girls at that age are notorious for being far ahead of the boys when it comes to things like that. I think she recognizes, as real-life girls and women in her position do, that she has some choices... and she is keeping her own counsel for the time being. I think JKR has done an excellent job at characterizing Hermione. She doesn't seem unfeminine in the least to me. I can't see Hermione going to Ginny for advice. I see any Hermione- Ginny friendship being the other way around, with Hermione as an older sister and advisor figure to Ginny, who not only is a bit younger, but with the exception of the Riddle's diary incident has not had the depth and diversity of experiences that Hermione's had. Unless JKR shows us something differently in the future, of course. > Hermione essentially makes a huge character jump (in this department) during two chapters in GoF during the Yule Ball. She has essentially shown no signs of real mature feelings for a guy thus far. I really see Krum as more of still borderline fling. She wanted to go to the Yule Ball, another definite step for Hermione's character, and when Krum starts paying attention to her she ups her friendly feelings (if even those) to a more romantic touch to justify to herself going with him. I don't think she truly feels for him like a typical teenage girl with that *true* crush (not just flighty fancy). > Two things here. First, I would ask which character in their year *has* shown any "mature" feelings in a romantic sense. Even Ron's feelings for her are embryonic, obvious though they may be. Harry's feelings towards Cho aren't matured... it's a lot of stomach twisting and reddening, but as far as we can tell he hasn't gotten beyond or even to the kissing/cuddling phase of his imagination. And for all their giggling, Lav and Parvati don't seem all that worldly-wise in that department. They're all just kids, and for all her book smarts, so is Hermione. Next, I agree that it's clear Hermione doesn't have a crush on Krum that we know of. However, what's a typical teenage girl crush supposed to feel like? Many of the teens I knew when I was a teen, my teenage sister, and the teens I teach now like to engage in long phone conversations about absolutely nothing. Listening to each other breathe. Giggling. "Are you asleep yet?" "No." I confess that was never my style. I've always been more serious. I was into guys who could talk to me about Serious Matters... the silly stuff had to come much, much later. I met my high school boyfriend at a debate conference, and we were on opposing sides. I wasn't giggly. He appreciated that. I had other crushes, but the guys in question never knew about them. Unless I told my three-years-younger sister (and I didn't always), I kept it all to myself. The guy who I liked from age 12 to age 15 went to the same middle school *and* college as I did and to this day he doesn't know about my crush, my longings, how I'd lay awake at night imagining him and me together. Even now if I'm interested in a guy, I don't rush into things headlong. I sit and rationalize and weigh and analyze and think. Now, that's not Hermione, that's only me... but I just had to show how there's no such thing as the typical. Hermione may never develop along the lines of other girls and she could still enjoy a healthy romantic life and dating relationships. I certainly don't regret not having had 50 million two-week relationships and spending half of my teen years with my ear glued to the phone! > I can really understand with Ron's sudden enlightenment that Hermione is a "girl", because we as readers have seen very little to attribute to her feminimity. A future relationship with Ginny would be a great step to establishing a serious "crush" (if JKR chooses this path) for Hermione in the future. > Oh, come now... give JKR more credit! Hermione herself would be hurt if she heard that statement. She's been a girl since book one. Ron's noticing that she was "a girl" offends her but I'm starting to think that it's a testament to her value in the Trio. Both Harry nor Ron know prior to mid-GoF that Hermione is a girl, but neither of them care because she *isn't* a girl (category) she is their best friend. I hope that Hermione and Ginny's friendship develops for its own sake, not because of crushes or boys. And I think it will. Tabouli wrote in her excellent essay: > > OTOH, the plot is even *thicker* if Hermione fancies Harry!! Hoo hoo hoo. *smacks forehead* What'd you think we've been trying to *tell* you guys for the past year or more? ;-) Megan again: > Yeah, I can't see Hermione owning up to feelings for Harry. She > wouldn't want to admit it to Ginny since Ginny so clearly does have > > feelings for Harry & would feel disadvantaged (and perhaps alot less likely to be friends with Hermione if she felt she was competing in the romance field with her. As Tabouli said so well, Hermione might well need this female companionship that she hasn't been able to achieve with Parvarti, Lavender or seemingly any other girl at Hogwarts that we're aware of). She wouldn't want to jeopardize her seemingly only female friendship .... I can see that. That's one more reason that Hermione's feelings are so ambiguous & open to more than one spin. If she's concerned about losing another female friend (maybe her *only* female friend) AND both her other best friends (Harry & Ron), she'd for sure keep her own counsel. > I think it all depends upon where JKR wants to go with the story. I think impending R/H with possible H/G developing in the future would make for a nice and neat romantic-comedic subplot to the darker tone of the last three books. One of the many reason why some of us like FITD, H/H, or both is because it tosses a Giant Monkey Wrench into the subplot and makes everything not quite so comfortable. Any of the many shades of more- than-friendship H/H raises the stakes. Sure, there'll be stakes- raising in other arenas of the plot too, but one of the things Harry can count on is his friendship with Ron and Hermione. Harry treasures Ron's friendship a great deal, and learned just how much he did when he lost it for a short time in GoF. So far, he's not had to worry about that on the Hermione front... she's been constant, albeit petrified in CoS, shunned for parts of PS/SS and PoA, and consumed with S.P.E.W. research in GoF. But when the chips are down, she's always there. Harry takes her for granted, because she's been pretty much the same constant variable in his life from mid-PS/SS until the end of GoF. But anything could change that. Ron dating her would change that. Hermione avoiding him for whatever reason would change that. Her death, kidnapping, or otherwise becoming a casualty could change that. We've had Hermione-Ron conflict, we've had Harry-Ron conflict, but aside from the Firebolt incident in PoA we've had absolutely no Harry-Hermione conflict, and even in that case Ron was mad at her too. We'll just have to see what happens next. > She may also be slightly embarrassed if she fancies Harry. Since > Hermione has had little femal counsel and on outwards appearances > looks a little behind in that "department", she could feel guilty > about seeing one of her best friends as "something else". This would also causes her not to admit to anyone her true feelings. From a girl's perspective, admitting "crushes" and similar things outloud is just some kind of weird, ultimate, and scarily final sort of > conviction--like once you actually admit to someone, it's permenant > and you get to the oh-so-scary part of "is it returned?". I can't > really put it in words, but I know some females out there might know > what I'm saying. I do know what you're saying, Megan. And I totally understand and agree. I know you don't like the idea of H/H, but I am one of those very annoying people who believes that Hermione just may have a tamped-down crush on Harry which either 1) she'll get over soon or 2) someone will figure out. If it's the second scenario, let's just hope that someone isn't Ron. *That* would be quite the sticky situation indeed, and at a time when things will be sticky enough in the wizarding world. --Ebony AKA AngieJ From catlady at wicca.net Sun Jan 6 04:44:27 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 04:44:27 -0000 Subject: Worst Harry - Snape Prowling - Name "Harry" - Dragons - DE kids Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32857 Jo Ellen Rober wrote: > I have not always gotten an explaination as to why Snape is roaming > the castle in the middle of the night. I find it irresistable to suggest that he is on his way to or from a rendez-vous with a lover. Pippin has good arguments for Snape/Filch (altho' I can't imagine anyone *touching* that Filch person shown in the movie!) and others have suggested Dumbledore/Snape. Less romantically, maybe he would rather make the effort to travel to a real WC instead of using the chamberpot in his bedroom. Aja wrote: > What's the worst thing *Harry's* ever done? The heartless way he just brushes off Colin Creevey at every encounter, and Neville when everyone else has gone off to Hogsmeade. Ai-Chan wrote: > Harry: it's such a plain name. Nothing so highly can be expected > of such a plain boy, right? It's not just a plain name, it's a very English name. Remember Agincourt: "For England, Harry, and St George!" My high school English teacher (in the 1971-72 school year) was a WWII veteran and told the class that he had heard the soldier in English regiments STILL using that battle-cry in WWII. And "Potter" -- leaving aside Pippin's reference to Potter's Field, traditional name of where the John and Jane Does are buried, potters work with clay which is a type of soil. What did Shakespeare say about: this rock, this clod, this little plot of earth ... this England? His name is positioning him to replace Albus (reminiscent of 'Albion', a poetic name for the island of Britain, which I believe to be based on the appearance of the *white* cliffs of Dover) as guardian of the island that has not been invaded since 1066. Boggles wrote: > (Although perhaps we should re-vamp the species names after > the species given in FBaWTFT - Draco hebrideae, Draco norweii, > Quetzalcoatlus peruvii, Lunga sinesis, etc. Quetzalcoatlus? I had thought that the quetzalcoatl (well, actually the coatl 'cloud serpent') would be a type of thunderbird -- Quetzalcoatl is (a/the) Feathered serpent who brings wind, clouds, and rain -- thunderbirds have feathers and bring rain, storms, lightning and thunder -- we can hypothesize that thunderbirds have rather more reptilian features (scaly skin, long snakey bodies, fangs, venom) than generally assumed. Evidence? Why would we need evidence? Well, okay, snakes and lightning cause the same kind of magical maladies and are treated by the same kinds of rituals and sandpaintings, in Navajo healing tradition. I am totally bugged, incidentally, by the absence of thunderbirds from FB. And I think it would comfort me to be pursuaded that the Peruvian (Short-Snout, was it?) dragon was really a thunderbird. Does it have feathers? Christi wrote: > In any case, we do know that Draco is Lucius' son, and it seems > likely that the the Crabbe and Goyle(Harry's age) are the sons of > the Crabbe and Goyle(DEs). In my version of the Potterverse, Voldemort discovered in autumn of 1979 (from astrology or a prophecy) that a boy with special magical powers or destiny would be born in the summer of 1980, so he immediately ordered all his inner-circle DEs to immediately start making babies, in hopes that the predicted boy would be born to one of his loyal followers and raised to be loyal to him and thus the powers would be his to make use of. Thus, Draco Malfoy and Vincent Crabbe and Gregory Goyle and (in my opinion) the Nott kid you mentioned. And (in my opinion) Bulstrode and Parkinson and Zabini. Such loyal followers as the Lestranges would also have tried to obey their lord... if they succeeded, what would have been done with the child when both parents were sent to Azkaban? Perhaps assigned by the MoM to foster parents known to be strong followers of the Light Side, in hopes of raising her not to follow her parents? Perhaps ignored by the MoM but informally adopted by the guardian specified in her parents' will or by their relatives? There is no Lestrange child in JKR's list of Harry's year-mates, but might her foster parents have given her their surname to protect her from the notoriety of her parents? MAYBE SHE IS TRACEY DAVIS ON JKR'S LIST! (post #32313). However, if there are only 40 kids in Harry's year, clearly most of the DEs with places in that circle didn't have babies when they were supposed to (or the babies didn't survive). Possible reasons? Doing Unforgiveable Curses reduces fertility? Many of the Death Eaters were already elderly? Most of the then-young men among them were unable to pursaude any witches to marry them, not even by threatening to kill her and her entire family if she refused? From nata at midsouth.rr.com Sun Jan 6 04:47:51 2002 From: nata at midsouth.rr.com (natalie) Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 22:47:51 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Is Harry a stoic? References: Message-ID: <008801c1966d$4c06cbc0$8b7b1818@midsouth.rr.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32858 On Sat, 5 Jan 2002, Aja asked: >Is Harry on record as ever crying? The only time I can think of off the top of my head is in PS/SS at the end during the discussion between Dumbledore and Harry in the hospital wing. The text: "'But why couldn't Quirrel touch me?' 'Your mother died to save you. If there is one thing Voldemort cannot understand, it is love. He didn't realize that love as powerful as your mother's for you leaves its own mark. Not a scar, no visible sign... to have been loved so deeply, even though the person who loved us is gone, will give us some protection forever. ' Dumbledore now became very interested in a bird out on the windowsill, which gave Harry time to dry his eyes on the sheet. When he had found his voice again, Harry said, 'And the invisibility cloak-'..." So there's one. And IIRC, in the movie (shush ;) a tear falls down Harry's cheek at the end when Hagrid presents him with the photo album. The book only states: "Harry couldn't speak, but Hagrid understood." But yes, it is strange that Harry never cries (or that we are never aware if he does, which could be the case). Espesially considering that his trials since PS/SS should have been even more traumatizing. The events at the end of GoF sure do seem to be building up to a breakdown though. Poor Harry. ;) - Natalie (I'm a newbie to the list, hello hello!) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From vencloviene at hotmail.com Sun Jan 6 05:03:55 2002 From: vencloviene at hotmail.com (anavenc) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 05:03:55 -0000 Subject: Snape's nastiness (Was; Worst of Snape) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32859 Pippin wrote: < Isn't it odd that everyone is willing to forgive Sirius for his excesses, even a physical attack on a student, but Snape's sneer at Hermione is nominated for the worst thing he ever did? I wholeheartedly agree. A hurtful remark and near-murder (which Sirius seemingly got away with; actually we don't know for sure if he did) are totally different things. Snape's behaviour is subject to so much scrutiny from HP readers, that his smallest misdeeds are IMHO hyped up a lot. We all have done much worse things in our lives than hurting somebody's feelings with a nasty remark. I regard Snape's infamously horrible attitude in the classroom as a result of his inferiority complex which, I believe, is caused by earlier and less obvious problems than MMVP tormenting him at school or his joining DEs. For some reason, I think, he has always thought of himself as worse than anybody else. (That's why he might easily turn out to be a vampire after all! :)) Such people have a habit of putting others down because it makes them for a moment feeling better about themselves. They are often actually quite smart and rationally shouldn't have to use such petty ways to prove their worthiness or even superiority, but this behaviour pattern is anything but rational. It's neurotic. Sadly, in the long-term, people, behaving like this, become more and more unpopular, they come to feeling universally hated, which, of course, adds to their inferiority complex. A vicious cycle of sorts... So, I think, Snape's nastiness hurts himself most of all people. However, there are instances when Snape's spite really gets in the way of his mission, that is protecting Harry/defeating Voldemort. Think the case when Harry loses valuable time in front of Dumbledore's door, trying to get past Snape. Harry's mistrust of Snape is also caused by the good professor's attitude and, as I pointed out in one of my rare posts, leads to very sad consequences in GOF. Harry doesn't even consider confessing Snape whom he really saw in Snape's office. A better relationship between these two might have gotten Crouch Jr. caught in time. *Anyhow, it is traumatic to write anything coherent with a toddler running a toy train on the keyboard. :)* Ana. From boggles at earthlink.net Sun Jan 6 08:42:04 2002 From: boggles at earthlink.net (Jennifer Boggess Ramon) Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 02:42:04 -0600 Subject: Dragons and Floo Powder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32860 At 9:58 AM +0000 1/5/02, grey_wolf_c wrote: > >Canon says Draco's name means dragon (PS/SS). This is the true origin >of the pararelism of my theory. Nothing else was intended. Looking at FBaWTFT, which IIRC is considered canon, if secondary - there is only one American dragon species, two Eastern ones, and all the rest are Western. One of the Eastern ones is Chinese and the other resides in New Zealand. "Draco" is in fact Latin for "dragon." The native speakers of Latin would never have applied the term to a Japanese dragon, and in canon, there aren't any anyway. Therefore, I think the idea that Rowling meant Neville's brief tour of duty as a canary as an indication of his future interactions with Draco based on an obscure Japanese legend involving Japanese dragons and a yellow bird is, to be blunt, stretching it. :) At 8:24 AM -0500 1/5/02, Edblanning at aol.com wrote: >Can you floo in and out of Hogwarts? The head in the fire thing which Sirius >uses seems to be related. No-one , as far as I can remember either considers >that this may be how he gets into the castle, or equally, states that it is >impossible, as we are told several times about dis/apparation. There appears to be a "floo network" of fireplaces that can be reached by floo powder, as Arthur Weasley has to have a friend at the Floo Regulation Panel at the Ministry add the Dursleys' fireplace to the network for the afternoon to pick Harry up at the beginning of GoF. If Hogwarts were on the network, I imagine that many students would prefer to travel in that manner, so I dobt it is, but perhaps there is an intranet between the fireplaces within Hogwarts, so that (for example) in an emergency McGonagall could floo up to the Divination classroom to deliver a message to the Gryffindor students. -- - 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 Jan 6 02:58:09 2002 From: Ryjedi at aol.com (rycar007) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 02:58:09 -0000 Subject: Written in the Wand In-Reply-To: <130.729d1e8.2966f3f5@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32861 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Whirdy at a... wrote: > Is it not true that LV could not and cannot hold a wand until the cemetery > setting in GoF. > No, it's not true. Voldemort used his own wand to kill Frank Bryce at the beginning of GoF. As L'il Voldy, his babyish hands could still grasp a wand and use it. As for where the wand went to? I don't doubt a loyal and reverent DE salvaged it from Godric's Hollow and kept it hidden and safe. -Rycar From ChibiAiChan at cs.com Sun Jan 6 03:54:34 2002 From: ChibiAiChan at cs.com (ChibiAiChan at cs.com) Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 22:54:34 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Is Harry a stoic? Message-ID: <167.6b3ed9f.2969247a@cs.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32862 In a message dated 1/5/02 7:49:37 PM Pacific Standard Time, aromano at indiana.edu writes: << I'm so delighted that you brought this up because I was going to ask this question tonight anyway, and this segues perfectly into it. That scene has been bothering me lately. It doesn't say specifically that Harry *cries*--only that he had a "burning, prickling feeling" in his eyes and throat and screwed up his face in order not to scream out in pain. Is Harry on record as ever crying? Surely nights alone in a dark scary cupboard as a kid might have hardened him, but he must have cried for his parents too. I know 14-year old boys have a hard time feeling like it's okay to express their emotions, but after such a horrendous ordeal, it strikes me almost as extreme that Harry should try so hard not to cry. I understand he's trying admirably to be strong, to be a man, to accept and deal with all that he has seen--but sometimes you just need to cry, and I think this was definitely one of those extreme moments. And this makes me wonder whether, if he keeps repressing his emotions--we know Harry is very private--a moment will come when they have been stretched to the breaking point and he'll snap, perhaps in a volatile, self-destructive way. Does anyone else see potential danger in this personality trait of Harry's? >> It might be that he never cried because he never wanted to give the Dursley's the satisfaction? I'm not sure really if that came out correctly ^^* That and maybe at a young age he learned crying didn't really help? <3 Ai-Chan *who hopes that wasn't too short cuz she really couldn't think of anything else of signifigance* From morrigan at byz.org Sun Jan 6 04:04:14 2002 From: morrigan at byz.org (Morrigan //Vicki//) Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 20:04:14 -0800 Subject: Harry and Ron's views of each other In-Reply-To: <3C37C61F.EEF67961@kingwoodcable.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32863 > -----Original Message----- > From: Katze [mailto:jdumas at kingwoodcable.com] > "Ms. Found in A Bottle" wrote: > > > > What's the worst thing *Harry's* ever done? > > > > I had to really think of this, but I feel the worst is the way > that Harry if > > often kinda rubbing in Ron's face the fact that he's rich and Ron's not (esp. in GoF). But then at the end of GoF when he gives F&G > the TriWizard > > Tournament winnings...I would have thought he might consider > giving it to > > his best friend. I just always kinda feel sorry to Ron when he > mentions how > > much it sucks being poor, so that's why I chose that. > > I suspected that Harry would offer to the Weasley parents (I guess he > sort of did in the hospital), but I never thought he'd offer it to >Ron, because Ron wouldn't take it. He feels sorry for himself, but I >don't think expects other people to fix it. I think Harry knows this, >and this is why he made the request for the robes to come from F&G. >Ron could accept the robes from his family, but not his best friend. >Had Harry given him the robes, I think Ron might have seen it as >Harry pitying him, and that would make him (Ron) feel worse. I think it's clear to Harry that Ron would never accept the money from him. Ron has a LOT of pride and the money issue really centers it. I think it most likely is because he's the youngest of the boys - he really DOES get stuck with all their hand-me-downs, which of course are getting more and more awful with each boy, be it robes, a wand, or what have you. Examining the other Weasleys, they seem to have mostly gotten away from this problem for various reasons: Bill and Charlie were the oldest, and must have gotten most everything new; Fred and George gripe some about money, but they have their twin bond, plus definite goals (joke shop) to keep them from focusing on money problems; Ginny, being the only girl, undoubtedly gets mostly new things. The best example of Ron's attitude about Harry providing anything to him is when Harry got him the Omnioculars (sp?) at the QWC. Ron thought he'd paid for them, but when he found out that the money from the leprechauns was fake, he would not leave it alone. I think Harry would like to be more generous to Ron, but when Ron acts like that, how can he really? On a related note, I really think that at some point Harry will blow up at Ron about his pride, jealousy and the money thing. He's undoubtedly going to say something along the lines of the fact that he'd give all the money in his vault at Gringott's to have what Ron has - a wonderful, supportive, LIVING family. I think that whenever this blowup happens, it will do their relationship a great service, and a lot of Ron's jealousy towards Harry will start to disspate. > I'm still debating why, out of all the people sitting in the hospital > wing after the third task, it is Ron that Harry doesn't want watching > when he starts to breakdown in Mrs. Weasley's arms. That was an > emotional clincher for me. I think Harry believe that Ron sees him as > strong and a survivor (which he is), and perhaps the breakdown would > diminish Ron's view of him, or that he was acting like a girl (they > constantly tease Hermione about her crying). Thoughts? Hmmm...my take was the simple "boys don't cry" thing. Ron is his best friend, but I doubt there are many teenage boys who would cry in front of their best male friends willingly. A platonic or romantic female friend, sure, because it's socially acceptable for girls to cry (at least in many situations), so therefore girls understand. Generalizations, of course, but ones that are proved more often than they're disproved. At that moment, Harry needs a mother more than anything - and Molly is the closest he's ever had to that. She's got 6 kids that she obviously loves greatly and has tried to take care of Harry as well from the first moment she saw him, helping him to get onto Platform 9 3/4. Goodness knows Petunia never exhibited anything remotely maternal towards him... Vicki From srae1971 at iglou.com Sun Jan 6 04:16:49 2002 From: srae1971 at iglou.com (Shannon) Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 23:16:49 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry and Ron's views of each other. In-Reply-To: <3C37C61F.EEF67961@kingwoodcable.com> References: <002401c1965b$ffe3e400$7d3bfea9@cable.rcn.com> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.20020105231649.00a6c9a0@pop.iglou.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32864 At 09:35 PM 1/5/2002 -0600, Katze wrote: > >I'm still debating why, out of all the people sitting in the hospital >wing after the third task, it is Ron that Harry doesn't want watching >when he starts to breakdown in Mrs. Weasley's arms. That was an >emotional clincher for me. I think Harry believe that Ron sees him as >strong and a survivor (which he is), and perhaps the breakdown would >diminish Ron's view of him, or that he was acting like a girl (they >constantly tease Hermione about her crying). Thoughts? I'm of the opinion that it's because he's a boy, and Ron is not only a boy, but his peer. In my experience, men find it easier to show those kinds of emotions around women than around other men. Probably because they think other men will think they are weak while women, who are supposedly more emotional than men, will understand and accept it more readily. Also, Ron is Harry's age, which makes it even more uncomfortable. I doubt he'd have even thought about it if it had been, say, Dumbledore or even Sirius there instead of Ron. Shannon From zoehooch at yahoo.com Sun Jan 6 04:20:56 2002 From: zoehooch at yahoo.com (zoehooch) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 04:20:56 -0000 Subject: Is Harry a stoic? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32865 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Aja wrote: > strikes me almost as extreme that Harry should try so hard not to cry. I > understand he's trying admirably to be strong, to be a man, to accept and > deal with all that he has seen--but sometimes you just need to cry, and I > think this was definitely one of those extreme moments. And this makes me > wonder whether, if he keeps repressing his emotions--we know Harry is very > private--a moment will come when they have been stretched to the breaking > point and he'll snap, perhaps in a volatile, self-destructive way. > > Does anyone else see potential danger in this personality trait of > Harry's? Based on Harry's upbringing, until he reaches Hogwarts, he's never had a safe opportunity to express his emotions. Certainly the Dursleys would never listen to him and I suspect that Dudley made sure that Harry didn't have any friends at school. Once he reaches Hogwarts, he is now famous for surviving you-know- who, which puts him in the position of being a hero, and to a young boy such as Harry, heroes certainly don't cry and express emotion. And, of course, Harry must be quite careful that Snape or any of the Slytherins might overhear him being vulnerable, based on the actions of Malfoy whenever anything happens to Harry, such as fainting when the Dementor was on the train. But Harry does have Sirius, to whom he has poured out his soul in their owl correspondance. As Sirius and Harry continue their relationship as godfather and godchild, Harry will always have someone safe to tell his feelings to. But I do wish he'd be more open with the other people that love him, such as the Weasleys and Hermione. Zoe Hooch From srae1971 at iglou.com Sun Jan 6 04:26:39 2002 From: srae1971 at iglou.com (Shannon) Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 23:26:39 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Is Harry a stoic? In-Reply-To: References: <3C37C61F.EEF67961@kingwoodcable.com> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.20020105232639.00a6c9a0@pop.iglou.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32866 At 10:49 PM 1/5/2002 -0500, Aja wrote: > >Is Harry on record as ever crying? Surely nights alone in a dark scary >cupboard as a kid might have hardened him, but he must have cried for his >parents too. I know 14-year old boys have a hard time feeling like it's >okay to express their emotions, but after such a horrendous ordeal, it >strikes me almost as extreme that Harry should try so hard not to cry. I >understand he's trying admirably to be strong, to be a man, to accept and >deal with all that he has seen--but sometimes you just need to cry, and I >think this was definitely one of those extreme moments. And this makes me >wonder whether, if he keeps repressing his emotions--we know Harry is very >private--a moment will come when they have been stretched to the breaking >point and he'll snap, perhaps in a volatile, self-destructive way. > >Does anyone else see potential danger in this personality trait of >Harry's? I'm not sure that he IS ever on record as actually crying. The closest I can think of, aside from the GoF example mentioned here, is at the end of PS/SS, when Dumbledore explains why he was protected from Voldemort. And I don't think that was really crying, either. I agree, it IS extreme that he struggles so hard not to cry. I think it's perfectly understandable though, sadly. He's lived with the Dursleys all his life. They do nothing but torment him and delight in anything that makes him miserable. Can you imagine what Toddler Harry must have gone through whenever he cried about something? He probably learned very quickly that showing those kinds of feelings makes you a target for ridicule. I think he has quite a bit of growing yet to do before he finds the strength to let those emotions go. As for whether it could be a danger...I don't know. Possibly. Anger and grief are powerful things. He's going to have to learn how to handle them, and quickly. I think maybe it's going to be a key factor in him coming into his powers completely. Just as a lot of people are speculating on the damaging effects of Neville's past on his present abilities, I think Harry has the same kind of problem. Shannon From bethz1 at rcn.com Sun Jan 6 04:58:39 2002 From: bethz1 at rcn.com (Ms. Found in A Bottle) Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 23:58:39 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ginny & Hermione (small bit on SHIPs) References: <3C36749D.2050502@swbell.net> Message-ID: <015a01c1966e$ce6cf2a0$7d3bfea9@cable.rcn.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32867 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Penny & Bryce" > > Another thing that one has to consider is that Ginny has a > > mother in Molly Weasley, a woman whose life is her family. Ginny must > > obviously be affected by this. After all she was the last Weasley kid > > to leave the home and therefore the one that, out of the youngest at > > least, has spent the most time with Molly. > > She spent the same amount of time with Molly as all the other kids, > right? Mathematics isn't my strong suit, but didn't they all spend > 10.5/11 yrs with their mother before leaving for Hogwarts? Being the > youngest doesn't translate into *more* time, just different time. :--) I understand your point, but being the youngest of 7 kids she does technically have more time with their mom. Being the only child left at home while the others attend Hogwarts and work abroad, she has their mom all to herself and can have more quality time with Molly. Beth From bethz1 at rcn.com Sun Jan 6 05:12:09 2002 From: bethz1 at rcn.com (Ms. Found in A Bottle) Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 00:12:09 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Viktor Krum and an Unforgivable Curse References: Message-ID: <019001c19670$b1500700$7d3bfea9@cable.rcn.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32868 ----- Original Message ----- From: "zoehooch" > Why isn't Harry concerned? How would he let Hermione go off in > private with a wizard who had performed one of the unforgivable > curses? Then again, Harry must not have told anyone or surely some > action would have been taken against Krum. How about at the final feast when Harry looks over at Krum and says he looks as if he's afraid Dumbledore is about to say something harsh? Is that because of Karkaroff, or because of what Krum did to Krum and Fleur? I never really wondered about that until I read this post...(but maybe I just missed something in the book). Beth From brewpub44 at earthlink.net Sun Jan 6 05:25:41 2002 From: brewpub44 at earthlink.net (brewpub44) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 05:25:41 -0000 Subject: Is Harry a stoic? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32869 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "joanne0012" wrote: > I'm sure that the Dursleys treatment of Harry bothered him at one time, but he > got over it. I wonder if this is why Harry's doesn't cry. He's had to live through that hardship most of his life, so some things just don't bother him. Kind of like the Great Depression: the rich were the ones hanging themselves, the poor were "Oh well, I guess we raise our own chickens from now on" A Barkeep in Diagon Alley From ChaserChick at hotmail.com Sun Jan 6 05:53:16 2002 From: ChaserChick at hotmail.com (Liz Sager) Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 23:53:16 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Viktor Krum and an Unforgivable Curse Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32870 Barkeep wrote: >It really seems wrong that someone can Imperio to cast a spell. >Simple actions, yes, but casting curses? I just don't buy it. Well, Viktor *does* go to Durmstrang, which is notorious for teaching the Dark Arts unless I'm mistaken (which could perfectly well be). Liz _________________________________________________________________ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com From Seiryuu_Avatar at msn.com Sun Jan 6 09:24:45 2002 From: Seiryuu_Avatar at msn.com (Brian Yoon) Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 01:24:45 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] (Time Turner) References: <3C35D097.C4385BBA@sun.com> Message-ID: <006a01c19694$acd12b40$7f28fea9@yoonabomber> No: HPFGUIDX 32871 From: Elizabeth Dalton > consequences if an error is made with the Time Turner ("Mis Granger, you know > the law-- you know what is at stake... *You must not be seen.*"), but those > consequences are never really spelled out. If it's only that you have to worry Which reminds me of a question that kept poking at me. How is Hermione able to use the Time-Turner to go to all her classes? If she is using them to attend them at the same time, then wouldn't she be seen by the other classmates of her class (in fact, she is, seeing that Ron talks about her classmate seeing her talking to the professor)? If she could use the Time-Turner, why doesn't she use it over and over during the same time-period at night so she could study AND sleep at the same time? Some possible answers, in my mind: 1. As long as different people see the Hermione (such as Ron and Harry's classmates in the class they share and Hermione's own classmates), it's all gravy. 2. It taxes the mind, so that people are loathe to use it multiple times. In fact, using it and sleeping is useless, as the user is as tired as if s/he did not sleep. 3. It's physically impossible for there to be more than 2 of the same person at the same time. (Don't ask why: it's a Newton's Law) Thanks all, Seiryuu aka Brian Yoon http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HP_Seiryuu/ From clio at unicum.de Sun Jan 6 14:48:59 2002 From: clio at unicum.de (clio44a) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 14:48:59 -0000 Subject: Breaking into Snape's office Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32872 Couple of days ago Eloise posted something on security in Hogwarts. That made me think about the time when Barty Crouch aka Mad-Eye Moody breaks into Snape's office (same night as Harry goes into the prefect's bathroom) in GoF. I wonder what he actually wanted there. For Moody-the-paranoid it would make sense to search the office of a known Ex-Death Eater. But Moody is Crouch. So why would Crouch go into Snape's office? Would he look for evidence if Snape is still on the Dark side? What evidence would that be? I mean he can't hope to find Snape's old DE mask in a drawer or a file labeled Spying for Ddore 1979-'81, can he? I cannot imagine Snape would keep any material concerning his DE days or his service to Ddore in his office. His office is not a particular safe place. It was broken into by H/R/H in their second year and Snape has student visitors in there, like Harry on occasion (not voluntary, but he was there). He even leaves Ron and Harry alone in there for 10 min in CoS. So secret files, DE toys or poisons can be ruled out from being in the office, I think. Maybe Croutch was looking for potion ingredients in the office. Snape mentions gillyweed and boomslang skin to be stolen when he threatens Harry with the Veritaserum in GoF. We know that boomslang skin is an ingredient for Polyjuice Potion. H/R/H were nicking boomslang skin from Snape in their 2nd year because they couldn't get it from anywhere else, if I remember correctly. Assuming Croutch brews his Polyjuice Potion himself, which would hold a high risk for him to be discovered,why would he risk stealing from Snape's stores? Snape would find out eventually that an ingredient for Polyjuice Potion is missing, and Crouch can't afford to give away any hints that there is somebody brewing Polyjuice somewhere in the castle. Crouch, unlike R/H/H could easily go to London to buy boomslang skin without anybody questioning him about him going there. And while he was there, why would he not buy complete Polyjuice Potion? Wouldn't that be less risky than to brew it himself? And another thought about Crouch breaking into Snape's office: Why wouldn't he hide his tracks better? Snape says the door was ajar and the torches lit. Wouldn't you use a lumos spell on your wand if you were searching one's office at night? IMHO either Crouch felt completely safe to search the office (had Ddore really given Moody premission to do so?) or he wanted Snape to know someone was in his office. So what do you guys think he was really doing in Snape's office that night? Clio, who always gets confused when she starts thinking about something too hard From meboriqua at aol.com Sun Jan 6 14:50:12 2002 From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 14:50:12 -0000 Subject: Harry and Ron's views of each other. In-Reply-To: <3C37C61F.EEF67961@kingwoodcable.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32873 "Ms. Found in A Bottle" wrote: > >What's the worst thing *Harry's* ever done? > I had to really think of this, but I feel the worst is the way that Harry if often kinda rubbing in Ron's face the fact that he's rich and Ron's not (esp. in GoF).> I am really surprised to see anyone write that because I find it completely untrue. Harry has never once rubbed anything in anyone's face, especially Ron's. It is mentioned quite a few times that Harry feels guilty that the Weasleys have very little money while he has a "small fortune" sitting in the Gringott's Bank. Harry often thinks about giving a chunk to them but he knows they would never accept it. When he goes to the bank with them, he hastily shoves money into his bag because he is so embarrassed at the differences between his pile of money and their few coins. Insisting George and Fred take his winnings from the Triwizard Tournament says it all about Harry, IMO. He has a lot of money in that bag and he won't take it. I find that scene touching. Harry's character is developed as a humble boy who doesn't brag, avoids the spotlight and doesn't gloat about the things he has that others do not. --jenny from ravenclaw, who wishes Tabouli would come up with a cool acronym for Harry lovers like me ******************* From inkburrow at hotmail.com Sun Jan 6 12:17:18 2002 From: inkburrow at hotmail.com (Stephanie Jura) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 04:17:18 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] (Time Turner) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32874 Brian Yoon wrote: >How is Hermione able to use the Time-Turner to go to all her classes? If >she is using them to attend them at the same time, then wouldn't she be >seen >by the other classmates of her class (in fact, she is, seeing that Ron >talks >about her classmate seeing her talking to the professor)? If she could use >the Time-Turner, why doesn't she use it over and over during the same >time-period at night so she could study AND sleep at the same time? Using the Time Turner to study and sleep might be regarded as abuse of the thing: taking more classes is one thing, but using it to get more study time gives Hermione an unfair edge over her classmates. It's entirely possible that McGonagall gave Hermione the Time Turner on the condition that she would _only_ use it to get to her classes. I think that this is especially likely considering that Time Turners are restricted and have the potential to cause so much trouble. For one, letting a child have free reign with such a potentially dangerous object is unwise. For another, McGonagall had to convince the MoM to let Hermione have the Turner in the first place, and one of the things she probably had to assure them of was that the Turner wouldn't be abused. Any inappropriate use of it would result in the MoM being angry with (and possibly coming down hard on) McGonagall, so it's in her best interest to severely restrict Hermione's use of the Time Turner. Alternatively, Hermione might not be using it to study and sleep only because she herself feels that it's cheating, but I think that the first explanation is more likely. Oh, and hi. I'm new. :) _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com From klhurt at yahoo.com Sun Jan 6 15:26:45 2002 From: klhurt at yahoo.com (Kelly Hurt) Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 07:26:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dobby's motives in C of S In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020106152645.3576.qmail@web14207.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32875 --- day782002 wrote: >I have been wondering why Dobby >initially approaches Harry in the >beginning of C of S. [snip] but why >should a dark wizard's house elf want >to protect Harry Potter? I've never shared this theory with anyone except family but.... What if Dobby wasn't originally with the Malfoy family? I theorize that his original family was killed by Voldemort and/or his followers. The House Elf Relocation Office sent Dobby to the Malfoy Mansion. (Perhaps the new family must pay a fee of some sort, thus explaining why our Weasleys haven't acquired a house elf?) [This part of the theory is based on the fact that there is a House Elf Relocation Office & I can't think of any other reason for JKR to have included such a detail.] The next part of the theory is that the old wizarding family to whom Dobby belonged was none other than the Potters and residual loyalty to them motivates Dobby to try to protect Harry. Thus, when he stumbles onto L. Malfoy's plan, he attempts to keep Harry from returning to Hogwarts. I assume that James and Lily were very good to their house elves and gave them autonomy, thereby sowing Dobby's love of freedom. [The biggest hole in this part of the theory is why Dobby has never told Harry about working for the Potters.] The last part is about the night Harry's parents died. I wondered how Dumbledore knew to send Hagrid to Godric's Hollow to get Harry "before the Muggles started swarmin' round". In my attempt to fill in that hole, I theorized that Dobby -- or another house elf -- 'popped' to Hogwarts as soon as the house im/exploded and told Dumbledore what happened. Please poke holes gently. Kelly the Yarn Junkie ===== Pensieve A Harry Potter List for Adults Low Traffic - High Quality http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pensieve __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ From hollydaze at btinternet.com Sun Jan 6 15:42:11 2002 From: hollydaze at btinternet.com (Hollydaze) Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 15:42:11 -0000 Subject: Time scales at the end of PoA (LONG) References: Message-ID: <004601c196c9$32ad5de0$904d073e@j0dhe> No: HPFGUIDX 32876 > I'm having trouble understanding the basis for the statement that > it can't be a long journey to and from the Shrieking Shack, so let > me just ask the question: Hollydaze, what is the total time from > the moment Harry and Hermione enter the Whomping Willow to the time > the entire group leaves the Whomping Willow with Pettigrew in tow? The entire time from when HH entered would work out as 1 hour and 25 minutes, the 60-65 minutes was only from the time that Snape entered the tunnel, not the whole time. > I'm also unclear on how long you think they were in the Shrieking > Shack (not considering travel time). Are you saying it is 60-65 > minutes of chit chat in the Shack, because that seems much too > long. As I stated above I am not sure exactly how long the tunnel is or how long it would take them to travel it as it only includes the time from when Snape entered the tunnel. I was also not stating that there was 65 minutes of talking, when I said that what I meant was that there is 65 minutes from when Snape enteres the Tunnel to when they all re apear. That is not quite that same as 65 minutes of talking, plus I should think that HHSR and P have already been talking for a while (although not too long) when S goes into the tunnel, although this again does depends on how long the tunnel is. Snape does however state that he saw Lupin going down the tunnel, not that he saw the others so I presume that by the time Snape sees Lupin, Sirius and the others must already be at least off the map if not in the shreiking shack. > I doubt that it takes that long to read the entire Shrieking Shack > scene out loud. True but again as I have just said above, the 65 minutes includes the travelling time of Snape and their time to travel back to the entrance of the WW. Then we also have the total 1 hour 25 minutes from when HRH S and P entered the the WW. > My preliminary guess is something like 80 minutes total travel time > plus 15 minutes of confrontation time in the Shrieking Shack, for a > total of 95 minutes. Although I agree with your statement that it does not take 65 minutes to carry out the entire scene in the shreiking shack, I have to disagree that it would take as little as 15 minutes, I would say more likely somewhere between 25 and 30 minutes. I think I will try to add on those bits in the Shreiking shack to the timeline just to see if we can see if it would make a little bit more sense, now I just have to go time myself reading those bits out at what is a decently angry tone! LOL! HOLLYDAZE!!! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Jan 6 16:00:49 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 16:00:49 -0000 Subject: (Time Turner) In-Reply-To: <006a01c19694$acd12b40$7f28fea9@yoonabomber> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32877 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Brian Yoon" wrote: > From: Elizabeth Dalton > > > consequences if an error is made with the Time Turner ("Mis Granger, you > know > > the law-- you know what is at stake... *You must not be seen.*"), but > those > > consequences are never really spelled out. If it's only that you have to > worry > > Which reminds me of a question that kept poking at me. > > How is Hermione able to use the Time-Turner to go to all her classes? If > she is using them to attend them at the same time, then wouldn't she be seen > by the other classmates of her class (in fact, she is, seeing that Ron talks > about her classmate seeing her talking to the professor)? If she could use > the Time-Turner, why doesn't she use it over and over during the same > time-period at night so she could study AND sleep at the same time? > > Some possible answers, in my mind: > > 1. As long as different people see the Hermione (such as Ron and Harry's > classmates in the class they share and Hermione's own classmates), it's all > gravy. I think Brian is on the right track here. The important thing to realize about the Time Turner is that it's not a physical device governed by natural law. It's a magical device governed by a Prohibition: You Must Not Be Seen. The magic of the Time Turner is powerful enough to resolve any paradox from the point of view of a future observer UNLESS the time traveller has been seen by someone from a stream s/he wishes to alter. So Sleeping!Hermione in chapter 15 of PoA could have awoken and gone to Charms class at any time before Harry and Ron saw her in the Common Room. After that, it was too late. The possibility of a paradox observable from outside the story-frame still exists, but is irrelevant, since there are no such observers in the Potterverse. Fire Away ;-) Pippin From Edblanning at aol.com Sun Jan 6 16:55:27 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 11:55:27 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] RE: Worst Harry - Snape Prowling - Name "Harry" - Dragons... Message-ID: <7f.1f91c840.2969db7f@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32878 Ai-Chan wrote: > Harry: it's such a plain name. Nothing so highly can be expected > of such a plain boy, right? >It's not just a plain name, it's a very English name. Remember >Agincourt: "For England, Harry, and St George!" My high school >English teacher (in the 1971-72 school year) was a WWII veteran and >told the class that he had heard the soldier in English regiments >STILL using that battle-cry in WWII. It's also (from interview) JKR's fovourite boy's name, the one that she would have used for her own child, had she been a boy. That, she said was her reason for choosing it. Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Edblanning at aol.com Sun Jan 6 16:59:03 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 11:59:03 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Breaking into Snape's office Message-ID: <108.b4a0299.2969dc57@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32879 >Couple of days ago Eloise posted something on security in Hogwarts. >That made me think about the time when Barty Crouch aka Mad-Eye Moody >breaks into Snape's office (same night as Harry goes into the >prefect's bathroom) in GoF. snip >Maybe Croutch was looking for potion ingredients in the office. Snape >mentions gillyweed and boomslang skin to be stolen when he threatens >Harry with the Veritaserum in GoF. We know that boomslang skin is an >ingredient for Polyjuice Potion. That was one of the incidents I was thinking of. I was under the impression that it *was* the boomslang skin he was after. Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com Sun Jan 6 17:11:38 2002 From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 11:11:38 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Is Harry a stoic? References: Message-ID: <3C38854A.60B10378@kingwoodcable.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32880 joanne0012 wrote: > > Does anyone else see potential danger in this personality trait of > > Harry's? > > I agree that Harry is a Stoic, but I think that's why he will NOT break down. > Sotics accept fate, destiny, the inevitability of things. Sh*t happens, it's not > our fault. That acceptance is not the same as being "hardened." > > I'm sure that the Dursleys treatment of Harry bothered him at one time, but he > got over it. He realized that it's not his fault, it's nothing he did or is, they're > jerks, it doesn't reflect on him. This realization made him stronger, that's why > he didn't turn into some sort of angry delinquent despite the Dursleys. Different > people cope in different ways. Just because Harry hasn't cried, or doesn't want > to cry in front of his friends, doesn't mean that he's bottling up something that > will inevitably overflow or explode. (An example, on a personal note, my kids are > still wondering why I haven't cried over their dad dying.) I'm not expecting Harry to breakdown and cry. My main inquiry was mainly why it was so important to Harry to not have Ron see him almost breakdown. I don't think Harry will breakdown (in the crying sense). He tears up, but I'm not expecting crying. While I agree that not crying doesn't mean he's bottling up some emotion, I do think this is the case with Harry. We've seen examples of him feeling hurt and holding it inside, and then let loose (like with Ron in GoF). So I think that he does tend to bottle it up, and that's mainly because he trusts only a few select people, which is perfectly understandable. The potential danger that I see is his anger. We've already seen examples of Harry getting angry and reacting in minor ways (the glass, Aunt Marge, Sirius in the shack, Ron in the common room with the pin, and there are probably some more that I can't think of off the top of my head). I think there's an anger brewing in Harry, and I *want* to see him get angry. I think we'll get a better glimpse of this kid's power if he really truly gets angry, so that's part of my motivation for wanting this, but also...I'd like to see him get angry as a release, cause I'm starting to get angry for him ;-) -Katze (who only read GoF in November '01 and is wondering how on earth you folks who read GoF when if first came have managed to survive a year and a half without a new book!) From klhurt at yahoo.com Sun Jan 6 17:36:22 2002 From: klhurt at yahoo.com (Kelly Hurt) Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 09:36:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: How McGonagall Knows + Lupin, the Cloak & the Map + Timepieces at Hogwarts + Boggart-Dementor + Floo at Hogwarts + Snape's Office + Joint Classes + Imperius & Memory + Wands In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020106173622.17751.qmail@web14205.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32881 --- oz_widgeon wrote: >Now, we know from CoS I believe, that >Harry has only seen McGonagall in the >common room a few times, so she's not >a regular visitor. Twice in one >night seems a bit of an event. My >question is, how does she KNOW >they're up? Perhaps a house elf complained of not being able to get into the common room to clean it because of the party?:-) --- cindysphynx wrote: >(wishing there were a really good >theory to excuse Lupin for failing to >take the Map with him and for failing >to pick up the Invisibility Cloak) The obvious reason for Lupin's failure to pick up the Invisibility Cloak would be that he didn't see it. After all, (1)he was in a hurry, (2)at that time of night it was darkling, and (3)it is nearly invisible even when not being used. Perhaps Snape stepped on it? As for the Map, Lupin knew it would be useless outside of the Hogwarts grounds, so he left it. I can't explain why he didn't wipe it, though. --- Grey Wolf wrote: >Thus, the theory works even though >the watches don't (after all, they >never work at Hogwarts). To which, Andrew MacIan replied: >{BLINK} Say again? > >There are numerous instances IIRC of >Harry checking his watch...or after >immersion, asking Ron for the time. >This in addition to the clock that is >beside his bed in the dormitory. And I respond: I believe Grey Wolf is thinking digital & Andrew is describing analog. --- Andrew MacIan wrote: >Harry, on the other hand, sees the >dementor and believes what is in >essence the boggart's lie. After >all, the effects that are produced >are Harry's; But the Boggart-Dementor made the lights go out. --- Eloise wrote: >Why don't the students use floo >powder to get around the school? 1. One fireplace per common room for 70+ students 2. One fireplace per class for 10+ students. They'd keep landing on each other, bumping during transport, etc. --- Eloise wrote: >[snip] How on earth do you keep >anything secure with locks, standard >or magical, when a first year can >open [snip] Snape's office, which he >tells us was locked with a spell >which only a wizard could break. The office was unlocked and opened when second-year Hermione sneaked in during class. The wizard-only spell is to keep Peeves out. Considering the damage he inflicts and the problems he causes in the kitchen, this is sensible. --- Mary Ann wrote: >But haven't the Gryff's taken classes >with all the other houses already? >Please correct me if I'm wrong. You're wrong.:-) We've never been told of the Gryffindors sharing class time with Ravenclaw. It is, of course, possible that Astronomy is a joint class but hasn't been mentioned. --- cindysphynx wrote: >Cindy (who thinks that if we try >really, really hard, we can come up >with some Imperius theory to explain >Neville's poor memory) I'm a proponent of the Memory Charm Theory explaining Neville's problem but, if you think about it, a Memory Charm is like a watered down Imperius Curse: it overcomes the victim's will by controlling the mind. --- rycar007 wrote: >The wands are simply a focusing point >for the creativity of the wizard. I don't completely agree. If wands were used simply for focus, it seems to me they would be more standardized (size, wood, etc.), like classic crystal balls. It seems all wizards can, under certain circumstances, do non-wand magic, but it takes a very powerful wizard to do so easily at will. Therefore, I think the wand both focuses and *amplifies* the power of the wizard. This would then explain why wands are so very individual and need a magical core. Kelly the Yarn Junkie ===== Pensieve A Harry Potter List for Adults Low Traffic - High Quality http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pensieve __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ From hollydaze at btinternet.com Sun Jan 6 18:00:35 2002 From: hollydaze at btinternet.com (Hollydaze) Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 18:00:35 -0000 Subject: Time line in the shack. Message-ID: <00a001c196dc$105ebbe0$904d073e@j0dhe> No: HPFGUIDX 32882 Here is the timeline for the shack. I don't want to re post the WHOLE thing so I have just included a few time before and after the shack. The explanation is, again, at the bottom. 9:44 Hagrid leaves his hut. 9:47 Hagrid arrives at the school front doors. 9:49 Snape leaves the school. 9:52 (APROX) Sirius, Ron and Peter arrived in the Shrieking Shack. 9:52 Snape arrives at the willow, picks up cloak and finds stick then enters. 9:54 (APROX) Crookshanks, Harry and Hermione 1 arrive in the Shrieking Shack. 9:58 The scuffle between Harry 1, Hermione 1, Ron, Crookshanks and Sirius takes place. 10:00 Lupin is down stairs. 10:00 (30) Lupin arrives in the room. 10:01 (30) Hermione tells that Lupin is a werewolf. 10:03 Lupin explains the Marauders map. 10:04 Lupin and Sirius say Scabbers is Peter. 10:06 Snape comes in under the cloak. 10:06 Lupin begins to explain everything. 10:09 Lupin explains about Sirius, Peter and James becoming Animagi. 10:11 (30) Lupin explains about Sirius's Joke on Snape. 10:12 (30) Snape appears form under the cloak. 10:13 (30) Snape ties Lupin up. 10:15 Harry, Ron and Hermione knock Snape out. 10:17 Sirius explains that Crookshanks has been helping him. 10:18 (30) Sirius and Lupin expose Peter. 10:21 Sirius has finished explaining about switching secret keepers. 10:23 Harry finally believes Lupin and Sirius. 10:25 Harry stops Lupin and Sirius from killing Peter. 10:25 (30) Lupin's puts a splint on Ron's leg. 10:26 Lupin and Ron are Chained to Peter. 10:26 (30) They all leave the shack. 10:55 Everyone leaves the Whomping Willow. (Harry, Ron, Hermione Sirius and Peter have been in the shack for about 80 minutes (1hr and 20 minutes) -including travel.) 11:00 Lupin transforms and Sirius chases him into the forbidden forest, Harry and Hermione 2 move to Hagrid's hut. INSIDE THE SHACK EXPLAINATION. (this goes back to when Harry and Hermione 1 and Crookshanks went into the tree) I have used a stop watch and I have been through reading all of the necessary bits of what happened in the shack out loud, timing how long they take, this only applies to speech. For things such as actions and characters taking in descriptions I have allowed an appropriate amount of time as actions normally take more time than it takes to read them out (depending on what they are) while a person will take in another persons (or objects) appearance a lot quicker than reading it out loud would. This bought me to a total of 32 minutes spent in the shack by Harry and Hermione 1. From the time they entered the tunnel to the time the left was 1 hour and 20 minutes, this is the same as 80 minutes, take 32 (time in the shack) from 80 and you get 48 minutes travelling time. We know that it took longer to get back than to get there, both because of the fact they were all running to get their and because they were delayed by Lupin and Ron being tied to Peter on the way back. Because of this I have dived the travelling time for Harry and Hermione 1 on the way there to 20 minutes and the travelling time on the way back as 28 minutes which seems to be a big enough difference although it could be slightly smaller. This then works out as Sirius having arrived with Ron and Peter maybe two minutes earlier than Harry and Hermione. Lupin arrives 6 minutes after Harry and Hermione. This means his travelling time is only 16 minutes but this could be because he is not dragging somebody (as Sirius in Dog form is) and is running faster than Harry and Hermione 1 would be. He also knows the route better having been down there every month for 7 years when he was at the school, plus he can probably run faster being older than they are. However as with the main time line there is a problem in that Snape's travelling time is 14 minutes and I think that that is just a bit too fast. 16 minutes is plausible but 14 is getting a bit too quick, however, it must work out that way or the time line (as with the two "problems" at the end of the full time line) doesn't work. HOLLYDAZE!!! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From virtualworldofhp at yahoo.com Sun Jan 6 18:14:01 2002 From: virtualworldofhp at yahoo.com (virtualworldofhp) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 18:14:01 -0000 Subject: Harry and Ron's views of each other. In-Reply-To: <3C37C61F.EEF67961@kingwoodcable.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32883 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Katze wrote: > I'm still debating why, out of all the people sitting in the hospital > wing after the third task, it is Ron that Harry doesn't want watching > when he starts to breakdown in Mrs. Weasley's arms. That was an > emotional clincher for me. I think Harry believe that Ron sees him as > strong and a survivor (which he is), and perhaps the breakdown would > diminish Ron's view of him, or that he was acting like a girl (they > constantly tease Hermione about her crying). Thoughts? > > -Katze I've always thought that this was a teenage boy thing. Like wants to be a "man" and follow the conventional beliefs that true "men" don't show weakness (ie, crying). Just a demonstrative of Harry's age and the misconceptions common to (probably) most to all teenage boys and young adult men. -Megan From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com Sun Jan 6 18:23:08 2002 From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 12:23:08 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Breaking into Snape's office References: <108.b4a0299.2969dc57@aol.com> Message-ID: <3C38960C.E72DD011@kingwoodcable.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32884 Edblanning at aol.com wrote: > > >Couple of days ago Eloise posted something on security in Hogwarts. > >That made me think about the time when Barty Crouch aka Mad-Eye Moody > >breaks into Snape's office (same night as Harry goes into the > >prefect's bathroom) in GoF. > > snip > > >Maybe Croutch was looking for potion ingredients in the office. Snape > >mentions gillyweed and boomslang skin to be stolen when he threatens > >Harry with the Veritaserum in GoF. We know that boomslang skin is an > >ingredient for Polyjuice Potion. > > That was one of the incidents I was thinking of. > > I was under the impression that it *was* the boomslang skin he was after. > > Eloise > This is interesting...when I read this, I was thinking Snape was accusing Harry for stealing this for past break-ins when Hermione took it for their polyjuice potion in CoS, because Snape is known to hold onto a grudge, and perhaps his boomslang was very special to him . I never once thought that there might be someone in GoF using it (at least until the end when it was spelled out for me). Very interesting...I'm wondering what other clues I'm missing in regards to the overall story. -Katze From virtualworldofhp at yahoo.com Sun Jan 6 18:43:53 2002 From: virtualworldofhp at yahoo.com (virtualworldofhp) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 18:43:53 -0000 Subject: Hermione and Femininity (now with SHIPping!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32885 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "selah_1977" wrote: > Discussion of my favorite character never fails to bring me out of > lurkdom... > Ebony: > She's proven that she can keep her > mouth shut when it counts, which makes her like gold in her > friendship with the boys as many aspects of Harry's quest/the main > plot hinge upon this. (One wonders if Ginny has this same quality... > I am curious.) Well, Ginny does keep quiet about Hermione's date to the Yule Ball--and this is definitely one of those tasty morsels that is very, very difficult to keep secret. If she really does fancy Harry strongly still in GoF, and she's not quite so inclined to keep Hermione's secret, she might have told Ron & Harry who Hermione was going with to gain favor with Harry (even though it was Ron who was asking). If that makes sense. > Our opinions differ when it comes to Hermione's femininity. When I > first entered the fandom a year and a half ago, I incited a flame > skirmish on another grown-up Harry Potter list for stating that > Hermione was "all girl". I don't care if some think that's an anti- > feminist statement, she is just as feminine in her own way as > Lavender and Parvati are, and as Ginny (in the very limited glimpses > we get of her) is. That's not a feminine vs. non-feminine thing; > it's a personality thing. She is not portrayed as a tomboy or as an > asexual nerd. She's just a smart girl. That's all. I think I came out sounding a little harsh against Hermione. In restropect, most of the insight we've gained as readers about Hermione is through Harry's lens. This, of course, would tend to make her less-feminine as Harry himself does not (yet, or at least at first) view Hermione as a "girl" (vs. viewing her as a friend). This could go towards my perception of Hermione has not shown much inclination towards feminimity. But then again, she's only beginning--while age brings maturity for girls, maturity doesn't always bring that a-typical picqued interest in the opposite sex at the same time. After all, she's still 15 & with a more "boarding school" type of repression, I could see this occuring a little bit later than some "pre-mature tweens" you see in America. > I can't see Hermione going to Ginny for advice. I see any Hermione- > Ginny friendship being the other way around, with Hermione as an > older sister and advisor figure to Ginny, who not only is a bit > younger, but with the exception of the Riddle's diary incident has > not had the depth and diversity of experiences that Hermione's had. > Unless JKR shows us something differently in the future, of course. I can't really see Hermione seeking advice from Ginny, but rather use her more of a "bouncing-off" person. Just someone to talk to without really expecting helpful feedback. > > Hermione essentially makes a huge character jump (in this > > department) during two chapters in GoF during the Yule Ball. She > > has > > essentially shown no signs of real mature feelings for a guy thus > > far. > > Two things here. First, I would ask which character in their year > *has* shown any "mature" feelings in a romantic sense. Even Ron's > feelings for her are embryonic, obvious though they may be. Harry's > feelings towards Cho aren't matured... it's a lot of stomach twisting > and reddening, but as far as we can tell he hasn't gotten beyond or > even to the kissing/cuddling phase of his imagination. And for all > their giggling, Lav and Parvati don't seem all that worldly-wise in > that department. They're all just kids, and for all her book smarts, > so is Hermione. Oh, no, I wasn't saying anyone else had either. :-D I think I was jsut trying to point out that Hermione goes from apparently (Harry's perspective, remember) zero interest in guys her age, to basically entering "Prom Court" at the Yule Ball. It's very easy that Hermione's shown interest all along in other guys (subtle, mind you) but we don't "see" it through Harry's filter. > I hope that Hermione and Ginny's friendship develops for its own > sake, not because of crushes or boys. And I think it will. It would be great to see a bit more "female perspective" in HP and the WW. Imagine poor Harry's dismay, . (or rather, Ron's!) > Harry takes her for granted, because she's been pretty much the same > constant variable in his life from mid-PS/SS until the end of GoF. > But anything could change that. Ron dating her would change that. > Hermione avoiding him for whatever reason would change that. Her > death, kidnapping, or otherwise becoming a casualty could change > that. We've had Hermione-Ron conflict, we've had Harry-Ron conflict, > but aside from the Firebolt incident in PoA we've had absolutely no > Harry-Hermione conflict, and even in that case Ron was mad at her too. After all, conflict is what fuels great stories. > I do know what you're saying, Megan. And I totally understand and > agree. I know you don't like the idea of H/H, but I am one of those > very annoying people who believes that Hermione just may have a > tamped-down crush on Harry which either 1) she'll get over soon or 2) > someone will figure out. I guess I've never wanted to have Hermione to have a "crush" because it just sounds so shallow and petty for so great a character. But, as teenagers, that's just something that almost everyone that age goes through--like a coming of age test of sorts. I do see it as entirely possible, but I'll never be in favor of it--for reasons I can't even really explain. (Maybe this is the heart of R/H's thinking? Or just me, .) -Megan From oppen at cnsinternet.com Sun Jan 6 19:31:54 2002 From: oppen at cnsinternet.com (Eric Oppen) Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 13:31:54 -0600 Subject: Harry Not Crying Message-ID: <005d01c196e8$cd528180$e6c71bce@hppav> No: HPFGUIDX 32886 It's always been my impression that Harry doesn't cry for several different reasons. Having _been_ a teenage boy myself (this admittedly was when dinosaurs roamed the earth) I can testify that crying is NOT socially acceptable for boys beyond about age five, unless in extraordinary circumstances such as a funeral. I would bet that if Dinky Duddums tried that "wail and I'll get what I want" act in front of his peers at Smeltings, or even in front of Piers Polkiss (ISTR he shuts right up when Piers appears, if you'll pardon a bit of wordplay) his reputation with them would be mud. Also, Harry is English---which also would discourage him from crying. The English ideal (and any net.Englishmen or net.Englishwomen on here are welcome to correct me, but this is the impression I got while over there) is to display very little strong emotion---"that's for those bally wogs," and so on. Sorrow and joy are both held in tightly, and anger, if shown at all, is supposed to come out in savage dry wit---think "Blackadder, really p*ssed off," or something like that. The classic example is Lord Cardigan's scornful comment after the Charge of the Light Brigade about another officer, that he "screamed like a woman when he was hit," having just ridden back from the field over that officer's dead body. Finally, Harry probably just retreated behind a wall of apparent indifference to survive at the Dursleys' residence. Comments? From bean_shadow at hotmail.com Sun Jan 6 16:41:43 2002 From: bean_shadow at hotmail.com (Erin Jacobson) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 10:41:43 -0600 Subject: The Dursleys Hatred for the Wizard World and Harry Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32887 Hey all! I've been on this group for about a year now, but am probably the most notorious lurker imaginable. I'm re-reading "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" for the millionth time. I've been thinking about why the Dursleys are so insistent on keeping Harry in the dark about the wizard world. The general theory is because they hate wizard and witches. I don't think anyone can disagree with that. But I think they've been worried that if they let Harry grow-up knowing he was a wizard then Voldemort would come back to harm Harry, and possibly them as well. Knowing the Dursleys, their safety, and Dudley's, would be more of a concern than Harry. They know about Voldemort being the one who killed Lily and James, from Dumbledore's letter. They probably feared Voldemort would be back to destroy Harry. Maybe they hate the wizard world because: A) Petunia is a squib and is bitter and jealous at Lily, and the wizard world in general. Much like Filch is. or... B) They fear Voldemort. Petunia's jealosy could also be the reason why she and Vernon were so mean to Harry for ten years. All of Petunia's strong emotions against her sister were thrown at Harry. One more thought. How long do you think Lily and Petunia's falling out lasted for? For instance, do you think Lily went to Vernon and Petunia's wedding? -Erin _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx From muridae at muridae.co.uk Sun Jan 6 15:36:10 2002 From: muridae at muridae.co.uk (Muridae) Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 15:36:10 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] (Time Turner) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32888 Stephanie Jura wrote: >Brian Yoon wrote: > >>How is Hermione able to use the Time-Turner to go to all her classes? If >>she is using them to attend them at the same time, then wouldn't she be >>seen >>by the other classmates of her class (in fact, she is, seeing that Ron >>talks >>about her classmate seeing her talking to the professor)? If she could use >>the Time-Turner, why doesn't she use it over and over during the same >>time-period at night so she could study AND sleep at the same time? > >Using the Time Turner to study and sleep might be regarded as abuse of the >thing: taking more classes is one thing, but using it to get more study time >gives Hermione an unfair edge over her classmates. Additionally... where would she do the extra sleeping and studying? Use her own bed? Nope, no room for Hermione2 there, because Hermione1 is already in occupation. And, while it's possible for her to sneak off into a corridor she already vetted as empty the first time through the loop in order to turn back an hour to double-time her classes, it's more difficult to do the same thing when it's the library, the common room, or her dormitory she needs access to. They're all rooms she shares with the students who are in both sets of classes she's doing, and it greatly increases the chances that someone will notice her extra comings and goings, or even that she'll run into herself. She can't even time turn a third loop so that she can sneak up to her dormitory to sleep during the daytime, because there's always the risk that Lavender or Parvati will pop back up there to fetch something in the interval between classes and catch her. And the same applies to both the common room and the library. I think it's entirely possible that once or twice she's been so exhausted that she's found a cupboard or an empty classroom somewhere and curled up for a couple of hours, but it won't have been comfortable and she'd always have had a guilty, hunted feeling about doing it. There's also the very real possibility that she'll be so tired that she'll sleep beyond the hour or so that the timetable offers her before she has to turn up to a non-elective class again. So I'm not sure that she would have considered it as cheating, particularly, to have time-turned again for those reasons, just that it was impractical enough that she didn't receive any real benefit from it. As we know, the practical solution was to give up the subject that she was getting least from at Easter, and to drop down to the same number of classes as the rest of the students at the end of the year. -- Muridae From deadstop at gte.net Sun Jan 6 18:16:39 2002 From: deadstop at gte.net (Stacy Stroud) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 13:16:39 -0500 Subject: (Time Turner) In-Reply-To: <1010328547.4004.18416.m6@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.20020106131639.008e6100@mail.gte.net> No: HPFGUIDX 32889 At 02:49 PM 1/6/02 -0000, Brian Yoon wrote: [On possible explanations for how Hermione was able to use the Time-Turner to attend different classes at the same time but never used it to catch up on sleep] >1. As long as different people see the Hermione (such as Ron and Harry's >classmates in the class they share and Hermione's own classmates), it's all >gravy. I think that's the idea, yeah. Ron and Harry were the only ones hanging around Hermione constantly enough to even begin to suspect that she was in both classes at the same time, and even when they did, they never quite wondered *enough* to start asking her pointed questions about doing the physically impossible. The only thing she can't do is risk changing something one version of herself remembers by the actions of her other self. But as long as the two Hermiones are in separate classes and interact with separate groups of people, that has less danger of happening. > >2. It taxes the mind, so that people are loathe to use it multiple times. >In fact, using it and sleeping is useless, as the user is as tired as if >s/he did not sleep. That's a great idea. I too had been wondering why Hermione didn't use the TT to make up for all the exhausting studying she had to do, by giving herself more time for sleep. She just might have been taking a very literal interpretation of her promise to McGonagall to use the TT only for classes. Since it seems that part of McGonagall's purpose was to teach Hermione a lesson about overweening ambition, that might even have been *intentional* on McG's part. On the other hand, maybe the TT ceases to function if the user falls unconscious. Or maybe Hermione decided it was just too risky. If she did her studying in the common room and then time-turned back to sleep upstairs, she might have gotten caught in both places by one of her roommates. If she had gone out into the castle and found someplace private either to study or to sleep, she risked getting caught by Filch or Snape and dragged back to Gryffindor Tower where the other Hermione would have been. Much better to be awake and aware at all times when using something that potentially dangerous. >3. It's physically impossible for there to be more than 2 of the same >person at the same time. (Don't ask why: it's a Newton's Law) Or it's a restriction built into that particular Time Turner. But Herm wouldn't have had to make three of herself to get the proper amount of sleep. She would have been time-turning at a different part of the day than the two hours she turned back to attend simultaneous classes in the mornings and afternoons. Stacy Stroud (deadstop at gte.net) Hex Entertainment, Inc. (http://www.hexgames.com) From daoine at bellsouth.net Sun Jan 6 18:08:53 2002 From: daoine at bellsouth.net (Daibhaid & Lynne) Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 13:08:53 -0500 Subject: Floo Powder and Security at Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001b01c196dd$3380c360$886a4ed8@david> No: HPFGUIDX 32890 Eloise wrote: > Megan refers to the incident where Snape gets Lupin to > floo into his office. > This raises some security issues in my mind. > > Why don't the students use floo powder to get around > the school? Is it just > that the school is so complex that they wouldn't be > able to get off at the > right stop? Or is there some enchantment which stops them? Because of the enchantments of Hogwarts, specifically noted in _Hogwarts, a History_, sorry Amazon dot com doesn't carry this...yet. :^), you cannot spell yourself into the school or in the school. It would make more sense to floo around the school but at the same time with the problem Harry had in his first use of it landing up in "Knockturn Alley" well... > Can you floo in and out of Hogwarts? The head in the > fire thing which Sirius > uses seems to be related. No-one , as far as I can > remember either considers > that this may be how he gets into the castle, or > equally, states that it is > impossible, as we are told several times about dis/apparation. Not really the head in the fire is sort of their intercom system. > How on earth do you keep anything secure with locks, > standard or magical, > when a first year can open both the door behind which > Fluffy lurked and > Snape's office, which he tells us was locked with a > spell which only a wizard > could break. The place is full of wizards, so what's > the point? Why doesn't > he have a password , like the dorms and Dumbledore's office? Granted it would make sense to have some doors spelled with locks like the great doors of Moria in LOTR. :^) My 2p Daibhaid From daoine at bellsouth.net Sun Jan 6 18:10:20 2002 From: daoine at bellsouth.net (Daibhaid & Lynne) Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 13:10:20 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Breaking into Snape's office In-Reply-To: <3C38960C.E72DD011@kingwoodcable.com> Message-ID: <001c01c196dd$66f733a0$886a4ed8@david> No: HPFGUIDX 32891 > This is interesting...when I read this, I was thinking > Snape was > accusing Harry for stealing this for past break-ins > when Hermione took > it for their polyjuice potion in CoS, because Snape is > known to hold > onto a grudge, and perhaps his boomslang was very > special to him . > I never once thought that there might be someone in > GoF using it (at > least until the end when it was spelled out for me). Very > interesting...I'm wondering what other clues I'm > missing in regards to > the overall story. > > -Katze Not to mention that it would make sense for Snape to have a potion of sorts to throw on a fire to generate what had transpired in his room. I guess I think too much on the lines of being paranoia like Mad-Eye. :^) Daibh From andrew_macian at yahoo.com Sun Jan 6 19:22:49 2002 From: andrew_macian at yahoo.com (Andrew MacIan) Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 11:22:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: Timepieces at Hogwarts + Boggart-Dementor In-Reply-To: <20020106173622.17751.qmail@web14205.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20020106192249.25257.qmail@web9503.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32892 Greetings from Andrew! An impressive omnibus post; I'll comment on the bits directed towards me. --- Kelly Hurt wrote: {snip} > --- Grey Wolf wrote: > > >Thus, the theory works even though > >the watches don't (after all, they > >never work at Hogwarts). > > To which, Andrew MacIan replied: > > >{BLINK} Say again? > > > >There are numerous instances IIRC of > >Harry checking his watch...or after > >immersion, asking Ron for the time. > >This in addition to the clock that is > >beside his bed in the dormitory. > > And I respond: > > I believe Grey Wolf is thinking digital & Andrew is > describing analog. Nice attempt at a save, but since Grey Wolf stated it as a categorical, my objection stands. However, granting that the class distinction is somehow important, most analog wristwatches made at that time (as even more are today) were electrically driven, I don't see that the class of watch makes any difference. This is descending into the realm of the nitpick, IMO. > > --- Andrew MacIan wrote: > > >Harry, on the other hand, sees the > >dementor and believes what is in > >essence the boggart's lie. After > >all, the effects that are produced > >are Harry's; > > But the Boggart-Dementor made the lights go out. This I'll check out, as I am not clear if the lights going out was a localized (to Harry) event, or if the entire area went dark, thus making it a more general event. However, I note with interest that you seem to accept the balance of my hypothesis. Is this is case? Thanks for your time and consideration. 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 your FREE holiday greetings online! http://greetings.yahoo.com From bean_shadow at hotmail.com Sun Jan 6 19:47:30 2002 From: bean_shadow at hotmail.com (Erin Jacobson) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 13:47:30 -0600 Subject: Young Wizard and Witches Fashions Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32893 Adult wizard and witches are more into wearing their robes, and rarely stray into Muggle fashions/clothing, unless they're going out to the Muggle world or are going to be presented with the possibilities of Muggles seeing them, i.e. the Quidditch World Cup (an exception would be during the celebration of the disapearance of Voldemort in 1981). But young wizard and witches are often seen in Muggle clothing when not in school. I was wondering if they followed different fashion styles. For instance, when SS starts, in 1991, would young American wizards/witches wear grunge clothing (flannel shirts, torn jeans and the like)? -Erin _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. From catlady at wicca.net Sun Jan 6 20:16:12 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 20:16:12 -0000 Subject: Young Wizard and Witches Fashions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32894 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Erin Jacobson" wrote: > For instance, when SS starts, in 1991, would young American > wizards/witches wear grunge clothing (flannel shirts, torn jeans > and the like)? I like to imagine that FASHIONABLE young wizards and witches wear Muggle-style clothing as interpreted by expensive wizarding fashion designers, sort of like fashionable Muggle adults wear styles from designers who were INSPIRED by various Muggle subcultures (ghetto, gay, streetwalkers, etc). Thus, I can dress them the way that *I* want to and not worry about what kids really were wearing in that particular calendar year. *I* like lots of safety pins and zippers but very few piercings and tattoos. And I can put them through a phrase of dressing up like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz movie if I want to! From editor at texas.net Sun Jan 6 20:42:48 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Lewanski) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 14:42:48 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Time line in the shack. References: <00a001c196dc$105ebbe0$904d073e@j0dhe> Message-ID: <3C38B6C7.7DCF1FA8@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 32895 Hollydaze wrote: I have not yet read this in detail, don't know if I'll have time, and will only post the message number of my own "What Snape Knew and When" in case anyone wants to cross-reference or compare (15233, originally; interesting further discussion, 15242 & 15243, and 31696, original post revisited). I will, however, proclaim officially that Hollydaze, if she has not been so recognized already, is Now And Forevermore A L.O.O.N.! Images of her sitting there reciting dialogue aloud with a stopwatch in hand were simply too compelling to resist. Welcome, Hollydaze! Do we have a list of who the L.O.O.N.s are? I can't keep track anymore. --Amanda, past-president and founding member, L.O.O.N. From pennylin at swbell.net Sun Jan 6 20:55:22 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny & Bryce) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 14:55:22 -0600 Subject: Ginny & Molly Quality Time -- Ginny at the 3rd Task -- Hermione & Feminity -- Hermione & SHIPs References: Message-ID: <3C38B9BA.1070605@swbell.net> No: HPFGUIDX 32896 Hi all -- Beth mentioned that as the youngest child, Ginny must have had more quality time with just Molly before leaving for Hogwarts. That's true, but as the eldest, Bill also had more quality time with both parents before Charlie arrived on the scene. I see your point though. I do think though that the extra time with just Ginny at home & her being the only girl may have only added to the suffocation/smothering factor. I asked earlier: where was Ginny during the aftermath of the 3rd Task when her love interest (Harry) was quite obviously in a bad spot? Pippin said: > As I've mentioned before, it makes sense that the students were > mustered off to their Houses as soon as Dumbledore knew > something was wrong. That would be no later than when Snape > felt the Dark Mark burn and before Harry returned. The > evacuation, which Harry naturally knows nothing about, is in > progress when he returns, which is why people are running all > over the place. Molly would insist that all her children and > Hermione go back to the dorms, because that's the safest place > for them. So Ginny may not know that Harry's been hurt. He does see people moving in the stands above him, but I will concede that could be an evacuation in progress. Harry is obviously not in a state to really think coherently at that point. Ginny, however, was not with Molly, Bill, Ron & Hermione. OR, Harry didn't notice her. Before the 3rd Task begins, he scans the crowd & finds Ron, Hermione, Molly & Bill halfway up the stands. So, she's either with friends or the Twins or Harry didn't note her presence there with the others. > After they reach the Tower Hermione and Ron sneak back out > to find out what *has* happened to Harry and end up at the > hospital wing where they find Molly and Bill. So the confrontation, > if there was one, would be with Hermione and Ron, not Molly. > Fred and George weren't at the Hospital Wing either, which > supports my theory, I think. Since the group of Molly, Bill, Ron & Hermione were all together at the 3rd Task, I don't find it terribly likely that Ron & Hermione went back to the dorms & then reconnected with Molly & Bill. It seems more likely that the 4 of them rushed back up to the castle as a group. If Molly was trying to insist that Ron & Hermione go back to the dorms, she obviously lost that battle. I still maintain that it's odd that Ginny didn't attempt to fight it -- at least not from appearances. Ebony wrote: > Our opinions differ when it comes to Hermione's femininity. When I > first entered the fandom a year and a half ago, I incited a flame > skirmish on another grown-up Harry Potter list for stating that > Hermione was "all girl". I don't care if some think that's an anti- > feminist statement, she is just as feminine in her own way as > Lavender and Parvati are, and as Ginny (in the very limited glimpses > we get of her) is. That's not a feminine vs. non-feminine thing; > it's a personality thing. She is not portrayed as a tomboy or as an > asexual nerd. She's just a smart girl. That's all. Yeah, I agree. I don't think Hermione's been hiding anything up to the Yule Ball. She's been a girl all along, albeit a smart one. Megan(?) said: > > I can really understand with Ron's sudden enlightenment that > Hermione is a "girl", because we as readers have seen very little to > attribute to her feminimity. A future relationship with Ginny would > be a great step to establishing a serious "crush" (if JKR chooses > this path) for Hermione in the future. I gotta groan with Ebony on this one. Hermione has *been* a girl all along. There's no sense that she's unfeminine, IMO. I don't understand the idea that Hermione needs to establish a relationship with Ginny (what, is Ginny now the paragon of female virtue?) in order to be "ready" to tackle a romantic relationship. While it'd be nice for Hermione to have female friends & companionship, I certainly don't think it's critical that she do so before she can move on to a romantic relationship. I don't think I understand your point here. > > Ebony again: > > Tabouli wrote in her excellent essay: > > > OTOH, the plot is even *thicker* if Hermione fancies Harry!! > Hoo hoo hoo. > > *smacks forehead* What'd you think we've been trying to *tell* you > guys for the past year or more? ;-) Yeah, exactly. Conflict drives the plot; that's what we've been saying. If the romance angle is to be just a humorous subplot (and it might well be), then R/H & even H/G makes some sense. If the romance angle is going to at all affect the bigger events, then there must be conflict. R/H will be good for some laughs perhaps, but there is no inherent conflict there. Hermione having feelings for Harry though: that creates conflict potentially between Ron and Hermione, Ron and Harry, Harry and Hermione and Hermione & Ginny. Conflict all around, eh? Thickens the plot quite alot as Tabouli said. I also liked (and agree with) Ebony's analysis that so far there's been no real Harry-Hermione conflict. There are a number of scenarios that might result in H/H conflict, but romantic feelings on one or both sides would surely introduce a whole lot of conflict into the mix. Megan said in a later message: > I guess I've never wanted to have Hermione to have a "crush" because > it just sounds so shallow and petty for so great a character. But, as > teenagers, that's just something that almost everyone that age goes > through--like a coming of age test of sorts. They'll all have crushes; it would be virtually impossible to survive adolesence without one. What's so bad about crushes? We've all had them; all lived through it. I presume a "crush" encompasses all romantic feelings: sometimes in ends up unrequited, other times it results in a relationship that is either lasting or not. That's part of life. Penny From Edblanning at aol.com Sun Jan 6 20:55:59 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 15:55:59 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] RE: Floo Powder and Security at Hogwarts/ Pyjama party Message-ID: <25.20fd070d.296a13df@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32897 Daibhaid says >Because of the enchantments of Hogwarts, specifically noted in >_Hogwarts, a History_, sorry Amazon dot com doesn't carry >this...yet. :^), you cannot spell yourself into the school or in >the school. Is there a ref for this? I only recall the restriction being quoted for dis/appariton. I wrote >[snip] How on earth do you keep >anything secure with locks, standard >or magical, when a first year can >open [snip] Snape's office, which he >tells us was locked with a spell >which only a wizard could break. Kelly replies >The office was unlocked and opened when second-year Hermione sneaked in >during class. This is certainly the obvious answer, especially if the dungeon where the class takes place is next door, as I suppose it probably is. The fact still stands, though, that Snape *believes* that his office has be broken into by students: he admits it to Crouch-as-Moody in the pyjama party scene and therefore it must be feasible >The wizard-only spell is to keep Peeves out. Considering the damage he >inflicts and the problems he causes in the kitchen, this is sensible. It is certainly give as the reason that it cannot have been Peeves in there. But given the fact that there always seems to be at least one wizard around the place that Snape doesn't trust, I'd have thought he'd have been more careful. Clio has made me think again about that pyjama party. One of the great things about it is the misunderstandings and uncertainties that are going on. I don't think Crouch is sure of where Snape stands. perhaps he had, in addition to stealing stuff for the polyjuice potion, been looking for something that might indicate his loyalties. In their conversation, he seems to be probing him: Snape hears Moody the auror, who knows his DE past (penseive scene) taunt him about the Dark Mark and quickly backtracks after accidentally implying that he has it in for Harry. Crouch on the other hand picks up quickly on the hostility towards Harry (is he hoping to find an ally?) and I think we can almost hear disappointment in his voice when Snape explains it away. Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From caliburncy at yahoo.com Sun Jan 6 21:30:32 2002 From: caliburncy at yahoo.com (caliburncy) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 21:30:32 -0000 Subject: Sorta SHIP: Inherent conflict in R/H (was Re: Ginny & Molly Quality Time...) In-Reply-To: <3C38B9BA.1070605@swbell.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32898 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Penny & Bryce wrote: > If the romance angle is to be just a humorous subplot (and it > might well be), then R/H & even H/G makes some sense. If the > romance angle is going to at all affect the bigger events, then > there must be conflict. R/H will be good for some laughs perhaps, > but there is no inherent conflict there. While I continue to steadfastly take no official shipping stance, I would like to comment on this. I agree very much with the view that JKR's intended purpose for the romance (humorous subplot vs. source of conflict vs. point of resolution) bears heavily upon which ships best serve that purpose. However, I disagree that R/H could not be a possible point of conflict if JKR so wished. I seem to recall that we here at one point speculated (rather briefly) on what circumstances could alienate Harry from both Ron and Hermione, since thus far there has never been a circumstance where Harry has been alienated from both simultaneously, and thus he has never been totally alone. A relationship between Ron and Hermione could easily lend itself to this sort of alienation of Harry, and that certainly seems like a source of conflict to me. I'm not saying R/H is superior to H/H or FITD or any other ships in its ability to create conflict (it's almost surely not--I see FITD as the greatest source of conflict, if conflict is what JKR is looking for in the relationship element, which of course we don't know for sure), but I am saying R/H is worthy of similar consideration in this regard as other ships. This Point of Order of the day is brought to you by: -Luke From daoine at bellsouth.net Sun Jan 6 20:15:26 2002 From: daoine at bellsouth.net (Daibhaid & Lynne) Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 15:15:26 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry Not Crying In-Reply-To: <005d01c196e8$cd528180$e6c71bce@hppav> Message-ID: <000901c196ee$e0f63820$716a4ed8@david> No: HPFGUIDX 32899 Eric said... > Also, Harry is English---which also would discourage > him from crying. The > English ideal (and any net.Englishmen or > net.Englishwomen on here are > welcome to correct me, but this is the impression I > got while over there) is > to display very little strong emotion---"that's for > those bally wogs," and > so on. Sorrow and joy are both held in tightly, and > anger, if shown at all, > is supposed to come out in savage dry wit---think > "Blackadder, really p*ssed > off," or something like that. The classic example is > Lord Cardigan's > scornful comment after the Charge of the Light Brigade > about another > officer, that he "screamed like a woman when he was > hit," having just ridden > back from the field over that officer's dead body. (snippers) FWIW not a correction but an addition. I'm Irish, we are an emotional bunch anywho...sort of like the Scots in that manner. :^) And we cry at good music, fine women/or men ;^), and drink. But put our Irish up and look out! :^) The situation you are bespeaking denotes the English class system I am of the mind as depending first on where you happen to be, the feeling is that the English gentry class don't do much of anything but breath, and even that is doubtful at times. I love how it was put in the book "Druids" by Morgan Llwellyn. "He even farts musically." :^) Daibh From Ali at zymurgy.org Sun Jan 6 22:01:52 2002 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 22:01:52 -0000 Subject: Harry Not Crying In-Reply-To: <005d01c196e8$cd528180$e6c71bce@hppav> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32900 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Eric Oppen" wrote: > It's always been my impression that Harry doesn't cry for several different > reasons. Having _been_ a teenage boy myself (this admittedly was when > dinosaurs roamed the earth) I can testify that crying is NOT socially > acceptable for boys beyond about age five, unless in extraordinary > circumstances such as a funeral. I would bet that if Dinky Duddums tried > that "wail and I'll get what I want" act in front of his peers at Smeltings, > or even in front of Piers Polkiss (ISTR he shuts right up when Piers > appears, if you'll pardon a bit of wordplay) his reputation with them would > be mud. > > Also, Harry is English---which also would discourage him from crying. The > English ideal (and any net.Englishmen or net.Englishwomen on here are > welcome to correct me, but this is the impression I got while over there) is > to display very little strong emotion---"that's for those bally wogs," and > so on. Sorrow and joy are both held in tightly, and anger, if shown at all, > is supposed to come out in savage dry wit---think "Blackadder, really p*ssed > off," or something like that. The classic example is Lord Cardigan's > scornful comment after the Charge of the Light Brigade about another > officer, that he "screamed like a woman when he was hit," having just ridden > back from the field over that officer's dead body. > > Finally, Harry probably just retreated behind a wall of apparent > indifference to survive at the Dursleys' residence. > > Comments? I certainly agree that Harry's age and sex rule out crying in front of his male peers. (He could probably get away with it in front of Hermione). I also believe that he's had years of forced practice of hiding emotion - as it would definitely have been used against him with the Dursleys. I'm not sure on the comments regarding his Englishness. The Crimean war was over by 1856, and I think we have changed a bit since then!! I guess that the English have a reputation for hiding emotion, and a dry wit, so perhaps Harry is a literary example of this. Ali From pollux46 at hotmail.com Sun Jan 6 23:01:30 2002 From: pollux46 at hotmail.com (charisjulia) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 23:01:30 -0000 Subject: The Marauders' Friendship In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32901 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "clio44a" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "mullsym255" wrote: > >And just one more thing.. was Lupin ever a > > bit miffed at James for making Sirius best man and godfather to > > Harry? I have to say that if I were in his position, I'd be a bit > > jealous. > > > > Tracy > > > I would like to add some thoughts to your post. You are right, it > appears that Sirius was a 'better' best friend of James than Remus. > And in the famous Whomping-Willow-incident Sirius not only endangered > Snape but also Remus. Imagine what would have happened if Remus > really had killed or only bitten Snape. Was that only carelessness on > Sirius part? > I must admit, I doubt Sirius character a little bit. > Clio, I just wanted to point out that as far as the Whomping Willow incident is concerned I think that one really has to take into consideration Sirius's general character. He is obviously a very excitable and also reckless person who often acts on impulse. Quite the devil-may-care type. This is exemplified by many incidents from the Marauder's "marauding" to his rather violent reaction to James and Lily's deaths. (I know he was in shock, but a calmer person in a similar situation would have been more likely to be stunned into inaction if not quite able to figure out what would be that best legal way get at Peter) In my opinion the incident needn't be anything more than what Remus says: Sirius got annoyed with Snape's sticking his nose into other people's business and thought he'd let him know what Lupin got up to every month, just "for laughs". Not very funny, I know, but Sirius wouldn't be thinking very far ahead. He just wanted to teach Snape a lesson. And surely if Snape had been bitten not only Lupin but mainly Sirius himself would be in big trouble. So he was putting his own neck on the line too. But "shall I do that, now let's see I'd better consider the consequences" does not strike me as something he'd think before doing anything. More likely he wouldn't think at all. As far as the relationship between the Marauders is concerned I think canon makes it perfectly clear that Sirius was James's best friend: "Do you remember who his best friend was?" McGonagall "Never saw one without the other Quite the double act, Sirius Black and James Potter" Madame Rosmerta. "Potter trusted Black beyond all his other friends" Fudge. However I do not believe that undermines their friendship with Remus or Peter at all. In messages some people have said that it is possible to have lots of best friends simultaneously, while others have argued that most people prefer a hierarchy as far as their friendships are concerned. Well can't you have both? According to my experience it is quite possible to have a group of best friends from whom you are closest to one or two. My apologies for the not-exactly- out-of-real-life example, but take "Friends": it is common knowledge to all of the gang that Chandler is both Joey's and Ross's best friend, yet this never seems to cause any tensions. Couldn't J., S. and R. have had a Chandler-Joey-Ross relationship? Oh, and also the tensions you note between H,R and H in book 4 aren't due to their three-way relationship as far as I can see. Harry and Ron would still have argued even if they had never even met Hermione. Of course all this is highly personal. Everyone has and is entitled to his/her own opinion of what a friendship is supposed to be like. These are just my thoughts. Charis Julia. (I hope this is better but have to admit I really have no idea what a hard return is!) From zidanenomiko at yahoo.com Sun Jan 6 23:43:41 2002 From: zidanenomiko at yahoo.com (Hikaru) Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 18:43:41 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Breaking into Snape's office References: Message-ID: <007f01c1970b$fac910c0$de6a8241@compaq> No: HPFGUIDX 32902 I'm new here-- and under 18. However, I'm a literature major, so I shall try to keep up with all you essay writers XD Snip snip! > I wonder what he actually wanted there. For Moody-the-paranoid it > would make sense to search the office of a known Ex-Death Eater. But > Moody is Crouch. So why would Crouch go into Snape's office? > I'm almost positive that Dobby had stolen the gillweed, and that's how he gave it to Harry. Crouch simply told Dobby what he had to do to help Harry and where he could find it. I wouldn't put it past Crouch. Snape later says that he's missing gillweed, and he accuses Harry of stealing it (because of his performance in the second task), as well as the boomslang skin; because we all know that when something BAD goes wrong, Snape blames Harry. > H/R/H were nicking boomslang skin from Snape in their 2nd year > because they couldn't get it from anywhere else, if I remember > correctly. Assuming Croutch brews his Polyjuice Potion himself, which > would hold a high risk for him to be discovered,why would he risk > stealing from Snape's stores? Snape would find out eventually that an > ingredient for Polyjuice Potion is missing, and Crouch can't afford > to give away any hints that there is somebody brewing Polyjuice > somewhere in the castle. > > Crouch, unlike R/H/H could easily go to London to buy boomslang skin > without anybody questioning him about him going there. And while he > was there, why would he not buy complete Polyjuice Potion? Wouldn't > that be less risky than to brew it himself? Would they sell complete Polyjuice Potion? I mean, it is a risky thing to do- as shown by Hermionie's transformation into a partial cat in CoS. It is high level magic as well, so they wouldn't want people who do not possess the skills to brew the potion to have the potion-- a sort of check system. On the same note, Crouch would not be able to leave Hogwarts to go to London, or at least, I am under the impression that none of the teachers can leave the school as the children cannot. They live there and are fed there, with Hogsmead only a short walk away-- why would they want to leave? So, taking this into account- Crouch probably came to the school with a supply of boomslang skin, but ran out for some reason, and then need to "borrow" some from Snape. Snape most likely had not noticed that the supply H/H/R had stolen in CoS until the night he found his torches on, when he also noticed the amount stolen by Crouch. > And another thought about Crouch breaking into Snape's office: Why > wouldn't he hide his tracks better? Snape says the door was ajar and > the torches lit. Wouldn't you use a lumos spell on your wand if you > were searching one's office at night? IMHO either Crouch felt > completely safe to search the office (had Ddore really given Moody > premission to do so?) or he wanted Snape to know someone was in his > office. My opinion was that Crouch was so certain of the fact that he would never get caught, that he could leave the lights on; if anyone was ever suspicious of him entering Snape's office, then he could just simply say that he was just doing a check. Given Snape's past, everyone would accept that "Moody" was just doing his job and trying to make sure the school was safe. Personally, I think assuming the identity of Moody was good idea on Crouch's part. -Hikaru Founder of the Harry Potter Anime Fangirls Anonymous Glomping Butterflies * http://oohikaruoo.pitas.com (directory) Catadamon * http://daintyrose.org/catadamon (fanfiction archive) Mystical Thoughts * http://daintyrose.org/catadamon/blog (fic blog) From pollux46 at hotmail.com Sun Jan 6 23:26:45 2002 From: pollux46 at hotmail.com (charisjulia) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 23:26:45 -0000 Subject: Sirius's name In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32903 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Martin Smith" wrote: > So, okay, "Lupin" is derived from the latin word for wolf, lupus. > And "Remus" brings to mind the legend of Romulus and Remus, who were brought > up by a she-wolf. > But, is not lupin also a flower? > And what is Remus other than "summer" spelt backwards and missing a not so > important m? > Therefore, the PoA DADA professor's name does not always mean "Werewolf" but > sometimes "summer flower". Which, IMHO, describes his personality rather > well: most of the time being a calm, friendly man, like a summer flower, and > sometimes a ferocious killer werewolf. > > /Martin Wow, I'd never spotted that one before! I'm stunned!!! Definitely a plausible interpritation at least to my mind! The wordgames with names are one of the reasons that I love HP so much! Does she really think of all these things or is it just chance? Just thought I'd mention some an idea I had corcerning Sirius's name, which I think is one of the most inspired ones in the book. ( Sorry if somebody's already mentioned this but I'm new here) "Sirius" we know comes from the name of "the Dog Star", the brightest star in the night sky and that is exactly what the word means: "the shining one". The reason for naming a dog Animagi after Alpha Canis Major is, I think, obvious. "Black" is meant to strengthen the reader's conviction at the biginning of PoA that Sirius is in league with Voldemort, to trick him into believing Sirius really is on the "Dark Side". Together thought I think the two words paint a very descriptive picture: imagine a star twinkling against a black sky. That's just what Sirius is , isn't he? A kind of a diamond in the rough Maybe it's a bit of a corny thought... but I like it! Charis Julia. From richasi at azlance.com Sun Jan 6 23:36:01 2002 From: richasi at azlance.com (Richasi) Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 18:36:01 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Breaking into Snape's office In-Reply-To: <007f01c1970b$fac910c0$de6a8241@compaq> Message-ID: <000001c1970a$e679e5a0$e6d51b18@cfl.rr.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32904 > From: Hikaru [mailto:zidanenomiko at yahoo.com] > > was there, why would he not buy complete Polyjuice Potion? Wouldn't > > that be less risky than to brew it himself? > Would they sell complete Polyjuice Potion? I mean, it is a risky thing > to do- as shown by Hermionie's transformation into a partial cat in Not only that, but you NEED something of the person you want to transform into - like in CoS, a hair. I doubt there'd be a shop that would have Polyjuice Potion sitting on the shelves due to this factor. But then again, is there a way to have the Polyjuice already half brewed and THEN stick in the (item) and heat it up... kinda like today's "meals in a box"? Curious :) Richasi From Zarleycat at aol.com Mon Jan 7 00:08:19 2002 From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 00:08:19 -0000 Subject: Harry Not Crying In-Reply-To: <005d01c196e8$cd528180$e6c71bce@hppav> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32905 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Eric Oppen" wrote: > It's always been my impression that Harry doesn't cry for several different > reasons. Having _been_ a teenage boy myself (this admittedly was when > dinosaurs roamed the earth) I can testify that crying is NOT socially > acceptable for boys beyond about age five, unless in extraordinary > circumstances such as a funeral. > > Also, Harry is English---which also would discourage him from crying. The > English ideal (and any net.Englishmen or net.Englishwomen on here are > welcome to correct me, but this is the impression I got while over there) is > to display very little strong emotion---"that's for those bally wogs," and > so on. Sorrow and joy are both held in tightly, and anger, if shown at all, > is supposed to come out in savage dry wit---think "Blackadder, really p*ssed > off," or something like that. > > Finally, Harry probably just retreated behind a wall of apparent > indifference to survive at the Dursleys' residence. > I have no quarrel with any of the above. I do, however, think the situation at the end of GoF places Harry in a somewhat different position. This is the first time that an action he had taken has led to a horrible outcome. I'm talking about the death of Cedric. Had Harry not insisted that Cedric share the glory of winning the Cup, Cedric would have lived. Harry was being generous, but the outcome of that impulse led to Cedric's death. Add to that the whole graveyard experience, including seeing the shades of his parents, and I think we're on a completely different level than simply dealing with the Dursleys shutting Harry in a cupboard, or ignoring his birthday. Does this necessarily mean that Harry must break down and cry? No, I suppose not, but I do think he'll need to find a way to deal with the residual emotional impact of all of this, and he's certainly not going to get emotional support from the Durselys, even assuming Harry sat them down one night and told them everything. (Like they'd even want to listen to him.) I would expect Harry to reach out, through letters, if no other way, to one or more of the adults he respects - Molly, Hagrid, Sirius - or that one or more of them will have a clue and reach out to Harry first. Yes, Harry has shown himself to be strong in the face of adversity, but, hey, he's still only a 14-year-old kid and you can't assume a teenager will be able to handle adult situations all the time without gettinh a little help and guidance along the way. Marianne From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Jan 7 00:10:11 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 00:10:11 -0000 Subject: Dobby's motives in C of S In-Reply-To: <20020106152645.3576.qmail@web14207.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32906 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Kelly Hurt wrote: > --- day782002 wrote: > > > What if Dobby wasn't originally with the Malfoy family? I agree - thought about it myself. > The next part of the theory is that the old wizarding family to whom > Dobby belonged was none other than the Potters and residual loyalty to > them motivates Dobby to try to protect Harry. Thus, when he stumbles > onto L. Malfoy's plan, he attempts to keep Harry from returning to > Hogwarts. I assume that James and Lily were very good to their house > elves and gave them autonomy, thereby sowing Dobby's love of freedom. Yes- thought of it, too. > [The biggest hole in this part of the theory is why Dobby has never > told Harry about working for the Potters.] Dobby feels guilty and is ashamed for having left Harry that night, working for his enemies or maybe baby Harry threw a piece of his clothing to Dobby without knowing what it means, as a play? Latter would explain why Dobby isn't Harry's house-elf, unless it has to do with another 'Minors not allowed'- rule again... > The last part is about the night Harry's parents died. I wondered how > Dumbledore knew to send Hagrid to Godric's Hollow to get Harry "before > the Muggles started swarmin' round". In my attempt to fill in that > hole, I theorized that Dobby -- or another house elf -- 'popped' to > Hogwarts as soon as the house im/exploded and told Dumbledore what > happened. Right - Dobby told everyone! From brewpub44 at earthlink.net Mon Jan 7 02:01:16 2002 From: brewpub44 at earthlink.net (brewpub44) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 02:01:16 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys Hatred for the Wizard World and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32907 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Erin Jacobson" wrote: > I've been thinking about why the Dursleys are so insistent on keeping > Harry in the dark about the wizard world. The general theory is because they > hate wizard and witches. I don't think anyone can disagree with that. But I > think they've been worried that if they let Harry grow-up knowing he was a > wizard then Voldemort would come back to harm Harry, and possibly them as > well. Knowing the Dursleys, their safety, and Dudley's, would be more of a > concern than Harry. They know about Voldemort being the one who killed Lily > and James, from Dumbledore's letter. They probably feared Voldemort would be > back to destroy Harry. I think it's a great idea, and it's been discussed before. But that in no way excuses their absolutely abominable treatment of Harry. I want to see the "summer" scene in the next book be where Harry finally takes the Dursleys to task for their child abuse. They can plead for forgiveness as much as they want, because they were trying to "protect" Harry, but he should not forgive them. I would like to see him find a way to put the fear of God into them, make them afraid that he could give them all pig's tails at any moment. He obviously can't do that, because it would violate the rules, but if he could find a way to make them very afraid of him, I would be very happy, indeed. It's time they got theirs. A Barkeep in Diagon Alley From catlady at wicca.net Mon Jan 7 02:45:05 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 02:45:05 -0000 Subject: Ages of HP Characters Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32908 http://www.scholastic.com/harrypotter/author/transcript2.htm says: "Q: How old is old in the wizarding world, and how old are Professors Dumbledore and McGonagall? A: Dumbledore is a hundred and fifty, and Professor McGonagall is a sprightly seventy. Wizards have a much longer life expectancy than Muggles. (Harry hasn't found out about that yet.)" http://www.comicrelief.com/harrysbooks/pages/transcript.shtml says: "Q: How old are Professor Dumbledore and Professor Snape? A: Dumbledore's about 150 years old... wizards have a longer life expectancy than us Muggles, Snape's 35 or 6." I figured that maybe wizarding folk age at the same rate as Muggles for the first 20 (or 21, which is a magical number) years, and then at half the rate of Muggles, trying the following computations: Dumbledore is 150. # 150 - 20 = 130. # 130 / 2 = 65. # 65 + 20 = 85. 85 with long white beard and hair and starting to look worn and tired sounds plausible enough, I guess 150 years old is the wizard equivalent of 85 Muggle years old. McGonagall is 70. # 70 - 20 = 50. # 50 / 2 = 25. # 25 + 20 = 45. 45 and her hair is still black is plausible enough, and she looks younger than I would have thought in JKR's own sketch of her (posted in the Photos Section by Muridae (anony-Mice?)). Thus 70 years old is the wizarding equivalent of 45 Muggle years old... Which suggests that some witches can still bear children at age 70. Arthur and Molly Weasley appear to be in their (Muggle equivalent) late 40s. Call it 50. # 50 - 20 = 30. # 30 * 2 = 60. # 60 + 20 = 80. If they are 80 years old, there is NO PROBLEM with Molly reminiscing of the gamekeeper before Hagrid, a man named Ogg. They would have left school the year before Hagrid even entered, let alone was expelled. HOWEVER, in Tom Riddle's diary, Dumbledore was 100. # 100 - 20 = 80. # 80 / 2 = 40 # 40 + 20 = 60. And I have trouble believing that Dumbledore in Tom Riddle's Diary had a Muggle equivalent age a day over 50, and it was surely closer to 40. The hair and beard were (as Brooks said in the YahooClubs HP4GU post which inspired the original of this essay) described as 'auburn', not 'auburn at the bottom fading to white at the roots' or 'faded auburn streaked with white', and there is no indication of worry lines on forehead or smile lines beside eyes. Can someone please explain this away for me? Minerva COULD have been a 7th year student in 1945 (as in a fanfic mentioned in that ghost-club's discussion). JKR's statement that she 'is' 70 depends on 'what the meaning of "is" is' -- Minerva was 70 at the time of Book 1 (1991-2 school year) OR at the time of Book 4 (1994-5) (interview was for Book 4's book release publicity tour) OR at the time of the interview (2000) OR 'now' (2002). So I chose an interpretation of 'is' which makes her the same age as Hagrid, a third year student in 1942-43, thus a seventh year student in 1946-47... That is, born seventy years some months before the day of that interview. JKR said Snape 'is' thirty-five or thirty-six. As I am married to my conviction that the Marauders and Snape are the same age as me, that is, born in 1957-58, I interpreted that 'is' to mean that he was 36 years and several months at the moment GoF began in summer of '94. However, that damn plaque in the movie messes it up. James Potter, Seeker, 1972. In my world, James would have been a third-year in '72. If the plaque stands for winning the Quidditch Cup, therefore Gryff won it when James was third-year, then Gryff surely won it in other years that James was on the team. And if the plaque is Player of the Year and he won it as a third-year, he should have won it that much more when he was older, more experienced, and bigger and stronger. DO YOU THINK THE PLAQUE COULD HAVE BEEN Rookie of the Year? Do you think the great James Potter might not have made it onto the first string until his third year, or that he was really Class of '75 not '76 (and won Rookie of the Year as a second-year)? Lexicon Steve says the movie is not canon, but I want that plaque to be real because I want James to have been Seeker not Chaser. From tabouli at unite.com.au Mon Jan 7 03:23:53 2002 From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 14:23:53 +1100 Subject: Gender roles, acronyms, postal possibilities, limited natural resources Message-ID: <00af01c1972a$d10e9920$de0fdccb@price> No: HPFGUIDX 32909 Does it strike anyone else as interesting that the people earnestly debating the 14yo Harry and his (lack of) tears and problems with expressing emotion all, as far as I can tell, seem to be female listmembers?? (btw, Harry also cried, albeit involuntarily, after confronting the Boggart-Dementor in Lupin's office, to his great shame). Where are the English male listmembers who actually remember being a 14yo English boy? (Neil? David?) Ah! Just read on and found that Eric, Ali and Daibh eventually rose to the task. Good. Though only after a couple of days of earnest discussion among the women... which says something in itself, doesn't it? :) Ebony: > I incited a flame skirmish on another grown-up Harry Potter list for stating that Hermione was "all girl". I don't care if some think that's an anti- feminist statement, she is just as feminine in her own way as Lavender and Parvati are, and as Ginny (in the very limited glimpses we get of her) is. That's not a feminine vs. non-feminine thing; it's a personality thing. She is not portrayed as a tomboy or as an asexual nerd. She's just a smart girl. That's all.< I suppose it comes down to your concept of femininity, doesn't it? If "femininity" means taking an interest in your appearance, giggling about boys, etc. I suppose arguably Hermione isn't that "feminine". OTOH, the gender differences between the behaviour of Hermione and that of Ron and Harry are clear cut and fairly typical... Hermione is a better amateur psychoanalyst of e.g. Ron's feelings, takes the emotionally nurturing role, plays moral police officer, etc. I myself was once very like Hermione, would rather have died than admit to a crush, disdained taking an interest in my appearance (or, more honestly, was too self-conscious and insecure to do so), focussed much more on intellectual things than relationshippy girly things like gossiping about boys, and yes, rumours went about that I must therefore be (gasp!) a lesbian (which, for the record, I'm not... in fact, quite the reverse: I was very male-identified), uncool, etc.etc. Even after I left school someone once told me I had a "masculine" personality! This, I think, was based mostly on my intellectual confidence, like the "non-feminine" verdicts on Hermione. I do exhibit some stereotypically "masculine" behaviour, but I still think I'm fundamentally feminine. Megan: > Oh, no, I wasn't saying anyone else had either. :-D I think I was jsut trying to point out that Hermione goes from apparently (Harry's perspective, remember) zero interest in guys her age, to basically entering "Prom Court" at the Yule Ball< Not zero interest... don't forget Hermione's (no doubt by now deeply embarrassing) second year crush on Lockhart! --jenny from ravenclaw, who wishes Tabouli would come up with a cool acronym for Harry lovers like me ******************* Could be arranged... what admirable qualities of Harry's would you like included? Perhaps: C.H.I.M.P.A.N.Z.E.E. "Courageous Harry Is Modest, Perceptive And Nimble!" Zealous Enthusiasts Extol. Amanda Snape: > ~*If this group has a key for all of Tabouli's acronyms, I missed it. Has someone created a guide for all of the various "clubs" and what they stand for? It would sure be helpful for a relative newbie like myself if I could understand what everyone meant when tney said they were a member of ...[insert obscure word]. Don't get me wrong - I enjoy the acronyms. I just want to know what they stand for!*~< Not all of the clubs' acronyms were invented by me (though I seem to have become primary acronym generator of late). All the same, I still have copies of all my own posts, so if you really want I could try to dig up all of mine for you and post 'em (on or off-list). A cursory glance over my files yielded: T.A.G.S. (Tabouli's Acronym Generation Service) L.O.L.L.I.P.O.P.S. (Love Of Lily Left Ire Polluting Our Poor Severus) L.A.N.D.L.U.B.B.E.R.S. (Love And Nookie Detesters: Let Us Ban Boring Endless Romantic Speculations!)(contrast with Shippers, who like discussing romantic relationships between characters) F.L.I.N.T. (Flint-Like Inconsistencies Nitpicked Triumphantly)(reference to the Slytherin Quidditch captain, whom JKR accidentally kept on as captain after he should actually have left school: a genuine: genuine admitted mistake) F.O.B. (Fans Of Bombadil)( : D ) F.R.A.T.R.I.C.I.D.E. (Fellowship of Rings Avoiding Tolkien Rejectors Introduced Cinematically Into Delightful Escapism) ... but there are dozens more. Most of my longer ones are for the specialised niche market and are too unwieldy for everyday use; the shorter snappier ones you've probably been seeing bandied around pre-date me, like: L.O.O.N. (League of Overly Obsessed Nitpickers) C.R.A.B. (Cut Ron A Break) S.C.H.A.B.B. (Stop Calling Hermione A Bossy Braggart) F.I.T.D. (Farmer In The Dell: Ron likes Hermione who likes Harry who likes Cho who likes Cedric, who's dead, etc.) In the voice of the Grey Wolf (arOOO): hope that helps. Penny: > I asked earlier: where was Ginny during the aftermath of the 3rd Task when her love interest (Harry) was quite obviously in a bad spot?< Blindfolded by Molly's apron strings (so she didn't see sights unfit for little eyes)? Gazing horrified from inside Harry's blind spot? More likely not mentioned because she was irrelevant to the plot, or banished to the cutting room floor by editors desperate to cut GoF down below 1000 pages. Now, two new musings I had this morning... Sirius is constantly expressing concern that his mail might be intercepted, but so far as we've seen all owls have always reached their addressee unhindered. When you think about it, though, assuming that owls fly in the normal way to their destination (no going "between" or whatever), it would be very easy to find someone by recognising their owl and following it on a broomstick. And, presumably, to catch the owl somehow (Accio Hedwig!) or even kill it, to read the mail and, if necessary, stop it getting through. Musings: is JKR foreshadowing a lost in the post or substituted letter twist? Can people tell if mail has been tampered with, or can the owl tell the wizard? Might Hedwig be the fan of Harry's who dies, slain by a postal predator? And where, O where did Pigwidgeon so conveniently appear from, just when Sirius needed him?? OK, so Crookshanks is confident that the whizzing featherball is a Good Guy, but could there be something more to it? (I suppose there's always Ye Olde Animagus trick, but I'm getting very tired of that one, and apparently he's definitely an owl). Could he be linked to a character who might rise to prominence, like Dedalus Diggle, or Otto Bagman? (maybe there'll be a miniature racing owl breeder somewhere!) Not likely, I grant you, but I like Pigwidgeon, and it'd be fun for him to turn out to be significant. My other musing is that Potions, requiring (as it does) the body parts of obscure magical and non-magical creatures, must surely be vulnerable to swings of the eco-system in a way other magical disciplines would not. What if the Boomslang were to become extinct? The price of Polyjuice manufacture would skyrocket, subterfuges like Barty Junior's would become very difficult, and there might be a resurgence in the illegal use of the Imperio charm! Tabouli. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Jan 7 03:27:45 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 03:27:45 -0000 Subject: The worst of times... In-Reply-To: <002401c1965b$ffe3e400$7d3bfea9@cable.rcn.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32910 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Ms. Found in A Bottle" wrote: > Aja wrote: > > > For whatever reason, I feel like leveling that subjectivity in a > > completely different direction, out of fairness to our enigmatic > > professor--so here comes a completely idle question to turn the tables a > > bit: > > > > What's the worst thing *Harry's* ever done? > > > I had to really think of this, but I feel the worst is the way that Harry if > often kinda rubbing in Ron's face the fact that he's rich and Ron's not > (esp. in GoF). Does he? Harry would give Ron half of his vault but knows all too well that Ron wouldn't accept it. As I see it, Harry [i]wants[/i] to share his galleons. He's just happy to be able to share. But then at the end of GoF when he gives F&G the TriWizard > Tournament winnings...I would have thought he might consider giving it to > his best friend. Giving 1000 Galleons to F&G instead of Ron with a notion: Buy Ron new dressrobes and say it's from you. That's one of the best things he did, IMO. F&G are happiest to get their WWW-joke shop. This was their desire, their dream and goal of life. F&G tried to refuse at first (as Ron would have, as ANY Weasley would have) but did have the grace to thank Harry as well as to accept it. That hex-thing was an excuse - but the matter of Ron was the real reason... Ron's dream is not really 'getting rich' - it's 'getting something new from family' (remember how happy he was when he got his new wand? Happier than about Pigwidgeon, was he not?) - and Harry managed to organise that, too! If Harry had given his prize-money to Ron - just trying to give it would have been offence - like saying: "Here, you have these, so you know I did not put my name into the damn goblet! I don't want the bloody money. You keep it - I'm sick of hearing you complaining about being poor all the time". Worst he did... Cheating Neville, who was offering to keep him company while sneaking out to Hogsmeade! And, while in, hitting Draco under invisibility cloak - that whole episode was just cheap! From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jan 7 03:34:42 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 03:34:42 -0000 Subject: postal possibilities,Wizarding conservation In-Reply-To: <00af01c1972a$d10e9920$de0fdccb@price> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32911 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Tabouli" wrote: >> Sirius is constantly expressing concern that his mail might be intercepted, but so far as we've seen all owls have always reached their addressee unhindered. << Not so. Dobby brandishes a summer's worth of letters he intercepted at the beginning of CoS. And Vernon Dursley was quite handy at coming between Harry and his owls. Harry's Hogwarts letter had to be hand delivered by Hagrid. > > My other musing is that Potions, requiring (as it does) the body parts of obscure magical and non-magical creatures, must surely be vulnerable to swings of the eco-system in a way other magical disciplines would not. What if the Boomslang were to become extinct? The price of Polyjuice manufacture would skyrocket, subterfuges like Barty Junior's would become very difficult, and there might be a resurgence in the illegal use of the Imperio charm!<< Thus the wizards' great interest in setting aside nature preserves long before the Muggle world became interested in such things. Pippin From tabouli at unite.com.au Mon Jan 7 03:46:38 2002 From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 14:46:38 +1100 Subject: Oops on intercepted mail Message-ID: <001001c1972d$eda4af40$1e52dccb@price> No: HPFGUIDX 32912 Pippin: > >> Sirius is constantly expressing concern that his mail might be intercepted, but so far as we've seen all owls have always reached their addressee unhindered. << Not so. Dobby brandishes a summer's worth of letters he intercepted at the beginning of CoS. And Vernon Dursley was quite handy at coming between Harry and his owls. Harry's Hogwarts letter had to be hand delivered by Hagrid.< Oops, yes, you're quite right. That was a rash sweeping statement made without much thought or consultation... *BUT* it does call to mind another possible Flint, haha... Harry's letters were flying out of the Dursley fireplace, right? Yet in GoF, the fireplace appears to be totally blocked by the presence of an ecklectical fire (with a Plug), to the extent that the Weasleys are all stuck inside and have to blast the eckle-trickery thing out. So OK, maybe the electric fire was put in after PS/SS, or the it's just magic factor means the letters can sneak around the fire or something. All the same... Tabouli. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com Mon Jan 7 03:50:01 2002 From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 21:50:01 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Oops on intercepted mail References: <001001c1972d$eda4af40$1e52dccb@price> Message-ID: <3C391AE9.1A14B625@kingwoodcable.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32913 Tabouli wrote: > Oops, yes, you're quite right. That was a rash sweeping statement made without much thought or consultation... *BUT* it does call to mind another possible Flint, haha... Harry's letters were flying out of the Dursley fireplace, right? Yet in GoF, the fireplace appears to be totally blocked by the presence of an ecklectical fire (with a Plug), to the extent that the Weasleys are all stuck inside and have to blast the eckle-trickery thing out. > > So OK, maybe the electric fire was put in after PS/SS, or the it's just magic factor means the letters can sneak around the fire or something. All the same... Katze: There is still a vent small enough for ventilation in an electrical fireplace, so there was probably room for the letters to come in, but nothing larger than a foot, I'd say. -Katze From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com Mon Jan 7 03:50:53 2002 From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 21:50:53 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Gender roles, acronyms, postal possibilities, limited natural resources References: <00af01c1972a$d10e9920$de0fdccb@price> Message-ID: <3C391B1D.7F2DB15B@kingwoodcable.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32914 Tabouli wrote: > C.H.I.M.P.A.N.Z.E.E. "Courageous Harry Is Modest, Perceptive And Nimble!" Zealous Enthusiasts Katze: I would like to join L.O.O.N., C.H.I.M.P.A.N.Z.E.E., and C.R.A.B. > Musings: is JKR foreshadowing a lost in the post or substituted letter twist? Can people tell if mail has been tampered with, or can the owl tell the wizard? Might Hedwig be the fan of Harry's who dies, slain by a postal predator? And where, O where did Pigwidgeon so conveniently appear from, just when Sirius needed him?? OK, so Crookshanks is confident that the whizzing featherball is a Good Guy, but could there be something more to it? (I suppose there's always Ye Olde Animagus trick, but I'm getting very tired of that one, and apparently he's definitely an owl). Could he be linked to a character who might rise to prominence, like Dedalus Diggle, or Otto Bagman? (maybe there'll be a miniature racing owl breeder somewhere!) > > Not likely, I grant you, but I like Pigwidgeon, and it'd be fun for him to turn out to be significant. Katze: I love Pigwidgeon as well. I think he's absolutely adorable. I'm hoping that there aren't anymore surprise animagus (like Hedwig being one or Crookshanks being one....evidence doesn't not support these ideas), because it's been used before...' As for mail being tampered. I would actually that they might be able to detect a letter that's been tampered with if the letters came from the wizarding world, because I don't think wizarding envelopes have glue on them to keep them shut. We know that they use the wax and stamp to seal the envelopes. Geez...I wonder how many pounds of wax Hogwarts used to get Harry his letter. Katze From klhurt at yahoo.com Mon Jan 7 03:49:27 2002 From: klhurt at yahoo.com (Kelly Hurt) Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 19:49:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: the Dursley Fireplace In-Reply-To: <001001c1972d$eda4af40$1e52dccb@price> Message-ID: <20020107034927.87262.qmail@web14207.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32915 --- Tabouli wrote: >*BUT* it does call to mind another >possible Flint, haha... Harry's >letters were flying out of the >Dursley fireplace, right? Yet in GoF, >the fireplace appears to be totally >blocked by the presence of an >ecklectical fire (with a Plug), to >the extent that the Weasleys are all >stuck inside and have to blast the >eckle-trickery thing out. > >So OK, maybe the electric fire was >put in after PS/SS, or the it's just >magic factor means the letters can >sneak around the fire or something. >All the same... Actually, the letters came through the kitchen fireplace, hitting Vernon in the back of the head at breakfast. The closed fireplace is in the lounge/living room/parlor. Kelly the Yarn Junkie ===== Pensieve A Harry Potter List for Adults Low Traffic - High Quality http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pensieve __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ From Edblanning at aol.com Mon Jan 7 08:04:33 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 03:04:33 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Breaking into Snape's office Message-ID: <87.1593afc5.296ab091@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32916 Clio: > And another thought about Crouch breaking into Snape's office: Why > wouldn't he hide his tracks better? Snape says the door was ajar and > the torches lit. Wouldn't you use a lumos spell on your wand if you > were searching one's office at night? IMHO either Crouch felt > completely safe to search the office (had Ddore really given Moody > premission to do so?) or he wanted Snape to know someone was in his > office. Hikaru: >My opinion was that Crouch was so certain of the fact that he would >never get caught, that he could leave the lights on; if anyone was ever >suspicious of him entering Snape's office, then he could just simply >say that he was just doing a check. Given Snape's past, everyone would >accept that "Moody" was just doing his job and trying to make sure the >school was safe. Personally, I think assuming the identity of Moody was >good idea on Crouch's part. Clio, you got me to go back and read that again and something hit me in bed this morning (yes, sad, isn't it?): That was how I remembered it, the door of Snape's office open. But it wasn't. Snape says that as he passed his office, he saw that the torches were lit and a *cupboard* door open. I assume as he passed the closed office door, he saw the lights burning from underneath, as you would if the passage were in darkness, and entered. The torches were still burning and the cupboard door still open not through Crouch-Moody's carelessness or confidence at not being caught, but because *he was still there*, hidden under this invisibility cloak. (Poor Severus, he does have problems with these invisibility cloaks. Personally, I hope he inherits Crouch's. I can invisage wonderful scenes of him and Harry invisibly bumping into each other in the dead of night) But I digress... This explains why we don't hear Moody clunking along until after Snape arrives on the scene : he lesft the office after Snape, not before. (It doesn't explain why Snape didn't hear him clunk into the office, but maybe he muffled the artificial leg and in any case Snape is probably used to him clunking around at all hours.) It is also why Moody is wearing his old travelling cloak rather than a dressing gown over his nightshirt. Travelling cloaks I envisage to be rather large, all-enveloping kinds of garments. Perhaps he's still wearing the invisibility cloak underneath,or else it is large enough to conceal how he's carrying it. I think lighting the torches is sensible. Anyone passing the office would think Snape was working late, whereas wand light flickering around might look more suspicious. It also allows him to get what he wants more quickly. Hikaru's point again raises the vexed question of who exactly knows that Snape was a DE. I am sure that this cannot be public knowledge for reasons stated before and I doubt that it is common knowledge in the staffroom. Off the top of my head (I need to check this), the only people at Hogwarts whom we *know * are aware are Dumbledore, Crouch-Moody and Karkaroff. Eloise (who can start her day and get on with thinking about the things she's supposed to be thinking about, now she's got that off her chest). [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From toogoodforthisearth at yahoo.com Mon Jan 7 10:14:11 2002 From: toogoodforthisearth at yahoo.com (toogoodforthisearth) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 10:14:11 -0000 Subject: Harry Not Crying In-Reply-To: <005d01c196e8$cd528180$e6c71bce@hppav> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32917 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Eric Oppen" wrote: > It's always been my impression that Harry doesn't cry for several different > reasons. Having _been_ a teenage boy myself (this admittedly was when > dinosaurs roamed the earth) I can testify that crying is NOT socially > acceptable for boys beyond about age five, unless in extraordinary > circumstances such as a funeral. I would bet that if Dinky Duddums tried > that "wail and I'll get what I want" act in front of his peers at Smeltings, > or even in front of Piers Polkiss (ISTR he shuts right up when Piers > appears, if you'll pardon a bit of wordplay) his reputation with them would > be mud. > > Also, Harry is English---which also would discourage him from crying. The > English ideal (and any net.Englishmen or net.Englishwomen on here are > welcome to correct me, but this is the impression I got while over there) is > to display very little strong emotion---"that's for those bally wogs," and > so on. Sorrow and joy are both held in tightly, and anger, if shown at all, > is supposed to come out in savage dry wit---think "Blackadder, really p*ssed > off," or something like that. The classic example is Lord Cardigan's > scornful comment after the Charge of the Light Brigade about another > officer, that he "screamed like a woman when he was hit," having just ridden > back from the field over that officer's dead body. > > Finally, Harry probably just retreated behind a wall of apparent > indifference to survive at the Dursleys' residence. > > Comments? I know it was meant to be a joke to illustrate a certain type of Englishness but I just wanted to point out that the word wog is very offensive. I wouldn't want anyone coming to England and getting into trouble by using the word. Helly From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Mon Jan 7 10:35:05 2002 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 7 Jan 2002 10:35:05 -0000 Subject: File - netiquette2.txt Message-ID: <1010399705.94804467.54557.m12@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32918 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 Jan 7 10:35:05 2002 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 7 Jan 2002 10:35:05 -0000 Subject: File - VFAQ.htm Message-ID: <1010399705.94804237.54557.m12@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32919 An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jzimjzim at yahoo.com Mon Jan 7 03:35:16 2002 From: jzimjzim at yahoo.com (jzimjzim) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 03:35:16 -0000 Subject: Snape Prowling In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32920 > Jo Ellen Rober wrote: > > I have not always gotten an explaination as to why Snape is roaming > the castle in the middle of the night. Perhaps some musings about the Astronomy class could lead to some possible explanations. We know that there is at least one Astronomy class that meets on Wednesday at midnight in the tallest tower. I wonder if there might be other Astronomy classes that meet on other nights at various hours? If so, there would students going to and from the tallest tower at these "odd" hours. Perhaps teachers (e.g. Snape) have the equivalent of "yard duty" at night - patrolling the halls to be sure the astronomy students don't get into mischief going to and from classes. Plausible??? jzim (Who thinks maybe "yard duty" makes Snape especially crabby at night.) From ChaserChick at hotmail.com Mon Jan 7 03:56:00 2002 From: ChaserChick at hotmail.com (Liz Sager) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 21:56:00 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Dursleys Hatred for the Wizard World and Harry Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32921 Erin wrote: >B) They fear Voldemort. This I agree with, but maybe that's not all they're afraid of. Because if that's what Dumbledore tells them in the letter, they know that LV killed James and Lily, but *Harry* defeated *him*. Perhaps they're not only scared of LV (even though he's "dead" for all purposes), but scared of Harry too. >One more thought. How long do you think Lily and Petunia's falling out >lasted for? For instance, do you think Lily went to Vernon and Petunia's >wedding? I imagine perhaps Lily attended. For some reason I think either James stayed home or Lily dragged him kicking and screaming (well, not really kicking and screaming...but against his will). Liz _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Jan 7 14:11:32 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 14:11:32 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys Hatred for the Wizard World and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32922 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Liz Sager" wrote: > Erin wrote: > > >B) They fear Voldemort. > > This I agree with, but maybe that's not all they're afraid of. Because if > that's what Dumbledore tells them in the letter, they know that LV killed > James and Lily, but *Harry* defeated *him*. Perhaps they're not only scared > of LV (even though he's "dead" for all purposes), but scared of Harry too. Could be. At least the Dursleys have known that Harry Potter is magical. They tried to rid Harry of magic with no success. > >One more thought. How long do you think Lily and Petunia's falling out > >lasted for? For instance, do you think Lily went to Vernon and Petunia's > >wedding? > > I imagine perhaps Lily attended. For some reason I think either James stayed > home or Lily dragged him kicking and screaming (well, not really kicking and > screaming...but against his will). LOL - I'd like to know how Lily got him there... From Joanne0012 at aol.com Mon Jan 7 14:53:33 2002 From: Joanne0012 at aol.com (joanne0012) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 14:53:33 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys Hatred for the Wizard World and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32923 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "finwitch" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Liz Sager" wrote: > > Erin wrote: > > > > >B) They fear Voldemort. > > > > This I agree with, but maybe that's not all they're afraid of. > Because if > > that's what Dumbledore tells them in the letter, they know that LV > killed > > James and Lily, but *Harry* defeated *him*. Perhaps they're not > only scared > > of LV (even though he's "dead" for all purposes), but scared of > Harry too. > > Could be. At least the Dursleys have known that Harry Potter is > magical. They tried to rid Harry of magic with no success. But they wouldn't have TRIED if they didn't think it might be possible. Vernon has stated his determination to rid Harry of his magical tendencies, and refuses to pay to send Harry to a school to be "taught tricks." Petunia never mentions Lily showing any evidence of magical talent before getting her Hogwarts letter. So perhaps the Dursleys think that Harry's little displays of magical power can indeed be thwarted through their oppressive treatment. If they'd been told that as an infant he had somehow defeated a powerful bad wizard, I expect they'd have a lot more fear and a lot less confidence in their own chances of repressing his magical powers. Anyway, I doubt that Dumbledore would have revealed lots of wizarding business in the letter. He was putting Harry with the Dursleys to keep him AWAY from the wizarding world, and must have realized that the Dursleys didn't have much contact or know much about it. I wonder if we'll ever be told what was in the letter -- I assumed it mentioned that Harry's parents were killed but not lots of details about Voldemort's activities. From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Jan 7 14:55:28 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 14:55:28 -0000 Subject: Snape & DADA: hearsay, or a true slight? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32924 I think Snape has applied for it, and as a former DE he does know the business (which both he and Dumbledore know). Quirrell (faints after mentioning a troll) and Lockhart (risks students, concentrates on his own ego, and in the end, obliviates himself with a broken wand he stole from a student) *were* totally unqualified! This WOULD piss Snape off - DADA is important, and Dumbledore choosing an incompetent teacher instead of him who at least would know what he's talking about... Lupin was excellent at it - too bad he was a werewolf. Crouch/Moody was good, too - and Moody as an ex-auror knew more than well the business. However, Snape does except perfection from the beginning. He has no patience for errors (and students DO make errors). This would cause a student to hesitate without full knowledge, knowing how Snape is. It is good when dealing with potions, where the slightest error is dangerous. In DADA, the courage to at least try is more important than perfection of a spell. Just watch Ron use the ONLY spell he knows along with Harry to defeat a troll, Harry using the only advantage he had when fighting Quirrell, his incomplete, but successful enough a Patronus etc. Most important qualification for a DADA teacher, IMO, is the ability to encourage students. This is something Snape lacks, and would, probably, be more likely to discourage them. Even having a teacher without full knowledge is better, as if a student can i.e. defeat a troll when his teacher faints at it's mention, what could be a better encouragement than that? I think Snape doesn't understand that, but Dumbledore does. Besides, Snape knows his potions, and Dumbledore would have a great deal of trouble to find someone to fulfil THAT potition if Snape got to teach DADA - I doubt that Dumbledore sees any subject thought in HIS school to be without merit... From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Mon Jan 7 15:28:40 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 15:28:40 -0000 Subject: SHIP (mercifully short): Thickness of plot (was Hermione) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32925 > Tabouli : > > OTOH, the plot is even *thicker* if Hermione fancies Harry!! Ebony: > *smacks forehead* What'd you think we've been trying to *tell* you > guys for the past year or more? ;-) > Not that, IMO. There is surely a distinction between: (a) thicker plot; (b) likely development; (c) desirable development (for the reader). It is possible to accept that H/H or FITD would make for interesting - even the most interesting - plot developments, while still believing that the balance of GOF evidence is in favour of incipient R/H. Where 'incipient' is something that could be cut off at any time. Or is someone going to try to blag me that all those H/H posts are just speculations along the lines of 'now what would cause most complexity and angst in future books... let me see... Hermione fancies Harry - what an interesting idea to consider in the abstract!' David From btk6y at virginia.edu Mon Jan 7 15:35:56 2002 From: btk6y at virginia.edu (btk6y) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 15:35:56 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys Hatred for the Wizard World and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32926 >Maybe they hate the wizard world because: >A) Petunia is a squib and is bitter and jealous at Lily, and the wizard >world in general. Much like Filch is. Technically speaking, Petunia cannot be a Squib because a Squib is someone from wizarding background without magical ability, while Petunia is a Muggle from a Muggle background. From IAmLordCassandra at aol.com Mon Jan 7 13:31:05 2002 From: IAmLordCassandra at aol.com (IAmLordCassandra at aol.com) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 08:31:05 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Breaking into Snape's office Message-ID: <7b.2106f8ec.296afd19@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32927 In a message dated 1/6/2002 9:49:56 AM Eastern Standard Time, clio at unicum.de writes: > I wonder what he actually wanted there. For Moody-the-paranoid it > would make sense to search the office of a known Ex-Death Eater. But > Moody is Crouch. So why would Crouch go into Snape's office? Well, according to Crouch Jr in the Veritaserum Chapter: <"I stole the boomslang skin from the dungeons. When the Potions master found me in his office, I said I was under orders to search it."> There you have it, the answer straight from the Veritaserumed Crouch. ^-^ But here's the thing. In the Chapter 'The Egg and the Eye', when Snape and "Moody" are talking and Moody is questioning Snape, Snape says: <"You know I'm hiding nothing, Moody, as you've searched my office pretty thoroughly yourself."> In that chapter, he does not even suspect Moody. In fact, he suspects: "A student, I daresay..." I don't think he jumps to Harry right away, though he might've thought of him. In this case, Snape is right and it's not really an unfair accusation, especially when he sees Harry with the gillyweed that could've only come from his office ~Cassie~ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cityhawk at pobox.com Mon Jan 7 15:28:06 2002 From: cityhawk at pobox.com (Karl Haakonsen) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 10:28:06 -0500 Subject: SHIPS: Ron, Hermione, Harry and conflict. In-Reply-To: <1010359367.3878.84552.m9@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32928 Penny & Bryce said: < Conflict drives the plot; that's what we've been saying. If the romance angle is to be just a humorous subplot (and it might well be), then R/H & even H/G makes some sense. If the romance angle is going to at all affect the bigger events, then there must be conflict. R/H will be good for some laughs perhaps, but there is no inherent conflict there. Hermione having feelings for Harry though: that creates conflict potentially between Ron and Hermione, Ron and Harry, Harry and Hermione and Hermione & Ginny. Conflict all around, eh? Thickens the plot quite alot as Tabouli said. I also liked (and agree with) Ebony's analysis that so far there's been no real Harry-Hermione conflict. There are a number of scenarios that might result in H/H conflict, but romantic feelings on one or both sides would surely introduce a whole lot of conflict into the mix. Megan said in a later message: > I guess I've never wanted to have Hermione to have a "crush" because > it just sounds so shallow and petty for so great a character. But, as > teenagers, that's just something that almost everyone that age goes > through--like a coming of age test of sorts. They'll all have crushes; it would be virtually impossible to survive adolesence without one. What's so bad about crushes? We've all had them; all lived through it. I presume a "crush" encompasses all romantic feelings: sometimes in ends up unrequited, other times it results in a relationship that is either lasting or not. That's part of life.>> (Finally posting after lurking for a while). Thank you Penny. While most people acknowledge that Ron has feelings for Hermione, it seemed obvious to me that Hermione has feelings for Harry (though it seems that not many people share my view on this). If I doubted that Hermione had a crush on Harry, rereading GoF erased any doubt in my mind. Not only the kiss at the end, but Krum's exasperation at the fact that "all she ever talks about is Harry." Her reaction to the Rita Skeeter article about herself... she could care less about Skeeter's comments about her appearance, or even the implication that she and Harry are a couple, but what sets her off is the insinuation that she broke Harry's heart. Due to her general level-headedness, she's not about to go off giggling and blushing like Ginny... that's way out of character for her. But I agree with those who say she's "all girl" (with the implication here that her affectational orientation is toward boys).... and that nobody would grab her attention besides Harry. I can't picture Hermione having a crush on anybody else. It is unclear whether Harry can muster feelings for Hermione in the near future (other than platonic) because he's presently infatuated with Cho. This, to me, is entirely realistic and is a large part of the reason why every teenager isn't part of a romantic couple. When I was a teenager, my single-mindedness in my crushes blinded me to the possibility that another girl might actually like me. My self-esteem was dependent on what my one crush-object thought about me regardless of whether the entire female population of the school dropped hints at me that they were interested (not that they all did, but I'm trying to make a point). It also adds a touch of humor in that "Love Stinks" kind of way... quoting the J.Geils Band: "You love her, but she loves him. And he loves somebody else, you just can't win." It could also be fertile ground for a H/H/R conflict... Harry has everything Ron wants, including his girl. It would be in character for Harry to be receiving the attentions of Hermione, but not really wanting them (or, given Hermione's tendency to be subtle about it, without even knowing he's receiving them), while at the same time pissing off Ron, because of Ron's tendency to be that way. If Ron is really into Hermione, he'd pick up on the energy of Hermione's interest in Harry, even if Harry doesn't. For all the Hermione fans out there who gag at Hermione stooping to swooning over Harry with unrequited advances, I don't see that quite happening either... If there's to be a pairing up, I see it being H/H, because Hermione will get what she wants in the end. :-) Karl in Boston From muggle at hot.ee Mon Jan 7 12:50:32 2002 From: muggle at hot.ee (lv) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 14:50:32 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Timepieces at Hogwarts + Boggart-Dementor Message-ID: <00a901c1977a$54afdba0$5900a8d5@Sumps.AAA> No: HPFGUIDX 32929 -----Original Message----- From: Andrew MacIan >> >There are numerous instances IIRC of >> >Harry checking his watch...or after >> >immersion, asking Ron for the time. >> >This in addition to the clock that is >> >beside his bed in the dormitory. >> >> And I respond: >> >> I believe Grey Wolf is thinking digital & Andrew is >> describing analog. > >Nice attempt at a save, but since Grey Wolf stated it >as a categorical, my objection stands. However, >granting that the class distinction is somehow >important, most analog wristwatches made at that time >(as even more are today) were electrically driven, I >don't see that the class of watch makes any >difference. > >This is descending into the realm of the nitpick, IMO. More nitpicking: in PoA, both Dumbledore and Hermione use their watches (in chapters 21 and 22), Hermione does so repeatedly. lv From IAmLordCassandra at aol.com Mon Jan 7 15:52:55 2002 From: IAmLordCassandra at aol.com (IAmLordCassandra at aol.com) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 10:52:55 EST Subject: Quirrel and the Troll (Was: Re: Snape & DADA: hearsay, or a true slight?) Message-ID: <11c.a4dcde1.296b1e57@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32930 In a message dated 1/7/2002 9:57:07 AM Eastern Standard Time, finwitch at yahoo.com writes: > Quirrell (faints after mentioning a troll) This got me thinking. I assume that Dumbledore knew what each of the teachers did to help protect the stone. If this was the case, wouldn't he've been suspicious of Quirrell when he freaked out over a Troll that was actually smaller than the one he was able to control and put in the chamber? ~Cassie~ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From absinthe at mad.scientist.com Mon Jan 7 16:11:00 2002 From: absinthe at mad.scientist.com (milztoday) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 16:11:00 -0000 Subject: Timepieces at Hogwarts + Boggart-Dementor In-Reply-To: <00a901c1977a$54afdba0$5900a8d5@Sumps.AAA> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32931 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lv" wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: Andrew MacIan > > >> >There are numerous instances IIRC of > >> >Harry checking his watch...or after > >> >immersion, asking Ron for the time. > >> >This in addition to the clock that is > >> >beside his bed in the dormitory. > >> > >> And I respond: > >> > >> I believe Grey Wolf is thinking digital & Andrew is > >> describing analog. > > > >Nice attempt at a save, but since Grey Wolf stated it > >as a categorical, my objection stands. However, > >granting that the class distinction is somehow > >important, most analog wristwatches made at that time > >(as even more are today) were electrically driven, I > >don't see that the class of watch makes any > >difference. > > > >This is descending into the realm of the nitpick, IMO. > > > More nitpicking: in PoA, both Dumbledore and Hermione use their watches (in chapters 21 > and 22), Hermione does so repeatedly. > The watches in question aren't ever identified as "wind-up watches", "quartz watches" or those battery powered ones. Since Rowling has the characters using quills and ink-wells rather than ball-point or even fountain pens, I assume that the watches and clocks are the wind-up variety. Simple mechanical wind-up clocks and watches require no electric power per se. So it wouldn't be contrary to the Hogwarts "no electric" clause. Milz From clio at unicum.de Mon Jan 7 16:37:12 2002 From: clio at unicum.de (clio44a) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 16:37:12 -0000 Subject: Breaking into Snape's office In-Reply-To: <87.1593afc5.296ab091@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32932 Eloise wrote: > The torches were still burning and the cupboard door still open not through > Crouch-Moody's carelessness or confidence at not being caught, but because > *he was still there*, hidden under this invisibility cloak. > It is also why Moody is wearing his old travelling cloak rather than a > dressing gown over his nightshirt. Travelling cloaks I envisage to be rather > large, all-enveloping kinds of garments. Perhaps he's still wearing the > invisibility cloak underneath,or else it is large enough to conceal how he's > carrying it. Yeah, it's possible that "Moody" was still in the office when Snape looked at it. Chassie wrote: >Well, according to Crouch Jr in the Veritaserum Chapter: >"I stole the boomslang skin from the dungeons. When the Potions >master found >me in his office, I said I was under orders to search it."> > >There you have it, the answer straight from the Veritaserumed Crouch. >^-^ Well, he cannot possible refer to the incident we are witnessing in 'The Egg and the Eye', because there Snape tries get Filch to help him find the burglar. If he had already found "Moody" in his office, he wouldn`t do that. So maybe "Moody" had searched the office some time before, probably also in order to get boomslang skin. That would also explain why Snape says to Moody on the stairs that he knows Snape is hiding nothing. I just wonder, if there already was an occasion on which Snape found "Moody" in his office, wouldn't he have noticed already at that time that something was missing? And why did he never get suspicious that someone twice steals an ingredient of Polyjuice Potion? Do I make sense? Clio From Whirdy at aol.com Mon Jan 7 17:06:07 2002 From: Whirdy at aol.com (Whirdy at aol.com) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 12:06:07 EST Subject: It Would Be Worth Your Weight in Galleons Message-ID: <88.11f12854.296b2f7f@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32933 There have been numerous posts on wizard money - knuts (or is it knutes) into sickels into galleons. Bronze, silver and gold and muggle money, too. In GoF, CF reached into his pocket and took out a bag of 1000 galleons prize that he then gave to HP. Later, HP nonchalantly donated this bag and its contents to G & FW for their joke shop. If one estimates that galleons would have the size and weight befitting their value, then it follows that 1000 of them would not be as portable as indicated and quite bulky. Are there perhaps other denominations of galleons? A twenty-galleon piece or a hundred? To the unitiated eye, such as HP's in CoS the single gold coin he noted in the Weasley vault might have been one of higher denomination. This would then explain how Molly was able to outfit the Weasleys in CoS. I don't know if there would be a need for a 5-knut piece (a rockne?) or a 7-sickle coin (a hammer?), but it sure would help with the balance of payments question to have larger galleons. Has it been established whether galleons are the international monetary standard in the wizards' world? whirdy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ickle_ronniekins at yahoo.com Mon Jan 7 16:55:06 2002 From: ickle_ronniekins at yahoo.com (Ronald Rae Yu) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 08:55:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: Astronomy or Astrology? Message-ID: <20020107165506.40850.qmail@web21103.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32934 Is their Astronomy subject with Sinistra really Astronomy? They would be having a non-magical course then (interesting for me). If it IS really AstroLOGY, then why do they take it up in Divination? Perhaps Astronomy is really AstroNOMY then, and is a preparation or sort of a (what-do-you-call-it?) 'helping' course for Divination. Why is then Divination optional? What do wizards have in use for real Astronomy, then? Maybe Astronomy is Astrology, and they give emphasis on it because it is not an imprecise branch of magic or divination for that matter. Well, I really don't know. "Ronald Rae Yu" From Joanne0012 at aol.com Mon Jan 7 17:58:06 2002 From: Joanne0012 at aol.com (joanne0012) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 17:58:06 -0000 Subject: It Would Be Worth Your Weight in Galleons In-Reply-To: <88.11f12854.296b2f7f@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32935 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Whirdy at a... wrote: > In GoF, CF reached into his pocket and took out a bag of 1000 galleons prize > that he then gave to HP. Later, HP nonchalantly donated this bag and its > contents to G & FW for their joke shop. > > If one estimates that galleons would have the size and weight befitting their > value, then it follows that 1000 of them would not be as portable as > indicated and quite bulky. I agree -- according to the Lexicon (1 galleon is worth a bit over $7 US), the current price of gold ($278 per ounce), and my rough calculations, 1000 galleons would weigh over 25 pounds. > > Are there perhaps other denominations of galleons? A twenty-galleon piece or > a hundred? But the question then arises -- are galleons based on the coins' instrinsic worth? If so, larger-denomination coins would still add up to the same 25-pound weight or else be made of something else (platinum? titanium?). Actually, we're going to have to go off into JKR-math-La-La-Land, for now, since instrinsic value also means that a single galleon (i.e., $7 worth of gold) would weigh under a gram, which is not a practical size for a coin! In sum, either we have to stop holding JKR accountable for things quantitative, or else she has to hire one of us to do out these sums for her. I volunteer! From klhurt at yahoo.com Mon Jan 7 18:00:49 2002 From: klhurt at yahoo.com (Kelly Hurt) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 10:00:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: No subject In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020107180049.88441.qmail@web14202.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32936 >>I imagine perhaps Lily attended. For >>some reason I think either James >>stayed home or Lily dragged him >>kicking and screaming (well, not >>really kicking and screaming...but >>against his will). > >LOL - I'd like to know how Lily got him there... Portkey?;-) Kelly the Yarn Junkie ===== Pensieve A Harry Potter List for Adults Low Traffic - High Quality http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pensieve __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ From klhurt at yahoo.com Mon Jan 7 18:05:53 2002 From: klhurt at yahoo.com (Kelly Hurt) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 10:05:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: It Would Be Worth Your Weight in Galleons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020107180553.48567.qmail@web14203.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32937 --- Whirdy at a... wrote: >If one estimates that galleons would >have the size and weight befitting >their value, then it follows that >1000 of them would not be as portable >as indicated and quite bulky. Perhaps the bag was magical and made it easier to handle such a large amount of money. Kelly the Yarn Junkie ===== Pensieve A Harry Potter List for Adults Low Traffic - High Quality http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pensieve __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ From margdean at erols.com Mon Jan 7 19:53:41 2002 From: margdean at erols.com (Margaret Dean) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 14:53:41 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Astronomy or Astrology? References: <20020107165506.40850.qmail@web21103.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3C39FCC5.EBAD86D9@erols.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32938 Ronald Rae Yu wrote: > > Is their Astronomy subject with Sinistra really > Astronomy? They would be having a non-magical course > then (interesting for me). If it IS really AstroLOGY, > then why do they take it up in Divination? Perhaps > Astronomy is really AstroNOMY then, and is a > preparation or sort of a (what-do-you-call-it?) > 'helping' course for Divination. Why is then > Divination optional? What do wizards have in use for > real Astronomy, then? Maybe Astronomy is Astrology, > and they give emphasis on it because it is not an > imprecise branch of magic or divination for that > matter. My guess is that Astronomy is one of those basic disciplines that's useful for a wide range of magical applications. For instance, magical herbs may have their greatest potency (or may =only= be potent) when gathered at a certain phase of the moon, or when the Sun is in Aries, or the like. A potion may need to have certain ingredients added on a similar basis. A particular magical creature may do certain things according to what position the stars are in. Not to mention its use in Divination. --Margaret Dean From margdean at erols.com Mon Jan 7 20:05:39 2002 From: margdean at erols.com (Margaret Dean) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 15:05:39 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why so many unpopular teachers at Hogwarts? References: Message-ID: <3C39FF93.748413EC@erols.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32939 jenny_ravenclaw wrote: > Binns I imagine, has been at Hogwarts for a veeeeerrrrrryyyyyyy long > time. He may not be interesting, but he gets the facts out that his > students need to know. He's also dead now, but when he first started > teaching, he may have had more energy. :-) The problem with Binns is that he seems to be fixated on the Goblin Rebellions to the exclusion of everything else that his students might need to know. Of course, that may be another effect of being a ghost! Ghost stories in general (either avowedly fictional or reported as true) seem to imply that ghosts are given to repetitive behavior. --Margaret Dean From feycat at feycat.net Mon Jan 7 19:38:37 2002 From: feycat at feycat.net (Gabriel Edson) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 14:38:37 -0500 Subject: Imperius Curse / Harry's crying / House Elf Office / Fireplace References: <200201060043.SAA29700@torpedo.dragonwind.net> Message-ID: <034a01c197b2$e78f8500$0b01a8c0@enet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32940 Reese wrote: >>I think we can apply the line, "Mind over matter" when we talk about the Imperius curse. I agree on what you said that when one is under the Imperius curse, that person can almost do anything or shall we say everything?<< I thought I might add by way of explanation that when I was in voice lessons, our teacher showed us this video of a young woman who was basically a low alto with very little range. She was hypnotized, told she had a full range - and could sing everything from operatic coloratura to a very low baritone. Once she was "un-hypnotized," however, she quite believing it and could no longer do it. An interesting hypothesis, that the Imperious Curse might function in the same way! Aja wrote: >Does anyone else see potential danger in this personality trait of >Harry's? I do. As an abused child who repressed myself for a long time because crying wasn't allowed or "appropriate" in my house, I can see exactly why he does this. What's the point in crying when the noise will only get you hurt more? Why open yourself up to ridicule from the cruel people who made you cry in the first place? The problem is with children who don't cry (and as a volunteer counselor, I see a lot of this) is that they will find other, quieter ways to express their pain. If they are angry, usually they begin to hurt other people. If they grow in on themselves, they hurt themselves, either by abusing substanced or becoming "cutters." I would be surprised to see JKR WRITE any of those things, but I would be utterly unsurprised to see Harry DO them, if you catch my meaning. Kelly wrote: >>[This part of the theory is based on the fact that there is a House Elf Relocation Office & I can't think of any other reason for JKR to have included such a detail.]<< I don't believe such an office exists, and if it did, why would Winky and Dobby go desperately seeking new positions when they lost theirs? After all, if they could just apply to this theoretical office and wait for a call, why would they have to canvass on their own? Perhaps Dobby would, since he wanted to be paid, but not Winky. Tabouli wrote: >>Yet in GoF, the fireplace appears to be totally blocked by the presence of an ecklectical fire (with a Plug), to the extent that the Weasleys are all stuck inside and have to blast the eckle-trickery thing out.<< Heck, I'd block up the fireplace after that letter storm! LOL! However, I think the letter fireplace was in the living room, and the letters came out of the kitchen. Gabriel Pack House Quidditch Team Keeper "Twitchy little ferret, aren't you Malfoy?" Isn't having a smoking section in a restaurant like having a peeing section in a pool? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Ryjedi at aol.com Mon Jan 7 18:14:27 2002 From: Ryjedi at aol.com (rycar007) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 18:14:27 -0000 Subject: Astronomy or Astrology? In-Reply-To: <20020107165506.40850.qmail@web21103.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32941 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Ronald Rae Yu wrote: > Astronomy is really AstroNOMY then, and is a > preparation or sort of a (what-do-you-call-it?) > 'helping' course for Divination. Why is then > Divination optional? What do wizards have in use for > real Astronomy, then? There are a few reasons I can think of where wizards would have to use astronomy. 1) For use in certain spells or rituals that require the moon to be at a certain point. Or in certain magical diseases like lycanthropy, where it will not take effect till the moon is at a certain height in the sky. The alignment of planets is not solely used for divination but also for the betterment of certain types of conjuring. 2) Apparition. How does Apparition actually work? Requiring no wand or incantation, we assume it means just picturing where you want to go and appearing there. But remember, the stars can also be used as a guide. Apparition might require a bit of stargazing, just to make sure you're going the right direction. 3) Getting lost. Like I said, Astronomy can teach you to find your way, if you end up in the wrong place while Apparating (coughCharlie! cough), get lost in the forest, or somewhere more sinister, Astronomy classes will help. I can see why JKR never describes them, Astronomy wasn't the most interesting of lessons (but then again, no science was). -Rycar From bean_shadow at hotmail.com Mon Jan 7 18:22:50 2002 From: bean_shadow at hotmail.com (Erin Jacobson) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 12:22:50 -0600 Subject: Draco Malfoy: Shades of Grey Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32942 This is something I jotted down in a notebook of mine. I call it an essay, but it's more just ramblings. I say this because there are some things in here that would make most die-hard Potter fans say, "Well, duh!" :) After reading all of the "Harry Potter" books about a million times, I've begun to have sympathy and real sorrow for Draco Malfoy. It's obvious what a sad person he really is. He was very spoiled growing up, from his parents. And yet, it shows that they never showed Draco love. Not the kind of love that could have saved Harry Potter's life from Voldemort, or the kind of love Ron Weasley gets from his parents. Or even the love Hermoine Granger gets from her Muggle parents. Narcissa, Draco's mother, showed her love through material things. Draco probably looked for acceptance from Lucius Malfoy, his father, but did not receieve any. His evil attitudes emerged from the prejudice his parents, former Death Eaters (followers of Lord Voldemort), but also from copying his father's attutide, to impress him. We get the first clues of Draco's troubled home life in "Chamber of Secrets". Harry has landed in a Dark Arts store by mistake, and he Draco and Lucius arrive. This is the first time the reader has been introduced to Lucius, and the first time we see Draco with family. While at the shop, all Lucius can do is critisize Draco. Even though Draco got some of the highest grades in his year, he did not surpass Hermione, a "filthy Muggle born" girl, according to the Malfoys. So now we can pretty much assume that Draco gets no acceptance from Lucius at home. The only other place Draco has to gain self-worth is at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, among his Slytherin crowd. The only friends Draco has at Hogwarts are Crabbe and Goyle. From the looks of it, I doubt that they are true friends. Draco probably has no one he can really talk to there. Most everyone knows of the Malfoy family, and of their connection with Voldemort. Just as Draco is prejudice against Hermione and Ron at first glance, others are prejudice against Draco, simply because of what family he was born into. No wonder he doesn't want to go to Hogwarts! Also at Hogwarts, Draco is filled with huge amounts of pain. He is upstaged by Harry Potter. When Harry and Draco meet again, on the Hogwarts Express, Draco tries to pursuede Harry to joining his group. Knowing Draco, this is for personal gain. Just think of the glory Draco could have with Harry Potter in his group. But Harry declines, saying he knows the right sort of friends to be with. This angers Draco, as has now been rejected by the most famous boy wizard in the world. He realizes he will now have someone to compete against. Draco is jealous of Harry in other ways, besides Harry's easy gain in popularity. For, even though he has a nasty disposition and is in Slytherin, Draco (almost) always follows the rules, and gets top notch grades. Time after time, though, Harry breaks the rules and seems to get promoted for them. In "Sorcerer's Stone", Draco sets Harry up by stealing Neville Longbottom's Remembrall, and Harry falls into his trap by chasing him on the broomstick---a feat he was not supposed to do and could have resulted in grave consequences. Harry is caught, but instead of being punished, Harry gets a spot as Seeker on the Gryffindor Quidditch team. Not only is he the Seeker, but he's the youngest Seeker the school has seen in 100 years and he gets the greatest broom, the Nimbus 2000, by Prof. McGonagall! Just earlier in the novel, Draco commented on how he wishes for a spot on the Slytherin Quidditch team. Draco doesn't make it until Chamber of Secrets, a full year later. For a child whom gets spoiled his whole life, this is a devestating blow. As would be anyone who has high expectations. I don't hate Draco the way others do. Kids in Harry's age group look at their peers in terms of black and white: they're either good or bad. Sure, there are times when Draco goes too far, like when he makes Hagrid's first teaching period a living Hell in Prisioner of Azkaban, or his uncaring and viscious remark about Cedric Diggory at the end of Goblet of Fire. But we must understand that it's not easy being Draco, a child born into an evil family, whether he wanted to or not. Now that Lucius Malfoy has joined alliances with Voldemort, it won't get any better for Draco. He's not a good kid, by any means. But he isn't a bad kid, either. There's more to meets the eye when it comes to an "evil" kid like Draco Malfoy. _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com From Elizabeth.Dalton at EAST.SUN.COM Mon Jan 7 20:37:34 2002 From: Elizabeth.Dalton at EAST.SUN.COM (Elizabeth Dalton) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 15:37:34 -0500 Subject: Why so many unpopular teachers at Hogwarts? Message-ID: <3C3A070E.3A201855@sun.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32943 I actually started writing this post before Christmas, but what can I say, things got busy.... but since the thread is still relevant, I thought I'd finish the post and send it. I've given some thought to the teaching abilities of the members of the Hogwarts staff, as a professional instructor. First, I think it's important to note that there's a difference between being a "good person," and being a "good teacher." Snape, for example, is arguably a good person, i.e. he acts for the welfare of people beyond himself (even if he doesn't like them). And I like him a lot as a character. I'll even go so far as to admit that like many here, I'd like to have a try at attempting to get past that nasty exterior if I could meet him in person, to see if there's someone at least a bit more likeable on the inside. But I still don't think he's a good teacher. As I wrote earlier, I evaluate this by the lack of evidence that any of his students are learning much about potions except Hermione, and since she does so much self-study, I'm not sure we can count her. Ron and Harry are quite blunt about their lack of attention in Potions. Neville certainly isn't learning anything, other than how to cringe. And though we see various instances of kids using charms or spells like Accio to do things on their own time, no one (again, except Hermione) ever seems to make a potion for any purpose of their own. (Although, I admit, I don't know how Fred and George made the Canary Creams. That might have involved a potion. Even if so, I doubt they learned it from Snape.) Neither Harry nor Cedric try to duplicate the fire-freeze potion when facing the dragon, or even use the shrinking potion, which they learned in class. Eloise Midgen tries to hex off her acne, rather than attempting to make the bubotuber potion, and this is evidently a pretty common problem, so even though the kids know Madam Pomfrey has a huge store of magical potion remedies, they still don't think of potions first. There is probably a potion that lets one breathe underwater (likely involving gillyweed), but the kids don't even bother researching potions when trying to help Harry with his tasks in GoF. (For the most part, they seem to be looking at Charms. See below.) They have little knowledge and less interest in the subject, in or out of Snape's class. There is no question in my mind that Snape is excellent at his subject. My point is, he's going through the motions of teaching -- exposing students to the material, making them practice, testing their knowledge -- and in that respect, he's certainly miles better than Lockheart. But his students aren't developing much facility or even interest in the subject. In fact, I would say that Snape has pretty effectively *disinterested* most of the students in his subject. That knowledge and interest is how teaching is evaluated. And on that basis, I just don't believe, based on the evidence in the books, that Snape is a very good *teacher*. (I will, however, agree with jenny from ravenclaw that *Snape* is interested, even enthusiastic about his subject. He just doesn't seem to pass that on to his students.) FWIW, I'm not sure McGonnagal counts as a particularly good teacher, either, though I don't have as much evidence against her. Her students seem to have an awful lot of trouble with the tasks she assigns, and don't seem to try to use Transfiguration outside of class, but her subject is, after all, notoriously difficult, and the students seem to respect her and keep trying in her class. (Ok, I admit it, the "notoriously difficult subject" excuse *might* work for Snape, too. But I don't get the impression that McGonnagal keeps trying to flunk half of her students.) For my money, *as teachers*, the ranking goes like this: Lupin takes first place, for what I think are obvious reasons (well-organized classes, good practical hands-on labs, approachable demeanor, able to encourage students, etc.), with Flitwick running a close second. (Yes, I know, he's kind of an unexciting character, but look at the evidence. Even as a first-year, Ron got that Leviosa charm well enough to try it on an ogre's club shortly afterward. And later on, the kids turn to Charms first to solve many of their problems. Evidently we have here a guy who can really motivate his students -- and is very forgiving with Neville's problems -- I just picture that scene with the Banishing Charms....) Crouch/Moody comes in third. Knows his material, gives his students plenty of practice, emphasizes the relevance of what he's teaching them, but is a bit heavy-handed. I'm not sure how to count him cheering up Neville and giving him the book on herbology. We know he did it for his own evil reasons, but at face value it was a good thing to do as a teacher. I guess I think Crouch played a "good teacher" very well. We'll have to see what Moody is like (if he sticks around as a teacher). Next would probably be McGonnagal (see above), and Sprout (who has a solid curriculum, emphasizes the relevance of her material to her students, and has a real handle on safety issues). Hooch occupies the middle rank at best due to her lack of safety preparations, and poor response to what must have been a common student accident in her line of work. Quirrell is largely an unknown, but probably below Hooch (especially after his return from sabbatical), along with Hagrid (whom I love, but who can barely teach-- only his salamander and young unicorn lessons were any good). Snape is probably somewhere in this rank, sadly. Binns leads the way into the cellar (his answers to Hermione's questions abut the Chamber edge him up just a half-notch), and Trelawney and Lockhart are tied for last place. Neither of them knows their subject *or* how to teach it. We just don't have enough information about Vector and Sinistra. Hermione is very impressed with Vector, but then, as someone pointed out, Hermione may be giving Arithmancy more credit than it deserves because it looks more precise to her than Divination. And we haven't seen Dumbledore teach, but I would bet a box of Bertie Bott's that he'd be a good teacher... he has the patience for it, and he's really not quite as flaky as he seems at the first Feast. Elizabeth (who, as a professional instructor, is often frustrated with schools -- especially colleges and universities -- choosing teachers based on their knowledge of their subject, rather than their ability to teach it) From ravenclaw775 at aol.com Mon Jan 7 19:10:42 2002 From: ravenclaw775 at aol.com (ravenclaw775 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 14:10:42 EST Subject: A quibble with Quirrell WAS (Snape & DADA: hearsay, or a true slight?) Message-ID: <198.bb4977.296b4cb2@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32944 >Quirrell (faints after mentioning a troll) RE: Dissing Quirrell's job as a DADA instructor. A troll, we find out later, he was in control of all as a part of his stuttering, scaredy-cat act. We have no idea what Quirrell was like before he had his little run in with Voldemort - Hagrid emphasizes his brillant mind and the shame that Quirrell returned from his year abroad broken. Percy says Snape's been after his job for years, implying that Quirrell has been in the position for more than one (unlike the rest of the preceding DADA teachers), which, considering J. Ro's emphasis on how young he is, is probably quite a feat. In the final confrontation with Harry, you get a little more idea of who he might have been pre-Voldie, but alas, Voldie's right there in the back of his skull, so it's still not pure, unadulterated Q (which, as an friend says, is fine as he's one dimensional anyway - ouch!). But I don't know if it's an insult that Snape was passed over for Q. Now, Lockhart, YEAH! Is there an acronym for Quirrell lovers? We're a small group, but cultish. -- Chris Writes Q fic on Fiction Alley From boyblue_mn at yahoo.com Mon Jan 7 19:55:38 2002 From: boyblue_mn at yahoo.com (boyblue_mn) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 19:55:38 -0000 Subject: Gender roles, acronyms, postal possibilities, limited natural resources In-Reply-To: <00af01c1972a$d10e9920$de0fdccb@price> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32945 Tabouli wrote: > Does it strike anyone else as interesting that the people earnestly debating the 14yo Harry and his (lack of) tears and problems with expressing emotion all, as far as I can tell, seem to be female listmembers?? (btw, Harry also cried, albeit involuntarily, after confronting the Boggart-Dementor in Lupin's office, to his great shame). Where are the English male listmembers who actually remember being a 14yo English boy? (Neil? David?) > > ....EDITED..... > Regarding Harry's ability to express emotion, and note, this opinion comes for a guy. I've noticed that many of Harry's decisions are based on his earlier life experience. Frequently, I find myseld asking, 'well, why didn't he just do this or that, that would have been an easy solution'. But you need to consider the life Harry has lead; alone, abused, emotionally and physically isolated; oppressed, ignored, no friends, no real family, no allies, and no one to turn too under any circumstances. He's just a little boy with no ability to control his life. That's one of the reasons child abuse is so emotionally damaging. The only thing you have in life to depend on or lean on, is the source of all your problems, your family. To the mind of a small child, the miserable life you have, is the only choice you have. Harry has had to steel himself against the abuse. He's had to harden his heart and emotions, to keep the pain from killing him. He doesn't ask for help no matter how simple or complex the situation is because in his entire life there has never been anyone he could ask. So he instinctively deals with things on his own because HE is the only person he has ever be sure that he could count on. He frequently keeps problems from Ron and Hermione. He doesn't express his emotion, because in an abusive household, that is a dangerous thing. He doesn't express his emotions because there has never been anyone ever to express his emotions to, and if by chance he did, the consequences were probably pretty bad. I see Harry as a desparately lonely boy, who has never had anyone he could count on but himself. Even with two great friends like Ron and Hermione, he still holds himself back. He still maintains a certain degree of isolation, and he probably will for his whole life. He can overcome but he can never undo the damage caused by his early life. Considering the life he has lived, even with the obvious signs of an abused personality, Harry has emerged a reasonably well adjusted person. He's not a drug addict, or criminal, he hasn't turn the abuse that was given to him back on to other people. It's amazing that he has held up as well has he has. Under the circusmstance, how could you expect him to be anything but emotionally and physically isolated? boyblue_mn - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Mon Jan 7 20:43:57 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 20:43:57 -0000 Subject: Sadness in LoTR and HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32946 Ahhh, my favourite of all topics. I am one of those people who needs a daily fix of Tolkien and tragedy (separately or in combination). The Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter aren't sad enough to fill my needs here. My usual pick is the Silmarillion (/me sees eyes roll. Trust me! It's a great book if you can tolerate mythology in its pure form.) --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amy Z" wrote: > I am pondering the question of the sadness in HP and LoTR. There are > different kinds of sadness. LoTR is terribly sad in the way it portrays the > ending of an era (I have a friend who hates The Last Battle for this > reason), I absolutely hated the Last Battle for exactly that reason! Now, I see it as one of the book's few saving graces. (Apologies to all C.S. Lewis fans in advance.) >but it goes very light indeed on the killing of beloved characters. > Nine set out and only one dies--not a bad record for a heroic quest. The > death that touched me the most, by far, was Gollum's. Of course, Aragorn dies in the Appendixes, and THAT, imho, is heartbreaking AND depressing the way Arwen gives out on him at the last second. Is Peter Jackson going to include that in the movie? But I think you're correct. Given that he's destroying the entire world he created, I think he felt he could be somewhat lenient with the characters. Perhaps, HP will be the opposite? If you're destroying your characters, does the world gain leniency? I think so. Otherwise, the story is bleak and depressing, not something I think Rowling is aiming for. Main Characters' Deaths in HP vs. Lord of the Rings Sauron (who cares?) Denethor, Saruman, Wormtongue(chilling) Smeagol (I think we can all agree very touching) Gandalf (but he came back again) Theoden, Boromir (died heroically) Eowyn, Faramir, and Merry are pulled from the jaws of death just in time. I mean, I would have been heartbroken if Eowyn hadn't recovered, but the story didn't demand it. And Sam and Frodo are just ready to be killed off, when it seems JRRT relents and sends in the eagles, most beloved of birds. :p Bill the pony even shows up alive at the end, and don't the other ponies make it to Tom Bombadil, who sends them back to Bree? On the other hand, in Harry Potter, we have the deaths of James and Lily Potter (off-screen, so not that emotional) Cedric Diggory (absolutely horrible) Frank Bryce (creepy, but also heroic) Crouch Sr. (chilling) a sort of death with Crouch Jr. (sickening) Quirrel (not really seen) However, we have the same thing as with Tolkien. Any reason for preserving all those people in CoS through extremely complicated means, other than the old "Bill, you escaped all the way from Moria to Rivendell!" reason? Later, though, and particularily in the last two books, Rowling shows that things are getting more severe. I'm almost sick with anticipation. I suppose I have the blood lust, and like deaths, as long as they are not cheating deaths. Well, I suppose I better go get a copy of the Iceland Njal's saga, and read about people getting bumped off on every page. :p (But please, no killing of Ron. That would be depressing.) >(This is ignoring the > fact that those who go to the Grey Havens do die in a sense, but I think > JRRT ignores it; he gives them a nice heaven to live in forever and ever.) I think you've misintrepreted Valinor. It does not give immortality to people, it's "hallowed" because of the immortal people that live there. (Read "Akallabeth": Tolkien's Atlantis story, tucked away at the end of the Silmarillion, a lot more readable than the rest of the book, if I say so myself, and giving nice background on who Isildur and Elendil were.) I don't have my worn copy of Tolkien's "Letters" at hand, but he writes to a fan that OF COURSE (everything to Tolkien was of course) Frodo, Bilbo, Sam, and Gimli will eventually die in Valinor. They are still mortals. While the immortal folk can, like Luthien, Elros, and Arwen, give up their special gift, Tolkien's mortals cannot choose not to die. What Frodo is given is a time to rest from suffering, to actually enjoy the rest of his life (which will be, I think, lengthened in Valinor), not an escape from death. > HP, on the other hand, is going to kill people we really love, of that I'm > certain. However, even as it gets grimmer, it doesn't have that pervasive > sense of an end of something. I very much doubt the wizarding world will > come to an end with Book 7. > > Like Cindy, I like reading tragic stories--though I wouldn't characterize > LoTR as tragic, nor think HP will be--so I am not the best person to ask. I > like PoA best largely because it's so angsty, and I like the fact that the > series is getting darker. Watching the six o'clock news is depressing; > watching people with tremendous courage and integrity save our world from > the worst devastations seen on the six o'clock news is ultimately heartening > and inspiring, if sad. Frodo's is not meaningless suffering; it is the > sacrifice made by a hero, and unlike many epic heroes, he at least gets a > reward of eternal life. Harry will suffer and pay dearly for his triumph > (and I confess that I hope this proves true), but I think the end will be > hopeful. > > Jenny's Raul said: > > >"Stop! I can't listen to this anymore." He went on to > >explain that he feels that Harry is persecuted by the Dursleys, > >Voldemort... He says that he doesn't see any happiness on Harry's > >part. > > Maybe he should hear the line where Harry thinks about running away before > the first task but realizes he'd rather be at Hogwarts facing a dragon than > back home. Or maybe this would just depress him even more, that poor Harry > has *no* haven. But to me it says that he loves Hogwarts and the wizarding > world so much that he'd rather live dangerously there than live a safe > Muggle life, *even if life were pleasant at the Dursleys*. I wouldn't say > he is persecuted by Voldemort; Harry is a worthy opponent (as above, a hero > along epic lines), not a child being tormented. > > When I meet HP characters in my daydreams (wipe that look off your face, > they're very chaste), I have a conversation in which I am totally thrilled > to learn that the world of the books is real, and that always brings the > fantasy up short and makes me think, if I could wish for these books to be > history instead of fiction, would I? Not I. I'd love Tolkien, on the other hand, to be real, b/c it's so non-threatening. (Death! Death! Death! in fiction, but I'm a real- life coward!) But what fun for archaeologists! Associated Press reporting that Dr. Smith believes he has found the remains of Minas Tirith, dating from a later period than the ancient epic "The Lord of the Rings", and will continue excavation through its lower layers, hoping to uncover the city Denethor II ruled, and perhaps at last remains of the city founded by the Numenoreans, fleeing the downfall of Numenor, also referred to in ancient myth as Atlantis. "This discovery is important because it will open up for us a whole new window on ancient Gondorian life, previously known only through a handful of sites, and of course, the documents collected by Professor J. Tolkien," said Dr. Smith. Harry Potter is too close to this world for me to want it to be true. No Associated Press reports of people being killed in the streets for me. Yours Truly, Eileen From mailings at sbulloch.co.uk Mon Jan 7 20:01:12 2002 From: mailings at sbulloch.co.uk (sdb555) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 20:01:12 -0000 Subject: Harry Not Crying In-Reply-To: <005d01c196e8$cd528180$e6c71bce@hppav> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32947 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Eric Oppen" wrote: > It's always been my impression that Harry doesn't cry for several different > reasons. Having _been_ a teenage boy myself (this admittedly was when > dinosaurs roamed the earth) I can testify that crying is NOT socially > acceptable for boys beyond about age five, unless in extraordinary > circumstances such as a funeral. I would bet that if Dinky Duddums tried > that "wail and I'll get what I want" act in front of his peers at Smeltings, > or even in front of Piers Polkiss (ISTR he shuts right up when Piers > appears, if you'll pardon a bit of wordplay) his reputation with them would > be mud. > > Also, Harry is English---which also would discourage him from crying. The > English ideal (and any net.Englishmen or net.Englishwomen on here are > welcome to correct me, but this is the impression I got while over there) is > to display very little strong emotion---"that's for those bally wogs," and > so on. Sorrow and joy are both held in tightly, and anger, if shown at all, > is supposed to come out in savage dry wit---think "Blackadder, really p*ssed > off," or something like that. > > Finally, Harry probably just retreated behind a wall of apparent > indifference to survive at the Dursleys' residence. > > Comments? I had been lurking but this post provided me with an opportunity to provide an insight. As someone who only a few years older than harry in GoF, a Boy and in England I feel I can rise to the challange of comments! You are quite correct that for harry to cry about something like this event would leave him feeling extremely embarassed and his friends extremely concerned. If you take Ron (as a best friend) for example he would probably spend the next 6 months expecting Harry to colapse at his feet and have a nervous breakdown if he saw him start crying. You have to imagine that to start crying is a show of emotion and you are quite right in thinking that it really isn't 'acceptable' for boys to cry at the age of 14. People spend a remarkable amount of effort trying not to show any form of emotion such as pain or 'emotional suffering'. If Harry did start crying in front of Ron or another male friend then the friend would also be embarrased and would likely try to prentend he isn't crying or find an excuse to leave. They certainly wouldn't be asking what the matter was or trying to help in the way girls would. The way that boys do try and come to terms with things that happen is to go somewhere private (bedroom/a walk/wherever)and just go over it in their head. Even if they had a parent or an adult they could talk to they would say everthing is fine and refuse to even discuss the subject. Hope that made sense and provided an insight. Stewart From gingerorlando at hotmail.com Mon Jan 7 20:19:43 2002 From: gingerorlando at hotmail.com (katrionabowman) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 20:19:43 -0000 Subject: Green and red symbolism again/Narnia similiarities In-Reply-To: <176.1a2aadd.2963c521@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32948 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Wiccagrrl313 at a... wrote: > It's an interesting possibility. Of course, green and red have > usually been associated with Slytherin and Gryffindor in the books, > so the red has tended to have a more positive connotation than the > green. Wonder what that does to the theory? It does kind of imply > a "win the battle but lose the war" scenario, though. > > Tracy Hi all, These discussions on colour intrigued me. Has anyone else noted the similarities between the evil green serpent in C.S. Lewis' "The Silver Chair" and the Slytherin House motif, and Aslan the Lion and the Gryffindors? The inclusion of red as a colour for the Gryffindors was interesting too given that I believe Aslan's blood plays a significant part in one of Lewis' novels, though for the life of me I can't remember which. I would appreciate any pointers towards previous discussions on this topic. KT in Seattle. From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com Mon Jan 7 20:54:49 2002 From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 14:54:49 -0600 Subject: Centaurs (was :Astronomy or Astrology?) References: <20020107165506.40850.qmail@web21103.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3C3A0B19.7A982398@kingwoodcable.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32949 Ronald Rae Yu wrote: > > Is their Astronomy subject with Sinistra really > Astronomy? They would be having a non-magical course > then (interesting for me). If it IS really AstroLOGY, > then why do they take it up in Divination? Perhaps > Astronomy is really AstroNOMY then, and is a > preparation or sort of a (what-do-you-call-it?) > 'helping' course for Divination. Why is then > Divination optional? What do wizards have in use for > real Astronomy, then? Maybe Astronomy is Astrology, > and they give emphasis on it because it is not an > imprecise branch of magic or divination for that > matter. This brings up a good point, and I agree with what Rycar said: > There are a few reasons I can think of where wizards would have to > use astronomy. ... Certain diseases might not take effect, and apparition... I'd also add that perhaps certian plants for potion making for healing might be more potent at certain times of the year with particular planets in certain alignments. Now...in book 1, I take it that the Centaurs are heavy into the Astrology, and they make it a point of not mucking with the future...they must listen to the stars. Two of them make it a point to mention how bright Mars is. Is anyone in the list and Astrologer and possibly have an analysis for this? -Katze From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com Mon Jan 7 21:11:39 2002 From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 15:11:39 -0600 Subject: Crouch/Moody motivation References: <3C3A070E.3A201855@sun.com> Message-ID: <3C3A0F0B.6416DE0F@kingwoodcable.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32950 Elizabeth Dalton wrote: > > Crouch/Moody comes in third. Knows his material, gives his students plenty of > practice, emphasizes the relevance of what he's teaching them, but is a bit > heavy-handed. I'm not sure how to count him cheering up Neville and giving him > the book on herbology. We know he did it for his own evil reasons, but at face > value it was a good thing to do as a teacher. I guess I think Crouch played a > "good teacher" very well. We'll have to see what Moody is like (if he sticks > around as a teacher). I'm wondering what the importance of this was. Wasn't crouch originally one of the few who tortured Neville's parents? Why then, would he want to go and try to make Neville feel better, and give him a book on herbology (a subject that Neville is good with)? If Moody were actually Moody, this seems pretty honest, but it's a stretch for me to believe that Crouch/Moody was trying to actually help Neville. There must've been more going on in that office. I do think that Moody is heavy-handed, but I'm not sure the real Moody would've gone after the unforgivable curses had he actually been the teacher. Crouch/Moody, I would think, must've been trying to test Harry or something, but I'm still trying to figure that one out. Thoughts? -Katze From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Mon Jan 7 21:12:05 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 21:12:05 -0000 Subject: tragi-comedy In-Reply-To: <00a101c19012$2ec29640$2431c2cb@price> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32951 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Tabouli" wrote: > Yeah, tragi-comedy, that's the stuff. There's one JKR/Tolkien comparison even the most rabid Tolkien fans would have to concede - JKR is much lighter and funnier, which takes the edge off her grimness. There are very few light moments in LOTR (more in The Hobbit), and as the story progresses it just get darker and darker. Thank Gandalf for Tom Bombadil and Treebeard! I personally agree with Cindy here... all comedy gets too fluffy, all tragedy gets too bleak. I can happily read fluff or bleakness (provided the fluff is genuinely funny and the bleakness is powerful and moving), but I like an author that can successfully combine the two.> Tolkien not funny? /me almost faints. But what about Sam cooking the rabbits? Merry and Aragorn in the Houses of Healing? Pippin in Minas Tirith? Treebeard? Ioreth and the Master of the Houses of Healing? Gandalf, himself. Barliman Butterbur? Merry and Pippin re-righting the Shire? The Long Expected Party? Gimli and Legolas fighting over who's killed the most orcs at Helm's Deep? Rosie Cotton's reunion with Sam? So I'm a rabid Tolkien fan, and I don't concede. I think "The Lord of the Rings" has very many light moments, and they effectively meld with the dark ones. True, Frodo doesn't have any fun, unlike Harry, but there is laughter as well as crying in Middle Earth. But perhaps you don't like Hobbit humour? I admit that a lot of people don't. C.S. Lewis, for example, made Tolkien cut out a whole load of it, and his publishers forbade him to end the book with a scene where Sam tells a long story to his too-cute children, and they ask infuriatingly silly questions about Rohan, and Gondor, and Mordor? >Nope, the Gollum scene I found most touching was the scene when he comes back to camp and gazes dotingly at Frodo ("Nice master") and almost turns into a sad, weary hobbit lived long past his years when Sam wakes and snarls and destroys his very last chance of redemption. I know Sam means well, but his stodgily humble loyalty gets on my nerves. Wasn't it Ursula Le Guin who commented that Sam's servile "Sir"-ing and "Master"-ing of Frodo is enough to make one want to start a Hobbit Socialist Party?> > Now, Hagrid is of the same ilk as Sam in some ways (bumbling loyalty, great man Dumbledore, etc.), but he's *funny*, and that makes all the difference> You don't like Sam? /me looks reproachfully at Tabouli, but decides to forgive. Sam is the quintessential hobbit, after all, and that can be a hard taste to acquire. ;-) For myself, I find Sam funnier than Hagrid any day, perhaps it has something to do with his humour being firmly rooted in common sense. About Sam's "Sir"s and "Master"s, I believe Tolkien felt the same way and wished he'd shut up. In fact, there is a legend circulating that Tolkien hated Sam. No, he would insist, just some of his mannerisms. Those are inextricably part of Sam, but unlike a certain Harry Potter with the name of Dobby ;-), Sam gets pretty much over them. He still retains the "Mr. Frodo's" etc., but they end the book as best friends and practical equals. Sam takes over the Baggins legacy (and finishes the Lord of the Rings!) and becomes mayor of Hobbiton time after time. And then, at last, he heads to Valinor. What a change from the servant in every way from the beginning! Will we see such a change in Dobby or Winky? I would hope so. Eileen From meboriqua at aol.com Mon Jan 7 21:13:05 2002 From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 21:13:05 -0000 Subject: Gender roles, acronyms, postal possibilities, limited natural resources In-Reply-To: <00af01c1972a$d10e9920$de0fdccb@price> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32952 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Tabouli" wrote: > --jenny from ravenclaw, who wishes Tabouli would come up with a cool > acronym for Harry lovers like me ******************* > > Could be arranged... what admirable qualities of Harry's would you like included? Perhaps: > > C.H.I.M.P.A.N.Z.E.E. "Courageous Harry Is Modest, Perceptive And Nimble!" Zealous Enthusiasts Extol.> I love it! Not only would I like to be a member, but I'd also like to elect myself president. Seriously, though, if anyone else is as big a fan of Harry's and adores his dark hair and green eyes as much as I do, please join me! I'd say that these are exactly the qualities Harry possesses that makes him just who he is. It's perfect, Tabouli. You have quite a knack for this. --Happy!jenny from ravenclaw ****************************** From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Mon Jan 7 21:28:11 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 21:28:11 -0000 Subject: Crabbe and Goyle as Halfbloods? (Re: Symbols next to names on list) In-Reply-To: <004b01c190bf$1c200ba0$1c1c7bd5@j0dhe> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32953 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Hollydaze" wrote: Although I can't see how Crabbe and Goyle could be Half Bloods when their fathers (at least) are Deatheaters, what would they have to do with Muggles? And Malfoy certainly wouldn't want to be friends with two Halfbloods would he? > Perhaps Crabbe and Goyle couldn't find anyone in the wizarding world who'd want to marry them (after all, their sons can't get dates at the ball)? After all, they're not glamorously evil, if they're anything like their sons, just repulsive. And if they don't have much money, what's the attraction? So, they quietly go out into the larger Muggle population and find wives as unpleasant as themselves, but keep it a secret. I can picture a nice scene where Lucius Malfoy has a heart-attack on finding out who Draco has been associating with! Eileen From cindysphynx at home.com Mon Jan 7 21:30:18 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 21:30:18 -0000 Subject: Why so many unpopular teachers at Hogwarts? (Trelawney) In-Reply-To: <3C3A070E.3A201855@sun.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32954 Elizabeth wrote: > Trelawney and Lockhart are tied for last place. Neither of them knows their > subject *or* how to teach it. > I would put Trelawney a few notches above Lockhart, and probably above Quirrell, too. I wrote a post months ago explaining why I didn't like Lockhart and comparing him to Trelawney. There are two main differences between them. First, Trelawney really does have some amount of talent. She has made two correct predictions, and she saw the Sirius twice (tea leaves and crystal ball), although she misinterpreted what she saw by believing it to be the Grim. She made a few other correct predictions (like predicting Harry would be stabbed in the back and he would come into some money in GoF). Lockhart, as we later learn, has no ability in his specialty at all and is a complete fraud. Also, a big difference between Lockhart's class and Trelawney's class is that the kids actually do learn something in Divination: they learn how to See. She roams the classroom, helping the students attempt to See. In Lockhart's class, in contrast, the students mostly listened to war stories. The fact that Hermione has no patience or aptitude for Divination, or that the boys are dismissive of it, does not make Trelawney a poor teacher. I think Divination is probably about as difficult as Transfiguration. True Seers are supposedly quite rare, whereas we've seen many of the adults perform feats of Transfiguration. That suggests that Trelawney gets reasonable results with a very difficult subject, so I'd argue for putting Trelawney on the same rung as McGonagall. Cindy From blenberry at altavista.com Mon Jan 7 22:11:07 2002 From: blenberry at altavista.com (blenberry) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 22:11:07 -0000 Subject: Lupin, the Moon and the Bewitching Hour In-Reply-To: <20020105061620.9929.qmail@web9507.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32955 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Andrew MacIan wrote: > > >In re the boggart, I would also say that the Rule > > of > > >Similarity is in effect. The boggart *portrays* the > > >Moon, but it doesn't have the *effect* of the Moon. > > > > >After all, in the other scenes with that particular > > >creature, the fear is due to the subject accepting > > the > > >illusion as the reality. Lupin cannot accept that, > > as > > >the effect must bring on transmogrification if the > > >effect is real. > > > --- blenberry wrote: > > > In this case, how do you explain the > > boggart-dementor's effects on > > Harry? He *knows* it's a boggart. > > > > sorry if this has been addressed elsewhere... I'm > > new :) > > Not to worry; I'm not excatly one of the Founders, > either (interesting joke there, given the topic...) > > As I said at the end of the paragraph (and it does > help to identify the person you're quoting, BTW), the > question is one of the actual effect of the Moon on a > were-- Lupin, in this case. He *knows* it cannot *be* > the Moon for various reasons, one of the most telling > being that he must know where and when he is in any > given lunation (cycle of the Moon). It has been > speculated in both mythological studies and modern > magickal theory that a were is, in essence, one of the > best state-shape clocks in existence for this reason. > > Thus, Lupin can tell that the boggart knows what > frightens him more than anything else, but Lupin also > knows at his basic level of existence that the boggart > is nothing but a sham. > > Harry, on the other hand, sees the dementor and > believes what is in essence the boggart's lie. After > all, the effects that are produced are Harry's; all > the boggart does is to read a person's fears. Thus, > all the boggart appears to do is induce the fear-state > from the target (Harry's) memories and previous > experience. > > > Clearer? If not, don't hesitate to tell me so. Thanks for your reply, Andrew! Please accept my apologies for quoting you namelessly. I want to buy that theory, but this still bugs me: if the effect of the boggart-dementor is all in Harry's mind, wouldn't the false dementor at the Quidditch game affect him exactly the same way? He seems to feel no effects from it at all, although he believes it to be a real dementor. From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com Mon Jan 7 22:30:54 2002 From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 16:30:54 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Crabbe and Goyle as Halfbloods? (Re: Symbols next to names on list) References: Message-ID: <3C3A219E.F23855DF@kingwoodcable.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32956 lucky_kari wrote: > > Perhaps Crabbe and Goyle couldn't find anyone in the wizarding world > who'd want to marry them (after all, their sons can't get dates at > the ball)? After all, they're not glamorously evil, if they're > anything like their sons, just repulsive. And if they don't have much > money, what's the attraction? So, they quietly go out into the larger > Muggle population and find wives as unpleasant as themselves, but > keep it a secret. I can picture a nice scene where Lucius Malfoy has > a heart-attack on finding out who Draco has been associating with! > If this were true, I think V would know, and wouldn't allow it. I don't think anyone in his circle associate with Muggles on any level, unless it's to kill them. Though the look on Malfoys' (both Lucius and Draco) faces would be priceless! -Katze From TEAPOT1 at PRODIGY.NET Mon Jan 7 22:38:16 2002 From: TEAPOT1 at PRODIGY.NET (Diana Wisniewski) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 17:38:16 -0500 Subject: Please read this NOW. My computer may have sent you a virus. Message-ID: <001c01c197cc$128652c0$2b87c640@oemcomputer> No: HPFGUIDX 32957 I got this in my morning email. Derrell just took care of it on our computer, yes we had it. Please check your computer now. I am very sorry that this came through me. Read these instructions. Diana Subject: A virus someone sent to me, that you might have now. We just received an email that said we might have a virus that is spread from address book to address book. It is apparently undetectable by Norton and McAfee. It remains dormant for abut 14 days then activates and wipes out the hard drive data. When I checked my hard drive,I did find the virus and successfully deleted it. Since I have emailed you recently, I want to share this message in case you, too, picked it up. The directions for removing it are quite easy to follow. 1. Go to 'start' - then to 'find or search' (depending on your computer) 2. In the 'search for files or folders' type in sulfnbk.exe -- this is the virus. 3. In the 'look in' make sure you're searching Drive C. 4. Hit 'search' button (or find) 5. If this file shows up (it's an ugly blackish icon that will have the name 'sulfnbk.exe') DO NOT OPEN IT 6. Right click on the file - go down to delete and left click. 7. It will ask you if you want to send it to the recycle bin,say yes. 8. Go to your desktop (where all your icons are) and double click on the recycle bin. 9. Right click on sulfnbk.exe and delete again - or empty the bin. If you find it, send this email to all in your address book, because that's how it's transferred. Sorry for the bad news. Hopefully, you won't find it, or at least will find it in time to avoid the problems with your hard drive. Diana [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From caliburncy at yahoo.com Mon Jan 7 22:56:11 2002 From: caliburncy at yahoo.com (caliburncy) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 22:56:11 -0000 Subject: Please read this NOW. My computer may have sent you a virus. In-Reply-To: <001c01c197cc$128652c0$2b87c640@oemcomputer> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32958 Actually, this e-mail is a hoax. The SULFNBK.EXE is a perfectly legitmate file and not a virus. Details on this hoax are available from McAfee at: http://vil.mcafee.com/dispVirus.asp?virus_k=99084& For anyone that has already deleted the file, there are instructions on restoring it at the bottom. -Luke, Scam-Hater From john at walton.vu Mon Jan 7 22:54:10 2002 From: john at walton.vu (John Walton) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 17:54:10 -0500 Subject: ADMIN: THIS IS NOT A VIRUS. Please read this NOW. My computer may have sent you a virus. In-Reply-To: <001c01c197cc$128652c0$2b87c640@oemcomputer> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32959 Folks, DO NOT DELETE SULFNBK.EXE FROM YOUR PC. (If, like me, you are a Mac user, you can ignore this.) This is a virus hoax (although a widely-circulated one), and you can read all the hoax debunking on every virus protection site by doing a Google search (or using any other search engine for "sulfnbk.exe"). There are also directions for how to restore sulfnbk.exe online in various places. Remember, folks, NEVER take any virus information seriously without checking with the major virus programs' websites first. Moreover, please email the Mods with information like this in the future. We can investigate and verify the information. Cheers. --John, Moderator Team Diana Wisniewski said: > I got this in my morning email. Derrell just took care of it on our computer, > yes we had it. Please check your computer now. I am very sorry that this came > through me. Read these instructions. > > Diana > > > Subject: A virus someone sent to me, that you might > have now. > > We just received an email that said we might have a > virus that is spread from address book to address > book. It is apparently undetectable by Norton and > McAfee. It remains dormant for abut 14 days then > activates and wipes out the hard drive data. When I > checked my hard drive,I did find the virus and > successfully deleted it. Since I have emailed you > recently, I want to share this message in case you, > too, picked it up. The directions for removing it are > quite easy to follow. > > 1. Go to 'start' - then to 'find or search' (depending > on your computer) > > 2. In the 'search for files or folders' type in > sulfnbk.exe -- this is the virus. > > 3. In the 'look in' make sure you're searching Drive > C. > > 4. Hit 'search' button (or find) > > 5. If this file shows up (it's an ugly blackish icon > that will have the name 'sulfnbk.exe') DO NOT OPEN > IT > > 6. Right click on the file - go down to delete and > left click. > > 7. It will ask you if you want to send it to the > recycle bin,say yes. > > 8. Go to your desktop (where all your icons are) and > double click on the recycle bin. > > 9. Right click on sulfnbk.exe and delete again - or > empty the bin. > > If you find it, send this email to all in your address > book, because that's how it's transferred. Sorry for > the bad news. Hopefully, you won't find it, or at > least > will find it in time to avoid the problems with your > hard drive. > > > Diana > > ________________________________ John Walton -- john at walton.vu You may write me down in history With your bitter, twisted lies, You may trod me in the very dirt But still, like dust, I'll rise. --Maya Angelou, "Still I Rise" ________________________________ From caliburncy at yahoo.com Mon Jan 7 23:02:23 2002 From: caliburncy at yahoo.com (caliburncy) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 23:02:23 -0000 Subject: Please read this NOW. My computer may have sent you a virus. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32960 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "caliburncy" wrote: > Actually, this e-mail is a hoax. Incidentally, what I meant by this is that the e-mail Diana received was a hoax, not that the e-mail Diana herself sent her was an intentional hoax of us--Diana was just understandably taken in by the hoax she was sent. In any case, the point is, read the McAfee page that explains about this hoax. -Luke, careful not to put his foot in his mouth From eleri at aracnet.com Mon Jan 7 17:46:39 2002 From: eleri at aracnet.com (CB) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 12:46:39 -0500 Subject: Portkey Problem Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20020107124138.00b66bf0@mail.aracnet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32961 Here at the house we were discussing the whole 'why didn't they set up a portkey at any time in GoF' bit. When we finally came up with a reason that made sense, it was so clear that we all sat there looking silly for a bit. Setting up the portkey during the last challenge was the only way Voldemort could get Harry away without people wondering where he'd gotten to. Most would have assumed it was part of the challenge. If they'd rigged something else as a portkey any other time, people would have been all up in arms the second Harry vanished. Doing it the way he did gave LV extra time to act. poke holes nicely, please :) Charlene From eleri at aracnet.com Mon Jan 7 17:53:53 2002 From: eleri at aracnet.com (CB) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 12:53:53 -0500 Subject: timeline In-Reply-To: <1010275521.7510.40059.m5@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20020107124812.00ce6900@mail.aracnet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32962 At 12:05 AM 1/6/02 +0000, you wrote: > 8:55 HRH go to Hagrid's, HH2 waiting in Cupboard. (From the book) > > 9:05 HRH arrive at Hagrid's, HH2 just behind them. > >Yikes, Holly, that WAS a labor of love (and LOON-iness)! It seems completely >consistent with the descriptions in the book . *grin* My first thought was "Someone has way to much time on their hands" Seriously though, while I really like debating the nature of magic, and theorising about this that and the other bit of Harry's world, I find that things like timelines and arguing wand order really distract from my enjoyment of the books. If I start focusing on details like that, I stop being able to lose myself in the wonder of the story, and I start looking for 'mistakes'. Why I am seriously not a LOON :) Charlene From imtink at charter.net Tue Jan 8 01:19:05 2002 From: imtink at charter.net (Christina) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 17:19:05 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Crouch/Moody motivation References: <3C3A070E.3A201855@sun.com> <3C3A0F0B.6416DE0F@kingwoodcable.com> Message-ID: <000901c197e2$774e2e60$5024a842@cc594451a> No: HPFGUIDX 32963 Elizabeth Dalton wrote: > > ** snip** I guess I think Crouch played a "good teacher" very well. > > We'll have to see what Moody is like (if he sticks around as a > > teacher). Katze wrote: > **snip** Wasn't crouch originally one of the few who tortured Neville's > parents? Why then, would he want to go and try to make Neville feel > better, and give him a book on herbology (a subject that Neville is good > with)? If Moody were actually Moody, this seems pretty honest, but it's > a stretch for me to believe that Crouch/Moody was trying to > actually help Neville. Crouch/Moody wasn't trying to help Neville. He was trying to help Harry. At the end of book 4, Crouch/Moody confesses to Harry that he gave the book to Neville to help him figure out what to use for the second task. (Then when Harry didn't figure out what to use, he staged a conversation for Dobby to over hear, knowing Dobby would want to help Harry.) Crouch/Moody needed Harry to be successful in obtaining the goblet of fire so Harry would be taken to Tom Riddle's grave for Voldemort's rebirthing ceremony. ~Christina [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com Mon Jan 7 23:22:17 2002 From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 17:22:17 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Crouch/Moody motivation References: <3C3A070E.3A201855@sun.com> <3C3A0F0B.6416DE0F@kingwoodcable.com> <000901c197e2$774e2e60$5024a842@cc594451a> Message-ID: <3C3A2DA9.AAFCD9DB@kingwoodcable.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32964 Christina wrote: > Crouch/Moody wasn't trying to help Neville. He was trying to help Harry. At the end of book 4, Crouch/Moody confesses to Harry that he gave the book to Neville to help him figure out what to use for the second task...< I must've missed that part in the book where he explains the book. Thanks! -Katze From Elizabeth.Dalton at EAST.SUN.COM Mon Jan 7 23:21:30 2002 From: Elizabeth.Dalton at EAST.SUN.COM (Elizabeth Dalton) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 18:21:30 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why so many unpopular teachers at Hogwarts? (Trelawney) References: Message-ID: <3C3A2D7A.70A5DC25@sun.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32965 I rather hate to disagree wtih Cindy, but I'm afraid I will have to, on three points out of four: cindysphynx wrote: > > I wrote a post months ago explaining why I didn't like Lockhart and > comparing him to Trelawney. There are two main differences between > them. First, Trelawney really does have some amount of talent. She > has made two correct predictions, and she saw the Sirius twice (tea > leaves and crystal ball), although she misinterpreted what she saw by > believing it to be the Grim. She made a few other correct > predictions (like predicting Harry would be stabbed in the back and > he would come into some money in GoF). Lockhart, as we later learn, > has no ability in his specialty at all and is a complete fraud. > Well, your interpretation is your own, but I think any success on her part was blind luck. She wanted to see a Grim -- it's a famous portent of death-- so she saw one. I think the resemblence to Sirius was accidental. She predicted so many bad things happening to Harry that *some* of them were bound to come true. But actually, Harry himself made up the part about getting stabbed in the back, didn't he? (And I don't remember anyone saying Harry would come into money-- I thought he was going to *lose* money on a bet....) > Also, a big difference between Lockhart's class and Trelawney's class > is that the kids actually do learn something in Divination: they > learn how to See. She roams the classroom, helping the students > attempt to See. In Lockhart's class, in contrast, the students > mostly listened to war stories. The fact that Hermione has no > patience or aptitude for Divination, or that the boys are dismissive > of it, does not make Trelawney a poor teacher. > *Who* learns to See? I'll grant you that Trelawney is better at faking teaching than Lockhart, and so possibly deserves to be on the next rung up (with Binns), but I don't see any evidence that anyone has actually learned to See. What evidence do we have that she's teaching anything other than how to be an effective fraud? Lavender starts to affect a spooky manner, but doesn't make any correct predictions that we know of. Trelawney can't even tell that Harry and Ron are making up their answers. However, see below. BTW, McGonnagal is also dismissive of Divination and Trelawney. She may be missing something, but she's usually portrayed as being pretty sharp. Even Dumbledore seems to have a limited expectation about Trelawney's accuracy. So it's not just the kids. > I think Divination is probably about as difficult as > Transfiguration. True Seers are supposedly quite rare, whereas we've > seen many of the adults perform feats of Transfiguration. I'll definitely give you this one. If anything, Divination may be *more* difficult than Transfiguration, and accomplished Seers may be much more rare. I think that's why Dumbledore keeps Trelawney on. She has, after all, had at least two "genuine" predictions, and that's more than most people get, apparently. But that makes her, possibly, an authentic Seer, not a good teacher. (Note that it may not actually be possible to *teach* this subject. That still doesn't make her a good teacher, only an excusably bad one. See below.) > That > suggests that Trelawney gets reasonable results with a very difficult > subject, so I'd argue for putting Trelawney on the same rung as > McGonagall. Well, this would depend on how you define "reasonable results." The really tough thing about Divination is that it's so hard to see any evidence of its effectiveness. Careful tracking would help establish whether there's anything to it or not, but Trelawney discourages this kind of measurement. Her final exam is based on convincing her that you've seen something -- no attempt is made to judge the accuracy of your vision. She does not, for example, ask her student to predict the next card that will be drawn from a deck, or the next number tossed on a die, or describe the contents of a closed box. She doesn't even check the students' math on their Astrology charts. At my most charitable, I'll admit that it may not be *possible* to See on demand for an exam. The question then becomes, why is there a class on it at all? And how much blame should a teacher bear for accepting a position to teach a subject which can't be taught? At the root of this question is another, related one: does Trelawney believe, herself? She doesn't seem to be aware when she makes "genuine" predictions. So is her whole act just an act, or does she know, on some level, that she actually does have intermittent Sight, and just thinks it goes farther than it does? McGonnagal, OTOH, requires a practical test that can't be faked. (Can you, or can you not, transform a teapot into a tortoise? Is your tortoise still steaming? Does it have a willow-patterned shell?) Her students are struggling with the material, but some of them are succeeding to greater or lesser extent, in ways that they, and the other students, can see for themselves. This is why I feel comfortable evaluating her teaching skills. The resulting skill of her students can be measured, and she encourages doing so. Now, it's just barely possible that Trelawney's method is actually the very best way of encouraging incipient Seers, and that this has been established by empirical research in the wizard community for aeons. There's nothing in canon to support this (in fact, based on Hermione's remarks in the Potions Puzzle in PS/SS, I would tend to suspect not), but I allow for the possibility. If canon evidence is later presented to support this, I will write a letter of apology to good Professor Trelawney and meditate upon it under the full moon, so that she'll get the message. And of course, I'll publicly recant my position to Cindy's satisfaction. ;) Elizabeth (who often wishes there was more evidence in support of various paranormal phenomena, but is an empirical scientist at heart.) From blenberry at altavista.com Mon Jan 7 23:42:33 2002 From: blenberry at altavista.com (blenberry) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 23:42:33 -0000 Subject: Portkey Problem... and Tasks question In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020107124138.00b66bf0@mail.aracnet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32966 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., CB wrote: > Setting up the portkey during the last challenge was the only way Voldemort > could get Harry away without people wondering where he'd gotten to. Most > would have assumed it was part of the challenge. If they'd rigged something > else as a portkey any other time, people would have been all up in arms the > second Harry vanished. Doing it the way he did gave LV extra time to act. I agree, although I wonder... did Dumbledore know any of what happened in the maze? Just wondering why he only asked Harry what happened after he touched the Cup. I wondered if the crowd could see down into the maze over the top of the 20-foot hedges, since the Quidditch seats are high. And if none of it was visible, then weren't both the second and third tasks pretty lousy spectator events? The champions go in, and the crowd waits for an hour... not much for Bagman to commentate on, either. From eleri at aracnet.com Mon Jan 7 20:18:09 2002 From: eleri at aracnet.com (CB) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 15:18:09 -0500 Subject: Astrology and Astronomy In-Reply-To: <1010439023.2417.73793.m2@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20020107151318.00b5f100@mail.aracnet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32967 At 09:30 PM 1/7/02 +0000, you wrote: >Two of them make it a point to >mention how bright Mars is. Is anyone in the list and Astrologer and >possibly have an analysis for this? > >-Katze Mars, besides being very *red* is traditionally a symbol of conflict and war. It's brightness and position in the sky would have been a signal of upcoming trouble to the centaurs. It's interesting to point out that the modern science of Astronomy grew from the ancient art of Astrology, which covered far more than just the divinatory aspects of natal charts. Charlene From TEAPOT1 at PRODIGY.NET Mon Jan 7 23:54:54 2002 From: TEAPOT1 at PRODIGY.NET (Diana Wisniewski) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 18:54:54 -0500 Subject: Please read this NOW. References: <001c01c197cc$128652c0$2b87c640@oemcomputer> Message-ID: <010f01c197d6$c3cbe680$2b87c640@oemcomputer> No: HPFGUIDX 32968 I sent my email to you too early. I needed to have read the rest of my emails and found out that my friend was taken in by this also. I have received several phone calls and emails since I sent you my original email telling me this is a hoax that has apparently been around for some time. I once again apologize, but when it comes to the virus' that are floating around I want to be very careful that I am not the cause of sending my family and friends one. I apologize for my panic and any problems it may have caused. Diana This is a hoax. Please use the following website. It lists hoaxes and what to do in case you have deleted an application you need. http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/hoax.html From cindysphynx at home.com Tue Jan 8 00:07:42 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 00:07:42 -0000 Subject: Defending Trelawney (WAS Why so many unpopular teachers at Hogwarts? ) In-Reply-To: <3C3A2D7A.70A5DC25@sun.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32969 Elizabeth wrote: > I rather hate to disagree wtih Cindy, but I'm afraid I will have to, on three > points out of four: Wait! Wait! I can make you believe! :-) It seems that a good teacher ought to be able to do two things -- master the subject matter being taught, and communicate it to assist others in mastering it. If the subject matter depends heavily on whether the student has natural talent, it doesn't seem fair to judge the teacher's performance solely by whether the students master the subject. Here's the best case I can put together for Trelawney: Elizabeth wrote: > I think any success on her part was > blind luck. She wanted to see a Grim -- it's a famous portent of >death-- so she > saw one. I think the resemblence to Sirius was accidental. Using that yardstick, Trelawney will never get credit for a prediction, will she? Correct predictions can always be dismissed as mere coincidence because Divination is inherently subjective. The objective facts, however, are that Trelawney saw the Grim in the crystal ball and the tea leaves. We can dismiss it as a coincidence, but the fact remains that the Grim is a big black dog, and she saw it when there was exactly such a creature "stalking" Harry. Also, she seemed disappointed when Harry did not see Buckbeak being beheaded. I think that was because she had done her own Seeing and seen the beheading. Buckbeak was in fact beheaded, so score one for Trelawney. Perhaps she didn't also see Buckbeak's escape, but I would think a Time Turner that changes events would foul up anyone's Inner Eye. :-) She was on target with Lavender's rabbit, and she predicted Hermione's exit. She was right about Neville's cup breakage. Small stuff, but correct nonetheless. She made the following correct prediction in GoF: "Your worries are not baseless. I see difficult times ahead for you . . . I fear the thing you dread will indeed come to pass . . . and perhaps sooner than you think." Voldemort did return, so score a big one for Trelawney. Now, I admit I was incorrect when I said Trelawney predicted Harry would get stabbed in the back by a friend. Ron said that, which shows that he's picking up a thing or two in Divination. :-) Elizabeth again: > *Who* learns to See? > > I'll grant you that Trelawney is better at faking teaching than >Lockhart, and so > possibly deserves to be on the next rung up (with Binns), but I >don't see any > evidence that anyone has actually learned to See. Oh, poor Trelawney gets no respect. Trelawney and Moody do exactly the same thing in their classrooms -- they put the kids through their paces under real life circumstances, and they do hands-on practical demonstrations. Moody puts kids under Imperius, and only one kid learns to throw it off. Trelawney gives them various tools (crystal balls, tea leaves), and they try to use these tools to See. I don't see much of a difference there. Indeed, in both cases, the students are largely unsuccessful, even though the teachers' methods are similar. As a matter of fact, Harry rarely reports the predictions other kids are making, so perhaps they are all making correct predictions, which would make Trelawney even more effective than Moody. Elizabeth again: >Trelawney can't even tell that Harry and Ron are making up their >answers. True, the students pull the wool over her eyes. Divination rests on a foundation of trust, on the honor system, if you will. As an analogy, suppose a physical education teacher assigns homework that kids run a certain distance and record it in a log. Some kids decide to lie and fabricate everything, and they don't get caught. That doesn't make the teaching method ineffective, IMHO. It just means these two kids aren't mature enough to be trusted, and as our parents used to tell us, they're only hurting themselves when they cheat like this. Elizabeth again: >And how much blame > should a teacher bear for accepting a position to teach a subject >which can't be > taught? How do we know that Divination cannot be taught? I figure it is akin to music or voice lessons. Some people have talent and some people do not. With enough study, the truly talented will master the subject. I think the jury is still out on Trelawney and on whether, upon graduation, a few kids are good at Divination. That said, I don't mean to say I completely buy Trelawney's act. I do think she is one of JKR's better bit players, though. Even after two books, she is still shrouded in mystery. I can't wait to find out what happens. My own prediction is that Trelawney will prove to be a true Seer and much more impressive than our current impression of her. Cindy From DMCourt11 at cs.com Tue Jan 8 00:49:40 2002 From: DMCourt11 at cs.com (DMCourt11 at cs.com) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 19:49:40 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups]: Clunking Moody (was Breaking into Snape's office) Message-ID: <161.6cde305.296b9c24@cs.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32970 In a message dated 1/7/02 3:05:08 AM Eastern Standard Time, Edblanning at aol.com writes: > The torches were still burning and the cupboard door still open not through > Crouch-Moody's carelessness or confidence at not being caught, but because > *he was still there*, hidden under this invisibility cloak. > > This explains why we don't hear Moody clunking along until after Snape > arrives on the scene : he lesft the office after Snape, not before. (It > doesn't explain why Snape didn't hear him clunk into the office, but maybe > he > muffled the artificial leg and in any case Snape is probably used to him > clunking around at all hours.) > > Good idea, and it got me thinking why Snape didn't hear him clunking. Since Crouch does have an invisibility cloak, maybe it's easier to skip his potion when he's using it. He can get around faster certainly without a wooden leg. When he wants to reappear, all he has to do is take a swig from Moody's hip flask, wait for the transformation, and whisk off the cloak. If Crouch goes around invisibly as himself, it also gives even more of a reason for the travelling cloak, as he has to store not only the invisibility cloak afterwards, but the wooden leg and magic eyeball he'll need when he takes the potion. Donna [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ChaserChick at hotmail.com Tue Jan 8 00:00:25 2002 From: ChaserChick at hotmail.com (Liz Sager) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 18:00:25 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] It Would Be Worth Your Weight in Galleons Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32971 Whirdy wrote: >If one estimates that galleons would have the size and weight befitting >their >value, then it follows that 1000 of them would not be as portable as >indicated and quite bulky. Maybe the bag was magicked like the Ford Anglia, to get bigger with content? >Are there perhaps other denominations of galleons? A twenty-galleon piece >or >a hundred? Interesting thought, isn't it? I haven't entertained it, I'll have to ponder it. >Has it been established whether galleons are the international monetary >standard in the wizards' world? I've been wondering about that myself... Liz _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. From polscphd2b at hotmail.com Tue Jan 8 00:03:41 2002 From: polscphd2b at hotmail.com (polscphd2b) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 00:03:41 -0000 Subject: who Harry's not afraid to cry in front of and its implications for shippers... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32972 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "alhewison" wrote: > I certainly agree that Harry's age and sex rule out crying in front > of his male peers. (He could probably get away with it in front of > Hermione). I also believe that he's had years of forced practice of > hiding emotion - as it would definitely have been used against him > with the Dursleys. Newbie to this list, so I hope this hasn't been gone over before ad nauseam... Despite the fact that Harry doesn't want to be seen to be crying, he's a very sensitive boy and at least occasionally feels the urge. At the end of GoF, "[h]e could feel a burning, prickling feeling in the inner corners of his eyes. He blinked and stared up at the ceiling . . . [n]ow the burning feeling was in his throat, too. He wished Ron would look away." (p. 714, US edition) It's interesting: the other characters with Harry at the time are Mrs. Weasley and Hermione. But it's Ron he doesn't want to see him crying. He takes Molly Weasley as a mother, so one might expect he wouldn't be afraid she would perceive him as weak. What puzzles me is what we should read into the whole Harry-Hermione dynamic as a result of his not seeming to fear HER seeing him cry. No puzzlement at not wanting Ron to see him cry -- it's a guy/guy thing. Seems to me both the H/H shippers and those favoring some other combination could have a field day interpreting this. Those who favor the Harry-Hermione combination would say Harry sees Hermione as a confidant, a comforter, and who better for him to end up with? Those opposing this pairing (R/Hers, etc) would say he feels so comfortable with her it'd be impossible for him to ever take her as a romantic partner because the sparks would never fly. In any case, it'll be fun to watch 'em slug it out. Don. From Rebecca.Allen at turner.com Tue Jan 8 01:25:19 2002 From: Rebecca.Allen at turner.com (Allen, Rebecca) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 20:25:19 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] flooing around Hogwarts Message-ID: <759A085B4DB9AF47AD5BB22098C917280752E7@cnncex01.turner.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32973 Eloise wrote: > Megan refers to the incident where Snape gets Lupin to floo > into his office. > This raises some security issues in my mind. > > Why don't the students use floo powder to get around the > school? Is it just > that the school is so complex that they wouldn't be able to > get off at the > right stop? Or is there some enchantment which stops them? I've been reading this thread with interest. Am I right to think that the incident in which Snape calls Lupin into his office is the *only* example of flooing in Hogwarts we ever see? Did anyone but me think it was interesting that, in this case, Snape *invited* Lupin in and evidently used his own floo powder to do the flooing? This seems to be more of a pull than a push; in the other flooing we've seen the flooer just uses their own powder and no one has to be waiting for them at the other end. So my theory is that maybe within Hogwarts you have to be invited into the other person's room and maybe they even have to use their powder to get you there (assuming they have powder, which might be a controlled substance on campus). This would at least guard against uninvited guests. Of course this doesn't explain Sirius's head-in-the-fireplace thing, but this might be qualitatively different from flooing; maybe it's only the image and the voice of the person which is transported in this case. Clearly there's got to be some enchantment preventing students from randomly flooing around the castle; otherwise they'd be flooing into each others common rooms and dorm rooms late at night for all sorts of purposes, both nefarious and amicable. ;-) I'd love to see a more comprehensive explanation of flooing (and protections against) in future books. /Rebecca [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From andrew_macian at yahoo.com Tue Jan 8 01:39:08 2002 From: andrew_macian at yahoo.com (Andrew MacIan) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 17:39:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lupin, the Moon and the Bewitching Hour In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020108013908.83790.qmail@web9501.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32974 Greetings from Andrew! This list is being more thought-provoking by the day. I appreciate this.... --- blenberry wrote: {snip} > > --- blenberry wrote: > > > > > In this case, how do you explain the > > > boggart-dementor's effects on > > > Harry? He *knows* it's a boggart. > > > > > > sorry if this has been addressed elsewhere... > I'm > > > new :) > > Back to Y'r H'mble C'rr'sp'nd'nt: > > Not to worry; I'm not excatly one of the Founders, > > either (interesting joke there, given the > topic...) > > > > As I said at the end of the paragraph (and it does > > help to identify the person you're quoting, BTW), > the > > question is one of the actual effect of the Moon > on a > > were-- Lupin, in this case. He *knows* it cannot > *be* > > the Moon for various reasons, one of the most > telling > > being that he must know where and when he is in > any > > given lunation (cycle of the Moon). It has been > > speculated in both mythological studies and modern > > magickal theory that a were is, in essence, one of > the > > best state-shape clocks in existence for this > reason. > > > > Thus, Lupin can tell that the boggart knows what > > frightens him more than anything else, but Lupin > also > > knows at his basic level of existence that the > boggart > > is nothing but a sham. > > > > Harry, on the other hand, sees the dementor and > > believes what is in essence the boggart's lie. > After > > all, the effects that are produced are Harry's; > all > > the boggart does is to read a person's fears. > Thus, > > all the boggart appears to do is induce the > fear-state > > from the target (Harry's) memories and previous > > experience. > > > > > > Clearer? If not, don't hesitate to tell me so. > > > Thanks for your reply, Andrew! Please accept my > apologies for > quoting you namelessly. Welcome! We only learn by inquiry of one form or another. As to the citation, I make enough such bookkeeping errors that I simply mention it to make sure *I'm* still in synch. > > I want to buy that theory, but this still bugs me: > if the effect of > the boggart-dementor is all in Harry's mind, > wouldn't the false > dementor at the Quidditch game affect him exactly > the same way? He > seems to feel no effects from it at all, although he > believes it to > be a real dementor. If this is scene I have currently in mind, this is where Malfoy the Younger and his henchmen (hmmm...rock band name, anyone? {grin}) dress up as dementors to try to throw Harry off his game. If so, then the effect would not be that of a true dementor, no matter Harry's reaction. IIRC, he sees but -doesn't feel- the 'dementor', so he 'throws' a Patroclus (sp? Not in my Book of Shadows, obviously!) that has the result of knocking Malfoy et Cie ass over tea-kettle. In this case, with the 'dememtor' not being a magical creature, the -physical- aspect of the Patroclus seems to have the most effect. As I read it, the 'dementor's effect was simply on the physical plane. Malfoy's bad intent might have some form of magical effect, but I don't read that as being significant. So...hopefully this is clear. I appreciate the challenge to fully think through this problem. Keep it up! Cheers, Drieux ...who survived, more or less, his first day of purgatory for this semester.... ===== 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 video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ From meboriqua at aol.com Tue Jan 8 01:59:12 2002 From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 01:59:12 -0000 Subject: Defending Trelawney (WAS Why so many unpopular teachers at Hogwarts? ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32975 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > Wait! Wait! I can make you believe! :-)> Not me, Cindy. I think Trelawney sucks. > > Also, she seemed disappointed when Harry did not see Buckbeak being > beheaded. I think that was because she had done her own Seeing and > seen the beheading. Buckbeak was in fact beheaded> Nope. The Trio heard MacNair's axe hitting a post or the ground (or whatever) in frustration because Buckbeak wasn't there. No beheading happened, Time Turner or not. Trelawney has a little fascination with grim (pun too obvious to avoid) events. She loves making horrible predictions: everyone will get the flu, this one should beware of red heads, that one will experience what is feared, and Harry will die - several times. She is also too nosy for my taste and seems far too eager to get information from Harry. I believe she is as star-struck as Colin Creevey is and tends to focus on Harry's fame in her class more than on Harry as a student. That's not good teaching. > She was on target with Lavender's rabbit, and she predicted > Hermione's exit. She was right about Neville's cup breakage. Small > stuff, but correct nonetheless> Yes, small stuff indeed. Trelawney never once mentioned anything about a rabbit and I'm willing to bet she knows Neville and his family. Neville already has a reputation as a clumsy wizard. He also wears his insecurities on his face and she guessed correctly that if she made him nervous or embarrassed him, he'd mess up. What Trelawney is using here is a talent for reading people, not Seeing. Any "good" tarot card reader in one of those storefront offices in Manhattan can do the same. > She made the following correct prediction in GoF: "Your worries are > not baseless. I see difficult times ahead for you . . . I fear the > thing you dread will indeed come to pass . . . and perhaps sooner > than you think." Voldemort did return, so score a big one for > Trelawney.> Ah, Cindy, Cindy, Cindy! This is where I love Hermione all the more. Everyone knows, as Hermione says, that Voldie is after Harry. Trelawney, being a staff member, probably heard about Harry's previous encounters with the Big V. Of course, there is always the possibility that Trelawney really does know something at that point that Harry does not, but that may not have anything to do with Seeing either, if you get my drift. > That said, I don't mean to say I completely buy Trelawney's act. I > do think she is one of JKR's better bit players, though. Even after > two books, she is still shrouded in mystery. I can't wait to find > out what happens. My own prediction is that Trelawney will prove to > be a true Seer and much more impressive than our current impression > of her.> You know, it isn't the subject matter of her classes that bothers me, it is Trelawney herself. She's too subjective and I hate it. She is always looking for the opportunity to be dramatic and the center of everyone's attention. Her appearances at the beginning of class, the overheated classroom... She reminds me of a colleague who loves to talk at his classes. For an hour every day, he sits at the front of the room and blabs on and on at the top of his voice, not really caring if the kids are following him or are really even interested. They can't stand him and come away from his classes not really remembering much. He also insists on keeping the door closed, even though his room is stifling, because he claims there is too much noise out in the halls. The kids have no escape, just as Trelawney's students can't get out without opening that trap door thing and climbing down those narrow stairs. Like my colleague, who is a very smart and learned man, Trelawney does know her stuff. It is perfectly feasible for her to teach Divination without being a Seer, just as it is possible to coach without playing the sport (just take a look and Venus and Serena Williams' father). However, Trelawney just can't stop herself from pretending to be more that what she is and that makes me question anything and everything she does. Without all the bullsh**, Trelawney could be a decent teacher, but she needs to drop the act and teach the kids more instead of putting on a show. --jenny from ravenclaw, whose mom has truly Seen (but I've never even had a shiver) ********** From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Tue Jan 8 01:59:25 2002 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 01:59:25 -0000 Subject: Through Through Through (filk) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32976 Through, Through, Through (from CoS, Chap. 14) (To the tune of Goin' Out My Back Door) Dedicated to Suzanne Chiles THE SCENE: Hagrid's hut. LUCIUS MALFOY gloats over his coup d'etat that will send Hagrid to prison and remove Dumbledore as the Hogwarts headmaster LUCIUS Hagrid's off for Azkaban, Corny Fudge is my point man It's time there were some changes made at ol' Hogwarts School We blame this disaster on the current headmaster Through, through, through is Albus Dumbledore Here's an Order from the governors bearing all 12 signatures You can't stop the basi ? I mean, the series of attacks So sad you're yet unwillin' to stop all of these killins' Through, through, through is Albus Dumbledore Boys and girls from Slytherin are dancin' in the halls Now he'll take his leave on his flyin' broom, oh dear, dear Time to decommission this elderly magician Through, through, through is Albus Dumbledore Boys and girls of Muggle lines are fleein' for their lives Eject every Mudblood from our midst, oh dear, dear He's facing deposition, deprived of ammunition Through, through, through is Albus Dumbledore And now the old senile fool says he won't have left the school As long as he has followers who'll keep loyalty Such admirable sentiments can raise no impediment Through, through, through is Albus Dumbledore Overthrew by friends of Voldemort - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From brewpub44 at earthlink.net Tue Jan 8 02:08:20 2002 From: brewpub44 at earthlink.net (brewpub44) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 02:08:20 -0000 Subject: Quirrel and the Troll (Was: Re: Snape & DADA: hearsay, or a true slight?) In-Reply-To: <11c.a4dcde1.296b1e57@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32977 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., IAmLordCassandra at a... wrote: > In a message dated 1/7/2002 9:57:07 AM Eastern Standard Time, > finwitch at y... writes: > > > > Quirrell (faints after mentioning a troll) > > This got me thinking. I assume that Dumbledore knew what each of the teachers > did to help protect the stone. If this was the case, wouldn't he've been > suspicious of Quirrell when he freaked out over a Troll that was actually > smaller than the one he was able to control and put in the chamber? > > ~Cassie~ > Holy cow! What an interesting idea! I think you stumbled upon a JKR slip-up! Well done! Of course, it was her first book, so does she deserve some slack? Barkeep From ChibiAiChan at cs.com Tue Jan 8 01:02:28 2002 From: ChibiAiChan at cs.com (ChibiAiChan at cs.com) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 20:02:28 EST Subject: SHIP: And then theres Cho.... Message-ID: <2f.206b15db.296b9f24@cs.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32978 In a message dated 1/7/02 7:53:23 AM Pacific Standard Time, cityhawk at pobox.com writes: << It is unclear whether Harry can muster feelings for Hermione in the near future (other than platonic) because he's presently infatuated with Cho. This, to me, is entirely realistic and is a large part of the reason why every teenager isn't part of a romantic couple. When I was a teenager, my single-mindedness in my crushes blinded me to the possibility that another girl might actually like me. My self-esteem was dependent on what my one crush-object thought about me regardless of whether the entire female population of the school dropped hints at me that they were interested (not that they all did, but I'm trying to make a point). It also adds a touch of humor in that "Love Stinks" kind of way... quoting the J.Geils Band: "You love her, but she loves him. And he loves somebody else, you just can't win." >> Speaking of Cho-- Do you believe Harry will have a crush on her in the next book? The reason I ask this is this: Credic and Cho were "going out" (or so looked like it to me o.o), but Harry seems to feel responsible for Credic's death. Or, let me put it THIS way O.x If Harry still does have these "feelings" for Cho, how do you think she would take to these affections? Sorry for such a far stretched post, since we haven't seen really much any any character of Cho Chang. I really hope you all understand what I'm trying to say ^^ Because it never really comes out like the way its supposed to! <3 Ai-Chan >From a humble, disorganized 18 year old girl who remembers 4 years ago being 14 O.x what confusing times they were!!! *Who is NOT CHOOSING COUPLES! til the end!* LoL! From ali719 at hotmail.com Tue Jan 8 01:50:44 2002 From: ali719 at hotmail.com (alihp719) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 01:50:44 -0000 Subject: The Marauders' Friendship In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32979 Tracy wrote: > > >And just one more thing.. was Lupin ever a > > > bit miffed at James for making Sirius best man and godfather to > > > Harry? I have to say that if I were in his position, I'd be a bit > > > jealous. > > > I think this would explain why Sirius is a bit closer to Harry, and keeps in touch with him, while Lupin really hasn't (at least as of GoF). thanks, ali From brewpub44 at earthlink.net Tue Jan 8 02:38:28 2002 From: brewpub44 at earthlink.net (brewpub44) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 02:38:28 -0000 Subject: Sadness in LoTR and HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32980 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lucky_kari" wrote: > Ahhh, my favourite of all topics. I am one of those people who needs > a daily fix of Tolkien and tragedy (separately or in combination snip > Yours Truly, > > Eileen Ah! A woman after my own heart! I too am a big Tolkien fan, splitting my time between this board and an LOTR board. Here's my thoughts on tragedy and LOTR vs. HP: I feel that we have to separate the two series as far as tragedy goes. LOTR is an overall tragic story with bits of uplift. Even the resolution is tragic, and that is foreshadowed way in the beginning of the first part (FOTR). With the exception of Tom Bombadil, the story is depressing almost from Chapter 1. So it is expected. We want the heroes to be victorious despite all the tragedy and personal sacrifice they endure. It is the loyalty of all the characters to each other and to the quest despite all these tragedies that makes the story. But in HP, we have an uplifting story with bits of tragedy. It's the reverse feel. Harry is originally a downtrodden orphan, and voila! He's a wizard at the best place in the world. Harry doubts his ability to succeed in this strange environment, and voila! He gets the Philosopher's Stone (I still call it the PS even though the publisher thought Americans too stupid for the term). That theme continues for hte next couple of books: Harry overcomes prejudice & persecution; Harry overcomes a deadly encounter; Harry overcomes the fear of being stalked (by Sirius before Sirius is revealed); Harry overcomes all the Challenges; etc., etc. It's a much different feel of a story. Now, some are saying "But what about Cedric's death and Harry's near- fatal encounter with LV?" Well, it's the "level of difficulty". Both series of books play this trick. As the story progresses, the immensity of the tasks increases. Harry's next 'task' is to face the fear of death and make a difference. The gauntlet has been thrown: LV has drawn first blood (from Harry's POV, the attack when he was an infant is before his memory). Harry now has to face that ultimate fear, and he should be victorious. So what's next? I suspect that the next thing he will have to face is his own failure. I suspect that he will screw up big time in the near future. That too is an incredible barrier: to confront your own mistakes. Anyway, I've rambled for far too long. The big point: JKR is throwing tragedies at Harry to see how Harry can overcome them and move on. Barkeep From blenberry at altavista.com Tue Jan 8 02:43:22 2002 From: blenberry at altavista.com (blenberry) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 02:43:22 -0000 Subject: Boggarts 'n' such In-Reply-To: <20020108013908.83790.qmail@web9501.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32981 Yikes, I'm getting all confused about this boggart theory. It seems odd that Harry would be affected *more* by a dementor that he *knows* is fake (the boggart) than by one he believes is real (Malfoy and friends). Is the difference just that the boggart is magical? if so, does that mean boggarts take on the powers of the thing they appear to be? Which brings us back to the earlier question of why Lupin is not affected by the boggart in the shape of the moon. I'm leaning towards the theory that boggarts do take on properties and abilities of what they resemble; thus, their effect on Harry (and the classroom lights) as a dementor. However, Lupin's experience and knowledge allow him to counteract the moon-boggart's effects on himself. From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com Tue Jan 8 03:24:03 2002 From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 21:24:03 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Defending Trelawney (WAS Why so many unpopular teachers at Hogwarts? ) References: Message-ID: <3C3A6653.1D426D82@kingwoodcable.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32982 cindysphynx wrote: > > > Now, I admit I was incorrect when I said Trelawney predicted Harry > would get stabbed in the back by a friend. Ron said that, which > shows that he's picking up a thing or two in Divination. :-) > Was this in GoF? I don't have my book with me, but frankly, Ron and HArry don't take it seriously, so I never took to heart that what Ron was saying was exactly what he saw. I don't count this has a prediction. -Katze From margdean at erols.com Tue Jan 8 03:54:03 2002 From: margdean at erols.com (Margaret Dean) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 22:54:03 -0500 Subject: Teaching Potions References: <3C3A070E.3A201855@sun.com> Message-ID: <3C3A6D5B.69594B87@erols.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32983 Elizabeth Dalton wrote: > But I still don't think [Snape]'s a good teacher. As I wrote earlier, I > evaluate this by the lack of evidence that any of his students are > learning much about potions except Hermione, and since she does so > much self-study, I'm not sure we can count her. My rejoinder to this is "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." IOW, I think we don't get enough data to know this. > Ron and Harry are quite blunt about their lack of attention in > Potions. Is that Snape's fault or theirs? You can lead a girl to Vassar... Okay, maybe a bit of both. > Neville certainly isn't learning anything, other than how to cringe. Granted. > And though we see various instances of kids using charms or spells like > Accio to do things on their own time, no one (again, except Hermione) > ever seems to make a potion for any purpose of their own. (Although, I > admit, I don't know how Fred and George made the Canary Creams. That > might have involved a potion. Even if so, I doubt they learned it from > Snape.) On what grounds do you doubt this? > Neither Harry nor Cedric try to > duplicate the fire-freeze potion when facing the dragon, or even use the > shrinking potion, which they learned in class. Eloise Midgen tries to > hex off her acne, rather than attempting to make the bubotuber potion, > and this is evidently a pretty common problem, so even though the kids > know Madam Pomfrey has a huge store of magical potion remedies, they > still don't think of potions first. There is probably a potion that lets > one breathe underwater (likely involving gillyweed), but the kids don't > even bother researching potions when trying to help Harry with his tasks > in GoF. (For the most part, they seem to be looking at Charms. See below.) > They have little knowledge and less interest in the subject, in or out > of Snape's class. Could this possibly have anything to do with the fact that the only equipment needed for a Charm is a wand, whereas in order to make a Potion you have to obtain a variety of ingredients? Not to mention the time involved, where do you set up your cauldron where it will be safe to let it simmer for hours, days, or weeks, what if your roommates complain about the smell, etc., etc. You can't always count on having a disused lavatory to work in. And hey, let's face it, teenagers as a group are not into delayed gratification. :) --Margaret Dean From djdwjt at aol.com Tue Jan 8 03:34:27 2002 From: djdwjt at aol.com (elfundeb) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 03:34:27 -0000 Subject: Trelawney In-Reply-To: <3C3A2D7A.70A5DC25@sun.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32984 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Elizabeth Dalton wrote: > I rather hate to disagree with Cindy, but I'm afraid I will have to, on three > points out of four: > > cindysphynx wrote: > > > > Trelawney has made two correct predictions, and she saw the Sirius twice (tea > > leaves and crystal ball), although she misinterpreted what she saw by > > believing it to be the Grim. She made a few other correct > > predictions (like predicting Harry would be stabbed in the back and > > he would come into some money in GoF). > > Elizabeth: Well, your interpretation is your own, but I think any success on her part was > blind luck. She wanted to see a Grim -- it's a famous portent of death-- so she > saw one. I think the resemblence to Sirius was accidental. She predicted so many > bad things happening to Harry that *some* of them were bound to come true. (And I don't remember anyone saying Harry would come into money-- I > thought he was going to *lose* money on a bet....) > > >If I'm correct about what Cindy's referring to, Trelawney didn't predict Harry's Triwizard winnings -- Ron did. ("A windfall, unexpected gold.") He gets so little credit for his academics, but he got just past that point of the tea leaf reading when Trelawney took over and started turning the reading into a portent of death. >Elizabeth: > > What evidence do we have that > she's teaching anything other than how to be an effective fraud? > > Even > Dumbledore seems to have a limited expectation about Trelawney's accuracy. > > If anything, Divination may be *more* > difficult than Transfiguration, and accomplished Seers may be much more rare. I > think that's why Dumbledore keeps Trelawney on. She has, after all, had at least > two "genuine" predictions, and that's more than most people get, apparently. I have always wondered why Dumbledore keeps Trelawney, especially since I'm not convinced her two correct predictions are not the result of some kind of possession rather than "seeing". She can't even remember them. A theory of mine on why she is there is that, in addition to the possible rarity of true Seers, Dumbledore wants to keep an eye on her because her true predictions reveal information about the dark side, or possibly she needs to be protected from Voldemort for some reason. And because she realizes that she's not a good seer, she uses the skills of a muggle-traveling-carnival fortuneteller as a cover. (Trelawney knows Hermione sees through this, and hounds her out of the class; people who go along and make up their homework, like Harry and Ron do, may be less threatening to her.) [feel free to show me the holes in this theory as I have not subjected it to a thorough analysis] > > > > Elizabeth again: > > I'll admit that it may not be *possible* to See on demand for an exam. The > question then becomes, why is there a class on it at all? And how much blame > should a teacher bear for accepting a position to teach a subject which can't be > taught? It seems that arts such as crystal ball reading can't be taught, unless of course, the real purpose of the crystal ball is to provide a blank space for the seer to clear one's brain of external thoughts and "see" what is within. Arguably this is what Harry does at his exam (even though JKR's description of it makes it appear that he is to some degree grasping at straws), but Trelawney is playing the odds on Buckbeak and doesn't give him much credit for it. An interesting side question here is whether Harry's accurate prediction should be discounted because he himself engineered Buckbeak's escape, or whether part of seeing is just seeing the possibilities. But back to the subject of the teachability of divination, their first lesson in PoA suggests that some forms of divination are very teachable. After all, Harry and Ron seem able to come up with reasonable predictions simply by consulting the text. Ron's prediction of unexpected gold for Harry came true in GoF, and at least the suffering portion of Harry's prediction for Ron is true, as he clearly allows himself to suffer from his jealousy. (We'll have to wait on the happiness part; my theory may be out the window if Ron dies as some of the HPFGU seers are predicting.) So why did Trelawney give an exam on the least learnable thing she taught? > > . >And like Elizabeth, I will also write a letter of apology to > good Professor Trelawney and publicly recant my position to > Cindy's satisfaction if she is correct. Either way I certainly enjoy her as a character -- entertaining and thought-provoking. > > Debbie (Muggle skeptic) From tabouli at unite.com.au Tue Jan 8 04:00:45 2002 From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 15:00:45 +1100 Subject: Speculations on wizard transport Message-ID: <003f01c197f9$83192a80$a737c2cb@price> No: HPFGUIDX 32985 Just an afterthought after mentioning The Magician's Nephew... Remember that scene where Diggory puts on his ring and ends up in the Wood Between The Worlds with the Witch, the cabdriver, Uncle Andrew and Strawberry, i.e. all the living creatures in contact with Diggory (or in contact with a living creature in contact with Diggory)? CS Lewis makes convenient use of the magnet effect to get everyone he wants into Narnia. Compare this with JKR's wizarding world. She seems to make a very clear distinction between the animate and the inanimate. We have to assume that a wizard can't take a passenger with him/her when Apparating, otherwise why didn't Lily grab Harry and Apparate when Voldemort came? Perhaps there's an element of will there: only animate creatures who are intending to and capable of Apparating can do it. (where does that leave animals? Could Ron Apparate with Pigwidgeon in his pocket, and if not, what would happen?) Hence no magnet effect. This may be true of Portkeys as well, otherwise wouldn't the Potters have arranged to have a handy Portkey to whisk them far away out of danger? ("Quick, Lily, grab Harry and touch the Portkey!" - though couldn't she have arranged to make baby Harry touch it as well?) I think we have to assume that making a Portkey is a long and difficult process, otherwise it opens up too many plot holes, not the least of which is the infamous Crouch/Moody and Harry situation ("Harry, could you just grab that book for me?" "Sure, Professor MooAAARRGH!" (whoosh to graveyard)) It seems that inanimate objects do get Apparated/Portkeyed along with the wizard: their clothes come along for the ride for a start (though perhaps to the disappointment of some...), and so, presumably, do any inanimate objects they are holding. In the graveyard, Harry used the portkey to take Cedric back to his parents, but by that point Cedric was an inanimate object, i.e. dead. If Cedric had been alive, but unconscious, could he still have done it? Then there's the ol' teleport problem. What would happen if two people Apparated or Portkeyed simultaneously into an overlapping space, or even into an object like a tree or building? This was one of my first thoughts as I read about people getting to the Quidditch World Cup, I must admit. Would some terrible explosion or fusing together happen? (note: fanfic writers, I hand this one to you... is the Whomping Willow the product of a violent wizard fusing with a willow tree?) Would they splinch each other, or just conveniently spring up whole and close together? In GoF, JKR seems to take the convenience option with Charlie Apparating on top of someone, and with Floo powder, as Weasley after Weasley crams into the Dursley fireplace (though I suppose the Floo network would have to take this into account). Hmmmmm hummm hoooommmm (muses Tabouli, in Treebeard fashion). [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tabouli at unite.com.au Tue Jan 8 03:24:11 2002 From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 14:24:11 +1100 Subject: Harryphobia, clueless teachers, JRRT+JKR humour, use of 'wog' Message-ID: <003e01c197f9$80be71a0$a737c2cb@price> No: HPFGUIDX 32986 Erin: > Perhaps they're not only scared of LV (even though he's "dead" for all purposes), > but scared of Harry too. The Dursleys? Ha! They're terrified of Harry and his magical, abnormal powers! I think a lot of their ill-treatment and dislike stems at least as much from fear of Harry as it does from the supposed burden on their time and finances or whatever they claim. finwitch: > In DADA, the courage to at least try is more important than perfection of a spell. Just watch Ron use the ONLY spell he knows along with Harry to defeat a troll, Harry using the only advantage he had when fighting Quirrell, his incomplete, but successful enough a Patronus etc.< Intriguing idea. Now finwitch points it out, we do have numerous examples of it not being so much how much you know, as how resourcefully you apply what you *do* know that saves the day. Look at how handy Expelliarmus turned out to be! We also have two examples of wizards who have made a successful living out almost entirely out of acting ability and sneakiness, namely Trelawney and Lockhart. Hmmm. Could this be a vindication of Dumbledore's headmastering style? Do children really learn more by finding ways around dealing with eccentric and even incompetent teachers (thus building their independence and resourcefulness and characters) than they would if all of their teachers knew their stuff and taught it well?? Elizabeth (who, as a professional instructor, is often frustrated with schools -- especially colleges and universities -- choosing teachers based on their knowledge of their subject, rather than their ability to teach it)< Hear hear. Universities are particularly guilty of this. At least school teachers (in Australia, anyway) are required by law to have a teaching degree. Though see above... Chris: > Is there an acronym for Quirrell lovers? We're a small group, but cultish. How about: V.A.N.Q.U.I.S.H.E.D. (Voldemort Aggressively Nullifed Quirrell's Undeniable Intelligence and Skill: He's Erroneously Dismissed) Amy Z: > LoTR is terribly sad in the way it portrays the > ending of an era (I have a friend who hates The Last Battle for this reason) Yes, I always thought the end of The Last Battle was terribly nasty and depressing, especially the Day of Judgment stuff where all those who do not recognise Aslan turn dumb and perish in the darkness. How awful. Beginnings are much more cheerful, which is why my favorite Narnia book is The Magician's Nephew! What a lovely creation scene, and I love the idea of The Wood Between The Worlds. Eileen: > Tolkien not funny? /me almost faints. (Tabouli is unrepentant) I will grudgingly concede that some of the moments Eileen listed are marginally light, but not to the extent of being funny. Not to me. But to each their own, of course. I have a Ravenclaw sense of humour... I like cleverness: verbal wittiness, and interpersonal situation humour, and JKR is lavish with both of these (the whole Yule Ball situation is priceless, partly because it's just so convincing). I also like ingenious satire, absurdity and parody and can tolerate much more over the top in this department than a lot of people, hence I love Lockhart and Trelawney and Rita Skeeter ("My secret ambition is to rid the world of evil and market my own range of hair care products!"). This is not Tolkien's style; indeed, it wouldn't suit his writing and world at all. I can see evidence of some sense of humour in LOTR, but I find it a sort of fusty, pipe-smoking, old-fashioned, upper class poking fun at the peasants and bourgeoisie sort of humour. Not my thing. Except for Treebeard and Tom Bombadil of course (OT listmembers groan), where Tolkien let himself go a little. Hooom hom hmmm and ring a ding dillo.... Eileen: > You don't like Sam? /me looks reproachfully at Tabouli, but decides to forgive. Sam is the quintessential hobbit, after all, and that can be a hard taste to acquire. ;-) For myself, I find Sam funnier than Hagrid any day, perhaps it has something to do with his humour being firmly rooted in common sense. < Well there you have it, different sense of humour. I can see the sort of relationship Tolkien is representing between Frodo and Sam (didn't some journalist compare it to army officer and his batsman?), but the classism still makes me wince, though oddly enough the Hagrid/Dumbledore relationship doesn't bother me nearly as much, perhaps because it's so obviously tongue in cheek. Though I was raised in Australia, a society of stridently anti-authority egalitarian values and great cynicism and irreverence, which no doubt has something to do with it. Of course, Sam does go home and have kids and become mayor and all the rest (Damned good show, by Jove! Sterling chap, that Sam, even if he *isn't* out of the top drawer), but IIRC he never forgets that the wasted, haunted Frodo is nonetheless of Better Stuff than he. (Tabouli peeks warily at Eileen through her fingers, conscious that she is being pretty harsh here...) I admit I find the house-elves annoying, but not for the same reasons. I see them as a satirical comment on slavery which got a bit out of hand. Helly: > I know it was meant to be a joke to illustrate a certain type of Englishness but I just wanted to point out that the word wog is very offensive. I wouldn't want anyone coming to England and getting into trouble by using the word.< Bit of a poser, wot? While we're on the subject of the word 'wog' (which I'm told stemmed from Worthy Oriental Gentleman in the UK), I should also point out that 'wog' doesn't refer to 'Asians' in Australia at all... it refers to Southern Europeans, particularly Greek and Italian migrants. It doesn't seem to be quite as offensive here, either: it's one of those words that have been taken on by the group themselves and gets used with pride. A bunch of mostly Greek Australians have written several plays, TV series and even a couple of films using 'wog' as their motif... "Wogboys", "Wogs out of Work", etc., in which they pack endless jokes about the eccentricities of their own communities. Of course, it's more offensive if a 'non-wog' uses the word, but it depends on how it's done. Tabouli (who has received more "wog" racist epithets than "chink" ones in her time, as she looks more Greek than Chinese) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From boggles at earthlink.net Tue Jan 8 04:08:07 2002 From: boggles at earthlink.net (Jennifer Boggess Ramon) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 22:08:07 -0600 Subject: Snape & DADA, Astronomy, Quirrell and the Sight In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32987 At 2:55 PM +0000 1/7/02, finwitch wrote: > >This WOULD piss Snape off - DADA is important, and Dumbledore >choosing an incompetent teacher instead of him who at least would >know what he's talking about... Quirrell we simply don't know about (although he as much as admits that fainting about the troll was a ruse, and Snape knew it), but if Hagrid is correct in CoS, Lockhart was the only applicant for the job the second year. If Snape wanted it, he didn't throw his hat in the ring for some reason. At 8:55 AM -0800 1/7/02, Ronald Rae Yu wrote: >Is their Astronomy subject with Sinistra really >Astronomy? They would be having a non-magical course >then (interesting for me). Not necessarily. If Amulets and Talismans are part of the curriculum later on, many traditional talismans need to be constructed or charmed when a specific planet or star is directly overhead, the phases of the moon are important for Care of Magical Creatures (and perhaps Herbology?), and of course the background is useful in Divination. It's an all-around handy thing to know for a young wizard or witch. (I doubt they delve much into astrophysics.) At 10:52 AM -0500 1/7/02, IAmLordCassandra at aol.com wrote: >This got me thinking. I assume that Dumbledore knew what each of the teachers >did to help protect the stone. If this was the case, wouldn't he've been >suspicious of Quirrell when he freaked out over a Troll that was actually >smaller than the one he was able to control and put in the chamber? Snape certainly was, and Dumbledore hadn't seen the troll in question yet. I do imagine Dumbledore was suspicious - why else would he let Snape wander off by himself like that? At 3:34 AM +0000 1/8/02, elfundeb wrote: >If I'm correct about what Cindy's referring to, Trelawney didn't >predict Harry's Triwizard winnings -- Ron did. ("A windfall, >unexpected gold.") He gets so little credit for his academics, but he >got just past that point of the tea leaf reading when Trelawney took >over and started turning the reading into a portent of death. Harry and Ron seem to have a better track record for correct predictions than Trelawney does. Harry certainly has better Sight, if his dreams are any indication. And I've wondered why Ron was made a sixth son - and why there's that gap between Charlie and Percy. (If that gap is by Mr. and Mrs Weasley's choice, they decided to start having kids hand over fist again just as the darkest part of the Voldemort years settled in, and stopped right when V. lost his powers. The only explanation I can come up with for _that_ is that they figured it was their duty to repopulate the wizarding world all by themselves - if it were just that Molly wanted a girl, they wouldn't have that gap . . .) -- - 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 marybear82 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 8 04:31:46 2002 From: marybear82 at yahoo.com (Mary Shearer) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 20:31:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sadness in LoTR and HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020108043146.895.qmail@web14007.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32988 --- brewpub44 wrote: > So what's next? I suspect that the next thing he > will have to face is > his own failure. I suspect that he will screw up big > time in the near > future. That too is an incredible barrier: to > confront your own > mistakes. Snip> The big > point: JKR is throwing > tragedies at Harry to see how Harry can overcome > them and move on. Oh wow! I hadn't thought at all of that possibility. What would that do to our young man? His sense of responsibility over Cedric's death (something he could not control) was nearly his undoing. His quietly hysterical refusal to let go of Cedric after returning to the school grounds was, IMO, one of the most dramatic scenes thus far; and his anguish in the hospital, despite Molly's reassurance that it was not his fault, was heartbreaking. (stopping now to raise a glass to JKR's masterful handling of these events) Harry has been changed irrevocably by this experience, and is a sadder but wiser young man now. If, in the future, he is directly responsible for some large, un-named tragedy, WILL he be able to move on? It seems to me that it would shatter his already fragile confidence in himself, and one of two things could happen: it could leave him bereft and more vulnerable than ever (making room for the important people in his life to get closer to him) or unfortunately make him throw up more walls around himself. JKR has frequently hinted that the emotional stakes will go higher, but this would be a scenario that would pack a real emotional wallop and produce some pretty dramatic fall-out! I would dearly love to see more of the kind of high drama there was in GoF, but not at the expense of Harry's luminous soul. If he can come through something like that with his sweet and sensitive nature intact, I'm all for it. But if he turns bitter, I don't think I could bear it! -Mary, who loves a good cry, and was a gleefully soggy mess at the end of GoF. > > > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com Tue Jan 8 04:57:40 2002 From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 22:57:40 -0600 Subject: the Sight - Trelawney & Ron References: Message-ID: <3C3A7C44.ACF96C98@kingwoodcable.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32989 Jennifer Boggess Ramon wrote: > Harry and Ron seem to have a better track record for correct > predictions than Trelawney does. Harry certainly has better Sight, > if his dreams are any indication. And I've wondered why Ron was made > a sixth son - and why there's that gap between Charlie and Percy. > (If that gap is by Mr. and Mrs Weasley's choice, they decided to > start having kids hand over fist again just as the darkest part of > the Voldemort years settled in, and stopped right when V. lost his > powers. The only explanation I can come up with for _that_ is that > they figured it was their duty to repopulate the wizarding world all > by themselves - if it were just that Molly wanted a girl, they > wouldn't have that gap . . .) Or perhaps, Ron is a seventh son (is that where you were going with this?). Would he be the seventh of a seventh (is Arthur a seventh)? Was there a brother who died? Though I always remember Ron being quite specific that he had "five older brothers", not "six, but one died". Would be interesting... Are sevenths of a seventh healers and seers? After all this talk about Ron and his predictions, I think I'm going to have to go re-read his (and Harry's) statements in light of this discussion. It would be an interesting twist for Ron to turn out to be a true seer, probably be a hell of a lot of fun too. I'm not sure how to take Trelawney. It's sort of taking a handwriting analysis course. You write a certain thing, and the teacher takes it home, and come up with a profile based on your handwriting. Each kid in class reads and says "Yeah...that's me to a 't'", and it turns out that the same thing is written on each paper that was handed out. So...is Trelawney a true seer, or do we just want to believe she is and we are reading things into her predictions? Rowling has done a brilliant job created her character, as we don't know what to acknowledge and what not to acknowledge...except for the second prediction, and she doesn't even remember that. -Katze From Seiryuu_Avatar at msn.com Tue Jan 8 04:35:23 2002 From: Seiryuu_Avatar at msn.com (Brian Yoon) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 20:35:23 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Quirrel and the Troll (Was: Re: Snape & DADA: hearsay, or a true slight?) References: Message-ID: <00a401c19801$c019f380$7f28fea9@yoonabomber> No: HPFGUIDX 32990 From: brewpub44 > > This got me thinking. I assume that Dumbledore knew what each of > the teachers > > did to help protect the stone. If this was the case, wouldn't he've > been > > suspicious of Quirrell when he freaked out over a Troll that was > actually > > smaller than the one he was able to control and put in the chamber? > > > > ~Cassie~ > > > Holy cow! What an interesting idea! I think you stumbled upon a JKR > slip-up! Well done! Of course, it was her first book, so does she > deserve some slack? > Well, when Quirrell controlled the big troll, he was ready to do so mentally and physically, probably armed with some hexes, potions ready-made, and such. I don't blame Quirrell for fainting when the unexpected troll met him (that is, in his cover story). Think of it: if you are a tiger-tamer, you don't fear the tiger inside the ring. But if you're taking a leak, and suddenly the tiger appears next to you, when you don't have a whip or anything... Seiryuu aka Brian Yoon From Seiryuu_Avatar at msn.com Tue Jan 8 04:47:35 2002 From: Seiryuu_Avatar at msn.com (Brian Yoon) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 20:47:35 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Yet Another Time Turner Q References: Message-ID: <00a701c19801$c274ac60$7f28fea9@yoonabomber> No: HPFGUIDX 32991 Continuing the discussion of Time Turners in another level... One of the consequences Hermione mentions to Harry is that you can startle yourself if you are seen by yourself. (Boy, that was a mouthful.) But when Harry sees himself, he is not startled; he is just reminded of his father, James. So if you know what to look for, why would you be scared by the Time-Turnered second person? If Hermione saw herself sitting at a desk, for instance, wouldn't she think "Oh crap, I've messed up with the Time Turner. Better get out of this room," instead of "It's Dark Arts! Die!!"? So there can't be too harsh consequences for being seen while TTed (Harry doesn't seem to come out of it any worse), why do people who use it worry about it? The only thing to worry about is being seen at the same time by the same person. Point: When Hermione pulls Harry back, Hagrid appears, and heads towards the castle. If Harry _was_ seen, how would that have changed the past? It's the same predicament as Hermione using the TT to go to 2 classes. Sure, they would have been slowed down, but nothing catostrophic would have happened. Seiryuu aka Brian Yoon From Whirdy at aol.com Tue Jan 8 05:04:30 2002 From: Whirdy at aol.com (Whirdy at aol.com) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 00:04:30 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Your Weight in Galleons or Tuition Message-ID: <131.6d47473.296bd7de@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32992 In a message dated 1/7/02 1:00:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, Joanne0012 at aol.com writes: > But the question then arises -- are galleons based on the coins' instrinsic > worth? > If so, larger-denomination coins would still add up to the same 25-pound > weight > or else be made of something else (platinum? titanium?). > > Actually, we're going to have to go off into JKR-math-La-La-Land, for now, > since > instrinsic value also means that a single galleon (i.e., $7 worth of gold) > would > weigh under a gram, which is not a practical size for a coin! > > In sum, either we have to stop holding JKR accountable for things > quantitative, > or else she has to hire one of us to do out these sums for her. I > volunteer! > > > I think we should factor in the Gringott Bank which is undoubtedly chaired by the one and only Alan Greengoblin, who assumes the power to set the prime rate. Since it is the only bank in the wizarding world, it can put in as little or as much gold as they wish into a galleon, since all you can exchange for is sickles or knuts. However, we know the Grangers have traded their muggle money for wizarding money. Does Hermione do the reverse at the end of the year and how do they provide her allowance (as good muggle parents do) throughout the year. This leads to another money questions -- Has the question of tuition cost be broached? We see that students must provide their own potion ingredients. What is the source of funding for teachers' salaries or wages. Does Filch run the school store if only to keep down the break-ins of Snape's office. Does Hogwarts provide scholarships? academic or quidditch? whirdy . [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com Tue Jan 8 05:10:54 2002 From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 23:10:54 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sadness in LoTR and HP References: <20020108043146.895.qmail@web14007.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3C3A7F5E.9A022CB6@kingwoodcable.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32993 Mary Shearer wrote: > > --- brewpub44 wrote: > > > So what's next? I suspect that the next thing he > > will have to face is > > his own failure. I suspect that he will screw up big > > time in the near > > future. That too is an incredible barrier: to > > confront your own > > mistakes. > Snip> The big > > point: JKR is throwing > > tragedies at Harry to see how Harry can overcome > > them and move on. > > Oh wow! I hadn't thought at all of that possibility. > What would that do to our young man? His sense of > responsibility over Cedric's death (something he could > not control) was nearly his undoing. His quietly > hysterical refusal to let go of Cedric after returning > to the school grounds was, IMO, one of the most > dramatic scenes thus far; and his anguish in the > hospital, despite Molly's reassurance that it was not > his fault, was heartbreaking. (stopping now to raise a > glass to JKR's masterful handling of these events) > Harry has been changed irrevocably by this experience, > and is a sadder but wiser young man now. If, in the > future, he is directly responsible for some large, > un-named tragedy, WILL he be able to move on? It seems > to me that it would shatter his already fragile > confidence in himself, and one of two things could > happen: it could leave him bereft and more vulnerable > than ever (making room for the important people in his > life to get closer to him) or unfortunately make him > throw up more walls around himself. JKR has frequently > hinted that the emotional stakes will go higher, but > this would be a scenario that would pack a real > emotional wallop and produce some pretty dramatic > fall-out! I would dearly love to see more of the kind > of high drama there was in GoF, but not at the expense > of Harry's luminous soul. If he can come through > something like that with his sweet and sensitive > nature intact, I'm all for it. But if he turns > bitter, I don't think I could bear it! > > -Mary, who loves a good cry, and was a gleefully soggy > mess at the end of GoF. I have to agree with Marry, that the heartache in GoF was really emotional and satisfying in a weird way (should I say that?). I've been thinking... We know that some more deaths happens and one of not a few will be major characters. What if Harry's big mistake is something that actually causes the death of this person? Wouldn't that just be awful? He certainly would have to examine death in a closer way, and also re-evaluate pretty much everything about himself to find his center again. I think Ron and Hermione's friendship and support will be even more important, because I think Harry would truly recede into the woodwork. Just some speculation... -Katze (who was right along beside Mary at the end of GoF) From pigwidgeon37 at yahoo.it Tue Jan 8 05:41:57 2002 From: pigwidgeon37 at yahoo.it (=?iso-8859-1?q?Susanna?=) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 05:41:57 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Speculations on wizard transport In-Reply-To: <003f01c197f9$83192a80$a737c2cb@price> Message-ID: <20020108054157.20307.qmail@web14704.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32994 Tabouli wrote: >Compare this with JKR's wizarding world. She seems to make >a very clear distinction between the animate and the >inanimate. We have to assume that a wizard can't take a >passenger with him/her when Apparating, otherwise why didn't >Lily grab Harry and Apparate when Voldemort came? Perhaps >there's an element of will there: only animate creatures who >are intending to and capable of Apparating can do it. (where does that leave animals? Could Ron Apparate with >Pigwidgeon in his pocket, and if not, what would happen?) Stretching, yawning and delurking... Now, there seems to be a very clear technical difference between Apparating and transportation by Portkey, at least I have always been under the impression that Apparating is done by de-materializing and re-materializing, requiring a very strong focusing of mind, otherwise you'd splinch or miss your aim. OTOH, Portkeys appear to be a rather mechanical, if also very fast, mode of travelling, for Harry clearly describes that feeling of being pulled by an invisible cord and of a rush of colours and air. This difference at least suggests that you eventually might take along a passenger when portkey-ing somewhere, but I suppose it's dangerous as you would have to hold him, her or it in such a dead grip that your passenger might be hurt or you could downright lose him. But then it seems that once you touch a Portkey and it's activated, you can't let go, which would make it a rather safe way of travelling even for a baby, unless you hit it with your trunk in the process of landing. My mental picture of Apparating, however, is that you can take anything with you, if only you cover it completely with your cloak or robes. Which would also have been true for baby Harry. But maybe the house at Godric's Hollow had anti-Apparition protection like Hogwarts, courtesy of AD, and that was why James told Lily to run, namely run outside the shield or whatever and then Apparate away. >I think we have to assume that making a Portkey is a long >and difficult process, otherwise it opens up too many plot >holes, not the least of which is the infamous Crouch/Moody >and Harry situation ("Harry, could you just grab that book >for me?" "Sure, Professor MooAAARRGH!" (whoosh to >graveyard)) I'd imagine that Portkeys and their production are rather strictly surveyed by the MoM, otherwise just imagine the chaos- it would be like everybody having an airplane and flying around at their whim, there would be way too many accidents. maybe, if you want a portkey, you even have to file a request to the MoM. Plus, I'm not so sure whether your starting point for a travel by portkey doesn't have to be outside, for if it really is as "mechanical" as I think, you'd crash into the first wall if you started from a closed room. At least, this would be a logical explanation for the fact that Crouch/Moody couldn't simply turn Harry's toothbrush into a Portkey. >Then there's the ol' teleport problem. What would happen if >two people Apparated or Portkeyed simultaneously into an >overlapping space, or even into an object like a tree or >building? This was one of my first thoughts as I read about >people getting to the Quidditch World Cup, I must admit. >Would some terrible explosion or fusing together happen? Hmmm... Maybe that is why they set up an Apparition point somewhere in the woods and seemingly far from the portkey arrival point? To avoid that Arthur Weasley and Lucius Malfoy merge together into a creature hardly imaginable? Susanna/pigwidgeon37 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT ________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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service. "And how come those portraits seem to be alive?" "What'ya mean? All paintings move." "No, they don't. We have lots of paintings in our villa, among them a real Chagall, and none of them..." "And d'ya expect that something painted by a jackal will move? Now really..." --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Get personalised at My Yahoo!. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gte510i at prism.gatech.edu Tue Jan 8 03:24:26 2002 From: gte510i at prism.gatech.edu (gte510i) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 03:24:26 -0000 Subject: Lupin and the Moon-a new line of thought Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32995 For the Past week or two I have been reading up on the discussion of Lupin not turing into a werewolf until the cloud un-eclipsed the moon. I've heard some interesting theories but I must admit that another issue precedes this. That is: Lupin says that the wolfsbane potion need to be taken durring the week preceding the full moon. Why did he need to take it that night? It would seem that come nightfall he would have locked the door and curled up in his office as a harmless wolf. He would have taken his potion the previous 7 days. Even if the full moon didn't show up until midnight, he wouldn't have turned into a monster, because tonight was not a 'take your potion night'. Any thoughts? catydid who has had a lot of fun finding the idiosyncrosies in the cannon and thrilled that most have been addressed here. From bethz1 at rcn.com Tue Jan 8 03:45:14 2002 From: bethz1 at rcn.com (Ms. Found in A Bottle) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 22:45:14 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry and Ron's views of each other. References: Message-ID: <00ff01c197f6$e1f28180$7d3bfea9@cable.rcn.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32996 ----- Original Message ----- From: "jenny_ravenclaw" > "Ms. Found in A Bottle" wrote: > > > >What's the worst thing *Harry's* ever done? > > > I had to really think of this, but I feel the worst is the way that > Harry if often kinda rubbing in Ron's face the fact that he's rich and > Ron's not (esp. in GoF).> > > I am really surprised to see anyone write that because I find it > completely untrue. Harry has never once rubbed anything in anyone's > face, especially Ron's. I meant it more in a way, like when Ron asks if Harry knows that Leprecaun's Gold disappears...because he pays him back at the World Cup with it. And Harry says he didn't really notice...and Ron says something along the lines of "It must be nice to have so much money that you don't realize when some of it just disappears". Its not really that bad (I don't really consider Harry doing any really bad things), but that was the only thing that's ever happened concerning Harry that I didn't really like. Its probably not even his fault, but its just the way I felt when I first read that part of GoF. Beth From southernscotland at yahoo.com Tue Jan 8 03:50:15 2002 From: southernscotland at yahoo.com (southernscotland) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 03:50:15 -0000 Subject: Harry - genetics vs. environment - (WAS: Harry being afraid to cry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 32997 At the > end of GoF, "[h]e could feel a burning, prickling feeling in the inner > corners of his eyes. He blinked and stared up at the ceiling . . . > [n]ow the burning feeling was in his throat, too. He wished Ron would > look away." (p. 714, US edition) > Hi! I'm new, so be gentle if this topic came up many times before I got here...(and please tell me where so I can look it up!) All the details about Harry not wanting to cry brought up an interesting facet of the books that I have been wondering about for a long time. J.K. Rowling seems to be on the "genetics" side of the "genetics vs. environment" psychological theories, at least in regards to Harry's upbringing. As we all know, Harry was raised abysmally, without love, attention, or the care someone would give a pet dog. How on EARTH has he turned out as well as he has? No one has mentored him; no one has taught him right from wrong; no one has given him any positive attention about anything. By all rights, he should be royally messed-up. I mean REALLY messed up. But he isn't. WHY is he such a nice boy, when everything was stacked against him all during his formative years (besides, of course, that's the way the author wants him)? Any opinions? I've never understood this. AND...is he really such a good and quiet boy underneath? Or is J.K. Rowling setting us up (especially in the end of GOF) for an enormous explosion of emotion - and who knows what ELSE - when the boy (and possibly, all heck) finally breaks loose? Just wondering... Glad to be here with you! lilahp From andrew_macian at yahoo.com Tue Jan 8 05:44:23 2002 From: andrew_macian at yahoo.com (Andrew MacIan) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 21:44:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Boggarts 'n' such In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020108054423.18249.qmail@web9501.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32998 Greetings from Andrew! Ah! The feeling of confusion that heralds a potential breakthrough. As Asimov said, "Instead of 'Eureka!', most scientific advances have been heralded by 'That's odd...'" This will be a lengthy post; a glass of Guinness or port might be appropriate accompaniment. No whiteboards will be harmed by the author in this exercise..... --- blenberry wrote: > Yikes, I'm getting all confused about this boggart > theory. It seems > odd that Harry would be affected *more* by a > dementor that he *knows* > is fake (the boggart) than by one he believes is > real (Malfoy and > friends). Is the difference just that the boggart > is magical? if so, > does that mean boggarts take on the powers of the > thing they appear > to be? Which brings us back to the earlier question > of why Lupin is > not affected by the boggart in the shape of the > moon. > Well-posed. Let's see if we can agree on what possible cases exist from the above: Case 1: The dementor is real, and Harry is aware that it is. The dementor has magical abilities. Case 2: The dementor is actually a boggart, and Harry is convinced by the boggart's magical abilities. Case 3: The dementor is Malfoy and henchmen, and Harry reacts to the perceived threat, even though he doesn't 'feel' magic. Case 4: Lupin, a magical creature, faces a boggart, a magical creature. The boggart knows that Lupin's greatest fear is the Moon, so it assume the form of the Moon. Do we agree? If so, then in cases 1, 2 and 4, we must determine what the actual effect of the magic is upon the target; we'll ignore case 3 for the moment. Case 1 is stark reality. Harry sees a dementor and, depending on where we are in the flow of the novel, he is either defenseless or can (to some greater or lesser degree) defend himself. Case 2, after Harry has been exposed to the first incident of Case 1, the perception takes over Harry's current reality and he believes the boggart's deception, which is its power. Case 4 can be considered a special case, in that we have both two magical creature pitting their strengths against each other as well as the fact that Lupin *knows* the boggart's power. Thus, Lupin can discount the Moon that he 'sees' as he *knows* the boggart's power is to lie. OK so far? We've indicated what the effects of magic qua magic have been. Now, Case 3 is the one of most interest to me, as it presents the greatest possible 'cook' to this problem. In this case, Harry has been through instances of both Case 1 and Case 2. He physically sees the dementor but fails to feel the 'psychic vampire' effect. However, his reason prevails, so he launches the known counter, the Patroclus spell. The *physical* effect is to unmask Malfoy and henchmen for the liars they are, by *physically* knocking them over. By so doing, Harry gains some understanding of both how strong the Patroclus manifestation can be, as well as how his perceptions of both the magical and physical worlds interact. In sum, we have two meta-cases, one where the mage must handle both the magical and physical worlds using magic, and one where two magical creatures determine who's magic is best/strongest. Whew! Time for a drink, and to change the CD. > I'm leaning towards the theory that boggarts do take > on properties > and abilities of what they resemble; thus, their > effect on Harry > (and the classroom lights) as a dementor. However, > Lupin's > experience and knowledge allow him to counteract the > moon-boggart's > effects on himself. And in this, as we arrive at the same conclusion, so {fanfare} QED. Kewl! This is why I do math for a living, and write and play chess for fun. A glass of wine with you, sir or madam. Thanks for the workout! Cheers, Drieux ...who really, *really* likes a three-pipe problem.... ===== 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 video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ From andrew_macian at yahoo.com Tue Jan 8 06:16:38 2002 From: andrew_macian at yahoo.com (Andrew MacIan) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 22:16:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Speculations on wizard transport In-Reply-To: <003f01c197f9$83192a80$a737c2cb@price> Message-ID: <20020108061638.3577.qmail@web9507.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 32999 Greetings from Andrew! Seems to be a night where I can let my reason and imagination loose... --- Tabouli wrote: {Snip} of interesting things. > Then there's the ol' teleport problem. What would > happen if two people Apparated or Portkeyed > simultaneously into an overlapping space, or even > into an object like a tree or building? This was > one of my first thoughts as I read about people > getting to the Quidditch World Cup, I must admit. > Would some terrible explosion or fusing together > happen? If the ordinary, boring old laws of physics apply, think something bigger/more energetic than a megaton-scale thermonuclear explosion. This seems to be one of the limiting factors to why it's *quantum* teleportation that we seem to to be able to currently pull off. > (note: fanfic writers, I hand this one to > you... is the Whomping Willow the product of a > violent wizard fusing with a willow tree?) Given the description of its use at Hogwarts, I'd opine that it was 'purpose built' to do what it currently does. I can imagine a lot of things that could be protected by such a tree. > Would > they splinch each other, or just conveniently spring > up whole and close together? In GoF, JKR seems to > take the convenience option with Charlie Apparating > on top of someone, and with Floo powder, as Weasley > after Weasley crams into the Dursley fireplace > (though I suppose the Floo network would have to > take this into account). I would say that the Floo route is not Apparating, per se. As you point out above, the Apparate spell appears to be a case of Will and Word: You have to expend internal energy to get something done. My own model of the Floo net is that of a more complex version of IP routing/addressing, with people being packets routed to a given destination...usually the correct one, but as with IP packets, Odd Things Happen. > > Hmmmmm hummm hoooommmm (muses Tabouli, in Treebeard > fashion). > "Indeed," mused Holmes. 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 video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ From andrew_macian at yahoo.com Tue Jan 8 06:26:59 2002 From: andrew_macian at yahoo.com (Andrew MacIan) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 22:26:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lupin and the Moon-a new line of thought In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020108062659.3917.qmail@web9507.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33000 Greetings from Andrew! Ah...another victim....{evil smile}.... --- gte510i wrote: > For the Past week or two I have been reading up on > the discussion of > Lupin not turing into a werewolf until the cloud > un-eclipsed the moon. > I've heard some interesting theories but I must > admit that another > issue precedes this. As one of the theorists, I thank you on all of our behalfs. > That is: Lupin says that the wolfsbane potion need > to be taken > durring the week preceding the full moon. Why did > he need to take it > that night? > It would seem that come nightfall he would have > locked the door and > curled up in his office as a harmless wolf. He > would have taken his > potion the previous 7 days. Excellent inference from the data. My own speculation is that the night of the Full is one where the potion should/must be taken as well, just as a mortal takes the complete course of an antibiotic. > > Even if the full moon didn't show up until midnight, > he wouldn't have > turned into a monster, because tonight was not a > 'take your potion > night'. > Granted that we know only as much as we do, I would say that you've hit a hole in Rowling's work. Others will, I hope disagree with citations/examples. > Any thoughts? > Just the above. My own research has been much more involved with the 'real' weres in folklore and myth. Rowling's version seems to be more, er...Hollywood than those that I have found. > catydid > who has had a lot of fun finding the idiosyncrosies > in the cannon and > thrilled that most have been addressed here. Yes, this list has become quite a delight and education for me, as well. 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 video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ From judyshapiro at earthlink.net Tue Jan 8 09:52:24 2002 From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 09:52:24 -0000 Subject: Teaching Potions In-Reply-To: <3C3A6D5B.69594B87@erols.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33001 Hello, all! This is my first post. I'm delurking to defend my favorite character, Snape. Elizabeth Dalton wrote: > > But I still don't think [Snape]'s a good teacher.... I > > evaluate this by the lack of evidence that any of his students are > > learning much about potions except Hermione, and since she does so > > much self-study, I'm not sure we can count her. Margaret Dean came to Snape's defense, saying: [snip] > Could this possibly have anything to do with the fact that the > only equipment needed for a Charm is a wand, whereas in order to > make a Potion you have to obtain a variety of ingredients? Not > to mention the time involved, where do you set up your cauldron > where it will be safe to let it simmer for hours, days, or weeks, > what if your roommates complain about the smell, etc., etc. You > can't always count on having a disused lavatory to work in. [snip] I agree completely with Margaret. Potions require a lot of advance planning, a private area to set up your cauldron, etc. Much of the "extracuricular" magic students do at Hogwarts is spur of the moment (like hexing Malfoy) and is contrary to school rules; it would be hard to use a potion for this. I'd argue that potion making seems to be a very specialized skill. It's not just students who rarely make potions (outside of potions class.) We rarely see any *professors* besides Snape make potions, and that can't be Snape's fault; he is presumably too young to have taught any of the other professors. Lupin needs Snape to make the Wolfbane Potion for him. Dumbledore asks Snape to get him some Veritaserum. It's implied that Snape makes the Mandrake Restorative Draught for use by Madam Pomfrey; some of Madam Pomfrey's other remedies seem to be commercially bought (ie, Skele-Gro.) Lockhart says he can make Mandrake Restorative Draught, but we know what a liar he is. Fake Moody is the only teacher I can think of that makes a potion. As for Cedric and Harry not using potions in the Triwizard Tournament, Fluer and Krum also don't use potions, even though they are from other schools. So, again, this lack of potions use suggests that few wizards make their own potions, rather than saying anything about Snape's teaching skills. By the way, I don't think there is a flame-freezing *potion*. The books talk about a flame-freezing *charm* that was used in the Middle Ages to avoid being burnt to death at the stake. Elizabeth, maybe you are thinking of the potions Snape makes in SS/PS, which are used to walk through fire and get to the stone? These may work only on magic fires, not real fires -- we know that the potion for the purple fire doesn't work for the black fire, and vice-versa. My guess is, since potions can be bottled and sold (unlike spells), most wizards buy potions rather than make their own. Of course, this raises the question of whether Potions should really be a required class, but that would be a major curriculim change, not something Snape could decide on his own. Anyway, the situation at Hogwarts mirrors the situation in the real world (at least in the US), where science students have to spend endless hours in chemistry labs even if they are very unlikely to synthesize their own chemicals in the future. I have to say, Potions class remind me *so much* of Organic Chemistry lab from my pre-med days, and I really wonder if JK Rowling ever took that class. Things blowing up, endless injuries, people being overcome by fumes, etc. The part where Neville's potion turns out orange instead of green reminds me of an unfortunate incident where I was supposed to be synthesizing a black, powdery chemical. Instead, I got bright blue crystals. My instructor looked at it and sneered "You breathed on this, didn't you?" (Oh, did I breathe? I'll have to make sure never to do that again!) At least he didn't make me eat it. From aiz24 at hotmail.com Tue Jan 8 11:33:15 2002 From: aiz24 at hotmail.com (Amy Z) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 06:33:15 -0500 Subject: Inherent conflict in R/H - H/H - James' Q career - Galleons - Teaching quality Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33002 Penny wrote: >If the romance angle is going to at all affect the bigger events, then >there must be conflict. I don't follow this. Romance can affect other events in lots of ways besides being conflicted in and of itself: e.g., the classic (I would say cliched) dilemma of the hero being diverted from his heroic task by concern for his True Love (do I save the world or save Hermione?). >R/H will be good for some laughs perhaps, but there is no inherent conflict >there. Hermione having feelings for Harry though: that creates conflict >potentially between Ron and Hermione, Ron and Harry, Harry and Hermione and >Hermione & Ginny. I'm with Luke here. There isn't *inherent* conflict in R/H, but nor would there be inherent conflict in Hermione having feelings for Harry. The latter would only entail conflict if it made Ron jealous. Each part of the triangle needs another part to make it a conflict. The same would go the other way; if the first romantic interest to develop in the books had been Hermione-->Harry, there wouldn't be any inherent conflict in that; the conflict would arise if Ron then developed an interest in Hermione (or Harry), or Harry didn't return Hermione's interest, or some such. H/H is only conflict-producing because R/H and H/G (that is, R-->H and G-->H) are already underway. Karl opined (welcome!): >Her reaction to the Rita Skeeter article about herself... she could care >less about Skeeter's comments about >her appearance, or even the implication that she and Harry are a couple, >but >what sets her off is the insinuation that she broke Harry's heart. This is interesting. Why do you say this is the touchy part? What I divine from the sequence of events is that she's particularly ticked off about/intrigued by Rita's spying ("how did she know?" GF 27); even then, she's quite calm about it until people start sending her Bubotuber pus by owl. That's when she says she's going to get her back (ch. 28). Before that, she's angry on behalf of Hagrid and Harry (and Bagman): "You horrible woman . . . anything for a story" (24). Rita fretted: >However, that damn plaque in the movie messes it up. James Potter, Seeker, >1972. In my world, James would have been a third-year in '72. If the plaque >stands for winning the Quidditch Cup, therefore Gryff won it when James was >third-year, then Gryff surely won it in other years that James was on the >team. I think I can rescue you from this one. Sports history is littered with tales of superlative players who never won a championship. Quidditch is a team sport, and a great Seeker can't carry the team to victory all by himself (we might focus on Harry in the matches, but Wood keeps making those incredible stops, the Gryffindor Chasers keep zinging 'em home, etc.). However, I *don't* want James to have been Seeker. All that "just-like-your-father" stuff, taken too far, makes me feel claustrophobic, and I was very pleased when JKR said he was Chaser. Joanne wrote: >according to the Lexicon (1 galleon is worth a bit over $7 US), the current price of gold ($278 per ounce), and my rough calculations, 1000 galleons would weigh over 25 pounds. I just love it when someone on the list brings up a question that's been on my mind! I was trying to calculate the weight of 1000 galleons just the other day. Maybe a galleon isn't solid gold, but just a gold-plated coin. People would still refer to it as gold in that case, as they do. If a galleon is the size and weight of a U.S. quarter, 1000 of them wouldn't be that heavy (think of a bag with 25 filled quarter rolls in it--heavy but easily carried). However, I think a galleon must be quite large, though, larger in diameter than any British Muggle coin, since Mr. Roberts refers to them as "the size of hubcaps" (GF 7). Elizabeth ranked: >Quirrell is largely an unknown, but probably below Hooch (especially after >his >return from sabbatical) Although one could put other interpretations on it, I interpret "turned out to be a bit of a joke" as an indictment of Quirrell's teaching ability. (PS/SS "The Potions Master," sorry can only paraphrase.) As Chris/ravenclaw775 pointed out, we can't judge the unadulterated Q because we never meet him, but the one we know seems to be a very ineffectual teacher. >Snape is >probably somewhere in this rank, sadly. Alert the media--Amy is about to defend Snape. What about Polyjuice Potion? If we're going to judge a teacher by his students' ability/inclination to use his subject outside of class, three 2nd-year students creating an apparently very difficult potion successfully has to be a feather in his cap (as well as a burr under his saddle ). As for why Harry doesn't look for potions solutions for the Tournament tasks, potions are messy and require space the students don't have. Charms can be practiced anywhere. I firmly believe that being a horrible, nasty, intimidating person detracts from one's teaching ability (for one thing, one's students are afraid to ask questions, and a student who doesn't ask questions is at a terrible disadvantage), but if the standard is how well the students have learned their stuff, Snape doesn't deserve such low marks. Cindy, a.k.a. Trelawney's Champion, wrote: >Also, she seemed disappointed when Harry did not see Buckbeak being > beheaded. I think that was because she had done her own Seeing and > seen the beheading. Buckbeak was in fact beheaded> Jenny, unconvinced, responded: >Nope. The Trio heard MacNair's axe hitting a post or the ground (or >whatever) in frustration because Buckbeak wasn't there. No beheading >happened, Time Turner or not. Oh boy. I shouldn't say this, because time-travel stuff gives me a headache and I don't even read Time Turner threads at this point, but IMO Buckbeak *was* beheaded. There are two timelines, two parallel universes, two legs of the Trousers of Time: in one of them Macnair beheads Buckbeak and Hagrid howls in grief; in the other Macnair strikes the post in frustration and Hagrid howls with happiness. Just to make sure I make enemies of both of you, though , I don't think Trelawney was disappointed because she saw Buckbeak beheaded. She was disappointed because she's a bloodthirsty old bat who livens up her dull life by looking for horrors in other people's lives, and if she doesn't find them, by making them up. Cindy wrote: > She made the following correct prediction in GoF: "Your worries are > not baseless. I see difficult times ahead for you . . . I fear the > thing you dread will indeed come to pass . . . and perhaps sooner > than you think." I'm trying to think of any circumstance in which one could make such a prediction and *not* have it come to pass. I could say to each person on this list, "You have difficult times ahead . . . the thing you dread will indeed come to pass," and be proven right in every single case given a few weeks' time and credulous listeners who interpret every unfortunate event in their lives as something they were dreading (like Lavender, who interprets her rabbit's death this way even though she wasn't dreading it any more than anyone with a pet wishes the pet would never die). Amy Z who "meets tall, dark strangers," "has a lucky break," and "finds family and money concerns at the forefront" every single day of her life --------------------------------------------------- Many people said he hadn't noticed he was dead. -HP and the Chamber of Secrets --------------------------------------------------- _________________________________________________________________ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com From Joanne0012 at aol.com Tue Jan 8 13:47:04 2002 From: Joanne0012 at aol.com (joanne0012) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 13:47:04 -0000 Subject: Galleons - genetics vs environment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33003 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amy Z" wrote: > >Joanne wrote: > > >according to the Lexicon (1 galleon is worth a bit over $7 US), the > >current price of gold ($278 per ounce), and my rough calculations, 1000 > >galleons would weigh over 25 pounds. > > I just love it when someone on the list brings up a question that's been on > my mind! I was trying to calculate the weight of 1000 galleons just the > other day. > > Maybe a galleon isn't solid gold, but just a gold-plated coin. People would > still refer to it as gold in that case, as they do. > > If a galleon is the size and weight of a U.S. quarter, 1000 of them wouldn't > be that heavy (think of a bag with 25 filled quarter rolls in it--heavy but > easily carried). However, I think a galleon must be quite large, though, > larger in diameter than any British Muggle coin, since Mr. Roberts refers to > them as "the size of hubcaps" (GF 7). I think the coins Roberts was referring to were non-British wizard coins, or perhaps even non-British muggle coins, since we have seen Harry and other wizards put galleons in their pockets. Thank goodness JKR didn't take me up on my offer to do her sums -- my error above is that the 1000 galleons of pure gold would weigh 25 OUNCES, not pounds!! Ten US quarters weigh 52 grams (I've got my eBay scale right here by the computer), so 1000 would weigh 5200 grams, which is about 11 pounds. And if they were about the size of US pennies, cut that in half. Perfectly plausible. So sorry about the earlier error. --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Whirdy at a... wrote: > However, we know the Grangers have traded their muggle money for wizarding > money. Does Hermione do the reverse at the end of the year and how do they > provide her allowance (as good muggle parents do) throughout the year. Since Harry brings his whole year's money with him, perhaps Hermione does, too. Or her parents got all the funds at once during the summer and dole them out, via owls, over the year. I don't recall any mention of a school store so perhaps the kids have no place to spend money except Hogsmeade visits. I expect Hermone would not bother re-exchanging any leftover funds in June, only to have to re-convert again before school starts. > > This leads to another money questions -- Has the question of tuition cost be > broached? We see that students must provide their own potion ingredients. > What is the source of funding for teachers' salaries or wages. Does Filch > run the school store if only to keep down the break-ins of Snape's office. > Does Hogwarts provide scholarships? academic or quidditch? The only mention of tuitions has been Uncle Vernon's assumption that there would be a fee, and reassurance from Hagrid that it's been "taken care of". We can't extrapolate from that whether this is especially for Harry, or whether Hogwarts is completely subsidized by the wizarding community, like a free commmunity college. Even the Lexicon doesn't have much to say on this: http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/faq/hogwarts.html --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "southernscotland" wrote: > As we all know, Harry was raised abysmally, without love, attention, > or the care someone would give a pet dog. How on EARTH has he turned > out as well as he has? No one has mentored him; no one has taught him > right from wrong; no one has given him any positive attention about > anything. By all rights, he should be royally messed-up. I mean > REALLY messed up. But he isn't. > > WHY is he such a nice boy, when everything was stacked against him > all during his formative years (besides, of course, that's the way > the author wants him)? Any opinions? I've never understood this. With all of JKR's emphasis on the importance of choices, I doubt that she'd place responsibility here on some superior genes of Harry's. More likely, those first 15 months with his mom helped give him a sense of security and confidence in his own judgment. From ftah3 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 8 13:59:06 2002 From: ftah3 at yahoo.com (ftah3) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 13:59:06 -0000 Subject: Inherent conflict in R/H - H/H - Teaching quality (Trelawney) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33004 > Penny wrote: > > >If the romance angle is going to at all affect the bigger events, then > >there must be conflict. True, but I myself do not assume that a romantic angle will greatly affect the bigger events, at all. At any rate, as far as shippiness is concerned, I've stopped (with all due respect, of course) reading onlist discussions of interpretations of ships and ship-wishes and decided to go back to what my initial, knee-jerk interpretation was, i.e. that if any ship is going to happen, R/H and possibly H/G are most likely. On the other hand, if shippiness was going to cause conflict, I could easily see it being the result of a misperception. I.e., Ron, being hung up on being poor and unfamous compared to Harry who is rich and famous and gets all the attention, might perceive, baselessly, that the object of his crush (Hermione) would obviously (to Ron's mind) prefer Harry because Harry gets everything, grr arg [insert more petty jealousy here]. But that would really annoy me and I would hope that it would have zero affect on events on a grand scale, because I'm not fond of soap operas of that ilk. Personally, I hope that ships remain as significant as they are per GoF ~ i.e., they are there, they are important to the adolescents involved, but they fall to the wayside when the big stuff starts coming down. We shall see, at any rate! Amy Z. wrote, re Hermy's reaction to Rita Skeeter: > What I divine > from the sequence of events is that [Hermione is] particularly ticked off > about/intrigued by Rita's spying ("how did she know?" GF 27); even then, > she's quite calm about it until people start sending her Bubotuber pus by > owl. That's when she says she's going to get her back (ch. 28). Before > that, she's angry on behalf of Hagrid and Harry (and Bagman): "You horrible > woman . . . anything for a story" (24). You know, I agree with your interpretation of when Hermione started to get annoyed, but as an aside, I think Hermione was rather enjoying the attention she was getting. To that point, she'd been seen only as mousy, nerdy, annoying, et al; suddenly, not only is a modern sports icon making gentlemanly advances on her, but she's being bandied about as some sort of underage seductress, capable of using her mysterious wiles against the two (arguably) most famous boys in the wizarding world. She doesn't seem to particularly fancy either of them, but the attention is fun, imho. Or doesn't anyone else get a bit of a 'Go me!' vibe off of Hermy about this? :-P It's just that once the really nasty kick-back starts (bobotuber pus by owl, but even worse, being scorned by Mrs. Weasley) that she starts to feel lousy on her own behalf. Amy Z. again: > Just to make sure I make enemies of both of you, though , I don't think > Trelawney was disappointed because she saw Buckbeak beheaded. She was > disappointed because she's a bloodthirsty old bat who livens up her dull > life by looking for horrors in other people's lives, and if she doesn't find > them, by making them up. Yeppers. Absolutely agree with you. Trelawney is full of hot air, the only exception being the strange trance she went into at the end of PoA. As long as she's concious, she's clueless, and the embodiment of a quack psychic. (We shall make enemies together, eh? :-) > Amy Z > who "meets tall, dark strangers," "has a lucky break," and "finds family and > money concerns at the forefront" every single day of her life LMAO. Been to visit Trelawney, have you? Mahoney From IAmLordCassandra at aol.com Tue Jan 8 14:19:02 2002 From: IAmLordCassandra at aol.com (IAmLordCassandra at aol.com) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 09:19:02 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Quirrel and the Troll (Was: Re: Snape & DADA: hearsay, or... Message-ID: <142.787c6a1.296c59d6@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33005 In a message dated 1/8/2002 12:00:29 AM Eastern Standard Time, Seiryuu_Avatar at msn.com writes: > Well, when Quirrell controlled the big troll, he was ready to do so mentally > and physically, probably armed with some hexes, potions ready-made, and > such. I don't blame Quirrell for fainting when the unexpected troll met > him > (that is, in his cover story). Think of it: if you are a tiger-tamer, you > don't fear the tiger inside the ring. But if you're taking a leak, and > suddenly the tiger appears next to you, when you don't have a whip or > anything... That may be true, but I just see the "new Quirrell", who's supposed to be afraid of everything, being a bit more prepared in case of any form of attack. Then again, I could also see him losing his head, forgetting what to do, and just running. ~Cassie~ Quirrell: "I-I don't know what you-" Snape: "You know perfectly well what I mean." Quirrell: "Honestly, I d-don't know what you m-mean." Snape: "Well if you don't know then I'm not going to tell you!" ~What Harry really missed when that owl hooted (Ok, so I'm bored. But I can just see those two having a lover's spat! ^-^) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From laurence59 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 8 14:48:16 2002 From: laurence59 at yahoo.com (laurence59) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 14:48:16 -0000 Subject: SHIP: Say Hermione's Name Quickly... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33006 I was just thinking about how the names of the characters could be involved in the plot. Well if you say Hermione quickly, you get Her-Money. Who needs money ... Ron. I know it is completely random and silly but it is also quite interesting. Laurence PS Has JKR ever said why she chose the name Hermione? From finwitch at yahoo.com Tue Jan 8 15:43:42 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 15:43:42 -0000 Subject: It Would Be Worth Your Weight in Galleons In-Reply-To: <20020107180553.48567.qmail@web14203.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33007 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Kelly Hurt wrote: > --- Whirdy at a... wrote: > > >If one estimates that galleons would > >have the size and weight befitting > >their value, then it follows that > >1000 of them would not be as portable > >as indicated and quite bulky. > > Perhaps the bag was magical and made it easier to handle such a large > amount of money. > I agree - it's a magical bag! Pretty standard in wizard-world, I think. From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Tue Jan 8 16:30:13 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 16:30:13 -0000 Subject: Boggarts 'n' such In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33008 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "blenberry" wrote: > Yikes, I'm getting all confused about this boggart theory. It seems > odd that Harry would be affected *more* by a dementor that he *knows* > is fake (the boggart) than by one he believes is real (Malfoy and > friends). Is the difference just that the boggart is magical? if so, > does that mean boggarts take on the powers of the thing they appear > to be? Which brings us back to the earlier question of why Lupin is > not affected by the boggart in the shape of the moon. > > I'm leaning towards the theory that boggarts do take on properties > and abilities of what they resemble; thus, their effect on Harry > (and the classroom lights) as a dementor. However, Lupin's > experience and knowledge allow him to counteract the moon-boggart's > effects on himself. Well, I get the sensation that the boggart and the dementor have very similar powers: the dementor is mainly fear ("The thing you most fear is fear itself" told Lupin to Harry), and the boggart draws on the worst fear of the creture it's facing, which means it has to have some sort of power which reads minds and possibly influences it. The conclusion is that, since their powers are remarkably similar, the boggart can copy not only the dementor's image but a mesure of it's powers as well. However, I don't think it becomes a dementor in full - it's still posible to combat it with the "Ridikulos" (sp?) spell. Lupin and Harry just choose to use the Patronus spell to practice without using a real dementor. The rest of the theory, I'm not so sure about it. If it did posses the powers of the creature it transformed itself in, it would be increadibly powerful: it would posses the mummy's rot, the venom of the giant spider, and dragon's breath. If a single Ridikulos had missed, they would have been killed, or in very serious trouble (and we're talking about 12-13 year old boys). Hope that helps Grey Wolf (He who has decided that, since many people here seem to like his traditional last phrase "hope that helps", he'll continue to use it) From sweetusagi76 at yahoo.ca Tue Jan 8 15:44:11 2002 From: sweetusagi76 at yahoo.ca (sweetusagi76) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 15:44:11 -0000 Subject: Yet Another Time Turner Q In-Reply-To: <00a701c19801$c274ac60$7f28fea9@yoonabomber> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33009 This is my first post ever on this board. I've been lurking for over a week and hope that I do do anything against the netiquette (which I did read, BTW!) Please be gentle! > One of the consequences...is that you can startle yourself if you >are seen by yourself. But when Harry sees himself, he is not >startled; he is just reminded of his father, James. If I recall correctly, when we read through this "scene" (I'm using the word scene for lack of a better one) the first time, Harry thinks that the person across the lake IS his father. It's not until we go through the second time with the Time Turner Harry that we realize that the person we saw the first time 'round was not his father/father's ghost, but the was actually Harry before Harry knew he was going to use the Time Turner > So if you know what to look for, why would you be scared by the > Time-Turnered second person? If Hermione saw herself sitting at a >desk, for instance, wouldn't she think "Oh crap, I've messed up with >the Time Turner. Better get out of this room," instead of "It's Dark >Arts! Die!!"? I don't think it's so much scaring the Time Turnered person as the original (is that the right word for that?) person who isn't yet aware that they are going to use the Time Turner. It really doesn't apply in Hermione's case since she's Time Turner-ing on a regular basis and would be aware of her "other self" lurking about. I think the consequences are more for the single-use/first-time use of the Time Turner where the scare element would come into effect. Angela AKA SweetUsagi From finwitch at yahoo.com Tue Jan 8 16:39:58 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 16:39:58 -0000 Subject: Your Weight in Galleons or Tuition In-Reply-To: <131.6d47473.296bd7de@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33010 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Whirdy at a... wrote: > I think we should factor in the Gringott Bank which is undoubtedly chaired by > the one and only Alan Greengoblin, who assumes the power to set the prime > rate. Since it is the only bank in the wizarding world, it can put in as > little or as much gold as they wish into a galleon, since all you can > exchange for is sickles or knuts. In a world where volume and mass are are easily controlled by magic? Easy enough for money-bags, trunks, cauldrons etc. to contain any amount of things... A Galleon has a value - 17 sickles or 1/7 of the price of an Ollivander wand (I think that there ARE other wand-makers, but Ollivander's are the best and the most expensive). I also think that Galleon's value (as well as Sickles and Knuts) - stay the same. > However, we know the Grangers have traded their muggle money for wizarding > money. Does Hermione do the reverse at the end of the year and how do they > provide her allowance (as good muggle parents do) throughout the year. Change it back? What on earth for? She'll be using wizard-money again soon enough anyway, to buy her books at least. Not changing would even save a bit of her money (because the change-rate is favourable to the Goblins, of course). And she DOES use wizard-money during the summer: Harry's birthday-presents, using a post-owl (for a few knuts?) to communicate with her friends, paying for the Daily Prophet... No, she does not change it back. Her parents give her allowance in Muggle Money, of course - she may use some in Muggle shops and change some in Gringotts to visit Wizardshops... > This leads to another money questions -- Has the question of tuition cost be > broached? I guess there is some, since the students live and eat on school- grounds, possibly 1-10 Galleons per student per term. > We see that students must provide their own potion ingredients. And other school-things, too. > What is the source of funding for teachers' salaries or wages. Small tuitions, base-money of the four founders, possibly some from the Ministry of Wizard Education... Does Filch > run the school store if only to keep down the break-ins of Snape's office. Think not - students 3rd class and up can visit Hogsmeade, the younger ones must have all their ingredients bought from Diagon Alley even as their books (but the older students can shop for them). I suppose a student could well buy them from Snape. (Not Filch!) > Does Hogwarts provide scholarships? academic or quidditch? No, I don't think they provide scholarships, but that prefects recieve some payment (along with the mark) for their assistance, and the Head Boy and Head Girl a bit higher sum, too. (So that Percy could get Hermes...) I think that Fred&George made money by selling their Weazers - and by buying and selling things from Hogsmeade to the younger students who aren't allowed in... From bonnie at niche-associates.com Tue Jan 8 15:44:46 2002 From: bonnie at niche-associates.com (dicentra_spectabilis_alba) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 15:44:46 -0000 Subject: SHIP: Say Hermione's Name Quickly... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33011 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "laurence59" wrote: > I was just thinking about how the names of the characters could be > involved in the plot. Well if you say Hermione quickly, you get > Her-Money. Who needs money ... Ron. I know it is completely random > and silly but it is also quite interesting. > > Laurence > > PS Has JKR ever said why she chose the name Hermione? I believe JKR said that schoolgirls with large front teeth and frizzy hair have enough problems without being the namesake of a famous fictional character with those same features. So she chose a name that few, if any, girls would have. Dicentra, who doesn't quite agree with the money theory. From bonnie at niche-associates.com Tue Jan 8 15:57:31 2002 From: bonnie at niche-associates.com (dicentra_spectabilis_alba) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 15:57:31 -0000 Subject: Lupin's relationship with Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33012 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Jenett wrote: > At 4:43 PM +0000 1/1/02, clio44a wrote: > >I would like to add some thoughts to your post. You are right, it > >appears that Sirius was a 'better' best friend of James than Remus. > >If both of them were equally close friends, why didn't make James one > >of them his best man and the other one godfather? Plus Sirius was the > >first choice in being secret keeper. Did they really not trust Remus > >because he was a werewolf? > In PoA, we learn that Remus was not told of the last-minute secret-keeper switch because Sirius wasn't absolutely sure he wasn't the spy. Remus, also, suspected Sirius. (Just before rolling up their sleeves to zap Rat Pettigrew, they apologize to one another.) Peter wasn't suspected because he didn't seem to have the cojones to *be* a spy in the first place. As for who was best friends with whom, it's entirely possible that James and Sirius went way back, pre-Hogwarts, and that Remus and Peter became their friends at school. > > We also have no idea, I think, whether the Potters thought that > Dumbledore would take Harry to the Dursleys. It might have been > purely Dumbledore's idea. Dumbledore believed that Sirius was the secret-keeper. (He even presented evidence to the MoM to that effect.) When the Potters were murdered, he naturally believed that Sirius was the traitor and therefore a danger to Harry. The Dursleys were his only remaining choice. Besides, he didn't want Harry's fame in the Wizarding World to "turn his head." From bonnie at niche-associates.com Tue Jan 8 15:58:00 2002 From: bonnie at niche-associates.com (dicentra_spectabilis_alba) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 15:58:00 -0000 Subject: Lupin's relationship with Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33013 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Jenett wrote: > At 4:43 PM +0000 1/1/02, clio44a wrote: > >I would like to add some thoughts to your post. You are right, it > >appears that Sirius was a 'better' best friend of James than Remus. > >If both of them were equally close friends, why didn't make James one > >of them his best man and the other one godfather? Plus Sirius was the > >first choice in being secret keeper. Did they really not trust Remus > >because he was a werewolf? > In PoA, we learn that Remus was not told of the last-minute secret-keeper switch because Sirius wasn't absolutely sure he wasn't the spy. Remus, also, suspected Sirius. (Just before rolling up their sleeves to zap Rat Pettigrew, they apologize to one another.) Peter wasn't suspected because he didn't seem to have the cojones to *be* a spy in the first place. As for who was best friends with whom, it's entirely possible that James and Sirius went way back, pre-Hogwarts, and that Remus and Peter became their friends at school. > > We also have no idea, I think, whether the Potters thought that > Dumbledore would take Harry to the Dursleys. It might have been > purely Dumbledore's idea. Dumbledore believed that Sirius was the secret-keeper. (He even presented evidence to the MoM to that effect.) When the Potters were murdered, he naturally believed that Sirius was the traitor and therefore a danger to Harry. The Dursleys were his only remaining choice. Besides, he didn't want Harry's fame in the Wizarding World to "turn his head." From pennylin at swbell.net Tue Jan 8 16:54:53 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny & Bryce) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 10:54:53 -0600 Subject: Inherent conflict in R/H - H/H (SHIP) References: Message-ID: <3C3B245D.4040106@swbell.net> No: HPFGUIDX 33014 Good morning -- First off, welcome aboard the Good Ship H/H, Karl from Boston! Excellent post -- I especially liked your observation that Hermione always gets what she wants in the end. That could make an interesting discussion in & of itself (and not confined to shipping of course). But, I definitely agree: it's clear to me too that she has her cap set on Harry, not Ron. We are a minority, Karl, but not completely alone. > I wrote: > >> If the romance angle is going to at all affect the bigger events, then >> there must be conflict. > Amy responded: > > I don't follow this. Romance can affect other events in lots of ways > besides being conflicted in and of itself: e.g., the classic (I would say > cliched) dilemma of the hero being diverted from his heroic task by concern > for his True Love (do I save the world or save Hermione?). As you & Luke point out, inherent was poor word choice. What I meant here is: if romance is going to be a small subplot, intended to lighten the mood of the books by providing humorous interludes & mishaps, then R/H (and even H/G to some extent) works just fine. Ron likes Hermione, and *IF* Hermione returns his interest as all the R/H theorists assure us, then there's not much in the way of conflict there. They will humorously manage to get hooked up as a couple after some typical adolescent miscommunications, etc. This subplot could span several books in fact ... but never really provide us with anything more than a good laugh; a distraction from the main events...warm fuzzies as Ebony has said before. R/H is not conflict-free so "no inherent conflict" wasn't a true statement. Definitely not. They could, as one example, break up (I know: gasps of shock from the R/H'ers). This would throw a monkey wrench into the Trio, even if she didn't have romantic interest in Harry. But, I do think that FITD (Ron likes Hermione who likes Harry who likes noone or someone outside the Trio) presents better dramatic possibilities & by far more conflict than R/H. As I said, Hermione liking Harry causes potential conflict all the way around & back again. Penny From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Jan 8 17:00:22 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 17:00:22 -0000 Subject: Teaching Potions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33015 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "judyserenity" wrote: > Elizabeth Dalton wrote: asking why the students weren't prepared with potions against the dragons in the first task.. Because none of them were supposed to know there *were* dragons in the first task! Showing up prepared with an anti-dragon potion would be a bit much, I think. Quite a few potions seem to be available commercially: not only Skele-Gro but Sleekeezy, and Mrs. Skower's. Probably Judy is right: the potions curriculum has been made obsolete by mass production and is only interesting to grinds like Hermione and hobbyists like the Twins, who make an aging potion to try and cross Dumbledore's age line. Thus Snape's never ending bitterness about the dunderheads he has to teach. Judy: I have to say, Potions class remind me *so much* of Organic > Chemistry lab from my pre-med days, and I really wonder if JK Rowling > ever took that class. She did say that Snape was based on a chemistry teacher of hers. Pippin From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com Tue Jan 8 17:04:50 2002 From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 11:04:50 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Inherent conflict in R/H - H/H (SHIP) References: <3C3B245D.4040106@swbell.net> Message-ID: <3C3B26B2.AFB9B203@kingwoodcable.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33016 Penny & Bryce wrote: > > As you & Luke point out, inherent was poor word choice. What I meant > here is: if romance is going to be a small subplot, intended to lighten > the mood of the books by providing humorous interludes & mishaps, then > R/H (and even H/G to some extent) works just fine. Ron likes Hermione, > and *IF* Hermione returns his interest as all the R/H theorists assure > us, then there's not much in the way of conflict there. They will > humorously manage to get hooked up as a couple after some typical > adolescent miscommunications, etc. This subplot could span several > books in fact ... but never really provide us with anything more than a > good laugh; a distraction from the main events...warm fuzzies as Ebony > has said before. > Uhmm...silly question...who's the "G" in the case of H/G? I don't normally respond to these, because my interest comes and goes with the love aspect, but the "G" peaked my interested. I find the shipping aspect humorous, but I don't want it to overtake the series. -Katze From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Tue Jan 8 17:31:57 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 17:31:57 -0000 Subject: Conflict in H/G - N/G (SHIP) WAS (Re: Inherent conflict in R/H - H/H (SHIP) In-Reply-To: <3C3B245D.4040106@swbell.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33017 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Penny & Bryce wrote: I'm happily R/H, though I have no comments on the subject, and would be happy if Hermione ended up with Ron, Harry, someone else, or nobody at all, as she chooses, as long as it isn't Viktor Krum. > But, I do think that FITD (Ron likes Hermione who likes Harry who likes > noone or someone outside the Trio) presents better dramatic > possibilities & by far more conflict than R/H. This comment put me in mind of a conflict situation I would love to see. The Ron-Hermione-Harry love-triangle is something I don't want to see, imho, though, for the life of me, I can't see why. I'd sacrifice my inclination towards Ron, for an H/H pairing, if Rowling could avoid a love triangle. I think it'd wreck what I love about the three. But who knows? But where I could use a love triangle would be Harry-Ginny-Neville. Rowling has hinted Ginny is going to come into prominence in OotP, and I can guess from the revelations in GoF that Neville's star is in the ascendant as well. Ginny worships Harry. Harry begins to notice her. But Neville is beginning to enter the picture. (I can't think that JKR paired him with Ginny at the ball for no reason.) At a time, when, as we readers know, Harry and Neville should be drawing closer together, there's this conflict. And poor Ginny is all confused in the middle of it. She's of a less stern stuff than Hermione, who, I think we can agree, knows herself very well, and I dread to think what she would go through in a situation like this (though I want to see it! and hopefully, she will learn to grow up and stand on her own two feet). Does it signify anything that Ginny is (among other things) a diminutive of Guinivere? End it as you wish, I want an N/G pairing, but I think it would be the perfect romantic conflict. Eileen From christi0469 at hotmail.com Tue Jan 8 17:25:19 2002 From: christi0469 at hotmail.com (christi0469) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 17:25:19 -0000 Subject: Inherent conflict in R/H - H/H (SHIP) In-Reply-To: <3C3B26B2.AFB9B203@kingwoodcable.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33018 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Katze wrote: Katze wrote > Uhmm...silly question...who's the "G" in the case of H/G? > > I don't normally respond to these, because my interest comes and goes > with the love aspect, but the "G" peaked my interested. I find the > shipping aspect humorous, but I don't want it to overtake the series. > > The "G" would be Ginny Weasley, which works for a one big happy Weasley family theory. Christi From finwitch at yahoo.com Tue Jan 8 17:41:43 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 17:41:43 -0000 Subject: who Harry's not afraid to cry in front of and its implications for shippers... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33019 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "polscphd2b" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "alhewison" wrote: > > I certainly agree that Harry's age and sex rule out crying in front > > of his male peers. (He could probably get away with it in front of > > Hermione). I also believe that he's had years of forced practice of > > hiding emotion - as it would definitely have been used against him > > with the Dursleys. > Despite the fact that Harry doesn't want to be seen to be crying, he's > a very sensitive boy and at least occasionally feels the urge. At the > end of GoF, "[h]e could feel a burning, prickling feeling in the inner > corners of his eyes. He blinked and stared up at the ceiling . . . > [n]ow the burning feeling was in his throat, too. He wished Ron would > look away." (p. 714, US edition) > > It's interesting: the other characters with Harry at the time are > Mrs. Weasley and Hermione. But it's Ron he doesn't want to see him > crying. He takes Molly Weasley as a mother, so one might expect he > wouldn't be afraid she would perceive him as weak. What puzzles me is > what we should read into the whole Harry-Hermione dynamic as a result > of his not seeming to fear HER seeing him cry. Simple: Before the dragon, Hermione didn't abandon Harry. She believed and supported him. Only others to do that then were Sirius (trough the fireplace) and fake Moody. People who Harry would let see him cry - Molly, Hermione, Sirius, Dumbledore, (fake Moody before he was exposed), Lupin and possibly Poppy Pomfrey. From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Tue Jan 8 17:45:01 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 17:45:01 -0000 Subject: who Harry's not afraid to cry in front of and its implications for shippers... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33020 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "polscphd2b" wrote: > Seems to me both the H/H shippers and those favoring some other > combination could have a field day interpreting this. Those who favor > the Harry-Hermione combination would say Harry sees Hermione as a > confidant, a comforter, and who better for him to end up with? Those > opposing this pairing (R/Hers, etc) would say he feels so comfortable > with her it'd be impossible for him to ever take her as a romantic > partner because the sparks would never fly. Hee! Hee! Hee! But there could be a much simpler explanation. When people start crying in public, who usually takes over? Women and girls, all the time. It's not that men are unsympathetic, it's just they don't instinctively know how to deal with crying. Ron's sympathy was probably expressed by staring at Harry in a sympathetic fashion, something which bugs all weepers: male and female, imho. Women tend not to do that staring thing, even though men are often just as sympathetic. On the other hand, if you're crying out of anger as well as sorrow, because something someone did to you, men can sometimes be a whole lot more useful, because they're very good at feeling your anger, and therefore, helping you calm down. I have 7 brothers, who can be very sympathetic to their only sister's plights AT TIMES, so I should know. :-) Eileen From ftah3 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 8 17:45:30 2002 From: ftah3 at yahoo.com (ftah3) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 17:45:30 -0000 Subject: Boggarts 'n' such In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33021 blenberry wrote: > > Yikes, I'm getting all confused about this boggart theory. It seems > > odd that Harry would be affected *more* by a dementor that he *knows* > > is fake (the boggart) than by one he believes is real (Malfoy and > > friends). Is the difference just that the boggart is magical? if so, > > does that mean boggarts take on the powers of the thing they appear > > to be? I guess my interpretation of the boggart is that the so-called, figurative, 'power of suggestion' *is* the boggart's power. You draw the parallel between the Malfoy dementor and the boggart dementor. Both attempted to use the power of suggestion to unhinge Harry. I suppose I should inject here that I don't think that the boggart is altogether incredibly dangerous. Most of the kids, when informed of the boggarts m.o., deal with it easily; and Lupin gives the impression that he could corral it in his sleep. To my mind, the boggart is comparable to, for example, a miniature poodle. If you're scared of dogs and high-strung, that hyperactive, oddly-coutured ball of yapping fluff would scare the crap out of you; but once you get used to it, it's little more than an annoyance. (Er, no offense to lovers of miniature poodles. I'm just sayin'.) So the boggart. I really think that by focusing mainly on its affects on Harry and it's lack of effect on Lupin, we ascribe to it much more power than it actually has. Note that the *only* people who cannot handle it well are Harry and Hermione; and they evince a sort of extreme 'head-case' quality during their failures. Hermione, eternally obsessed with getting top grades/marks, completely and totally stressed out after a full school year of living more hours than naturally occur in a day and having to study doubly hard, as well as having spent a great deal of the year on the outs with one of her only two friends, *plus* helping Hagrid with the highly emotional Buckbeak case ~ in the end, her encounter with the boggart is pitiably laughable. She's had it; she's on her last nerve, and imho needing just the right circumstance to cause her to freak out ~ so she leaps out of the wardrobe screaming that Prof. McGonnagall told her she failed all of her classes. LOL/poor gal. Hermione's head-case moment. Harry, too, is suffering from head-case syndrome. I see this less in his actual experiences with the Dementor/boggart-dementor, than in his musings upon his experiences. He knows he's reliving the worst, most frightening moment of his life, a horrible thing to go through...and yet he's drawn to it. He even worries about how he will be able to protect himself against the Dementors when a part of him *wants* to hear his parents' voices. He has no memory of his parents, and only photographs to know them by; hearing their voices, even in the context of that nightmare, is the most tangible thing he has of them to that point. So while his survival instinct has him fighting the affect of the Dementor/boggart-dementor, another, more complex, instinct reaches out for it. My point is that Harry and Hermione are the only individuals who are shown to have real trouble counteracting the boggart's power. Even Neville, generally timid and considered 'nearly a squib,' puts Lupin's suggestions and coaching to immediate and successful use agains the boggart. But Harry and Hermione, proven to be strong- willed and level-headed respectively in the past, fail against the boggart. Why? Their frames of mind are weak at the times of the encounters, for various reasons. So going back to the boggart's magic. To me, the boggart's power is the magical equivalent of what Malfoy & co. attempt to do with their fake dementor, and of what real world ad campaigns attempt to do to consumers on a daily basis. The attempt is to use power of suggestion ~ which is in essence a play upon our preconceived notion of a thing ~ to illicit a certain reaction. Malfoy, with his costume, attempts to influence the psyche from a distance (without touching/interfering with/manipulating the 'actual' psyche). The boggart's magic, however, is an ability to not only cull a physical form, but, at the same time as it reaches into the psyche to seek out the appropriate form of fear, it also manipulates the psyche. Notice that my postulation does *not* conclude that the boggart actually takes on the magical properties of the thing whose guise it takes. Rather, my postulation is that it calls up an echo ~ the sense memory of a real or imagined event (i.e., the reason the person fears the image it chooses). Just as with non-magical attempts to manipulate the psyche via power of suggestion, it's a rather weak, vague power. Almost like a very weak electrical charge in it's basic danger. On the other hand, to the unsuspecting, the unskilled, or those in the grips of a head-case moment, it *can* put the whammy on them. Two more thing I want to address: why does Lupin not transform when the boggart becomes the moon; and why do Harry's experiences as a result of the boggart-dementor grow in detail/depth. On the first point: because Lupin is not unsuspecting, unskilled nor a head-case. He knows what the boggart is, and the very weak psychic 'electrical charge' called up by the boggart is far from being sufficient to cause the full werewolf transformation. On the second point: the boggart tickles sense memory. Even though it doesn't take on the Dementor's actual powers, this is incredibly similar the power of the Dementor, which is also to cull from the deep recesses of the mind one's greatest fears/regrets/etc. In fact, I almost think the boggart could be the sort of low-end form of the Dementor. If the boggart is the weak electrical charge, the Dementor is the electrical storm. So the fact that Harry's experience grows in depth under the influence of the boggart simply comes from a combination of the boggart jogging a memory that deep down Harry wants to plumb. As the Dementor demonstrates, Harry *does* have memory of his parents voices, especially in relation to that tragic event in his life. So it's really no surprise that the boggart's influence not only causes him to relive the real Dementor experience, but also opens the door to additional memories. Does any of that make sense? Hopefully? Or am I completely cracked and babbling senselessly? Mahoney From finwitch at yahoo.com Tue Jan 8 18:34:46 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 18:34:46 -0000 Subject: Green and red symbolism again + the Night... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33022 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "katrionabowman" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Wiccagrrl313 at a... wrote: > > It's an interesting possibility. Of course, green and red have > > usually been associated with Slytherin and Gryffindor in the books, > > so the red has tended to have a more positive connotation than the > > green. Wonder what that does to the theory? It does kind of imply > > a "win the battle but lose the war" scenario, though. > > > > Tracy Green and Red are opposite colours (Even as Slytherin/Gryffindor are somewhat opposite houses) in Colour Circles used by artists, in the negative/positive versions of photos and one of our colour-seeing celltypes is red/green one (red/green -colourblindness caused by the lack of that cell-type). Harry has green eyes. In other words, they reflect green light! (And Avada Kedavra shouts green light)... Oh, and Lily's eyes... maybe Lily switched their eyes by magic? Harry's Dementor-forbrought memory: "I hear Voldemort kill my parents". No sight-memory at all, until the green light. Was he blind because Lily had taken his eyes, giving him hers, to protect him? Harry doesn't see well with Lily's eyes, in fact he doesn't see anything but the green light that his eyes reflect back. Lily dies, holding Harry, Voldemort flees. Toddler Harry, being very scared (and as dead Mommy isn't saying "it's all right, Harry"), the house explodes, (Maybe Harry even used Lily's wand??) Harry begins to cry... From cindysphynx at home.com Tue Jan 8 18:45:34 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 18:45:34 -0000 Subject: Boggarts as Dementors and Moons (Was Boggarts 'n Such) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33023 I just love boggarts and dementors, so boggarts that turn into dementors are truly irresistable. Here are a few reactions: ********* Mahoney wrote: > I guess my interpretation of the boggart is that the so-called, > figurative, 'power of suggestion' *is* the boggart's > power. > Notice that my postulation does *not* conclude that the boggart > actually takes on the magical properties of the thing whose guise it > takes. Rather, my postulation is that it calls up an echo ~ the > sense memory of a real or imagined event (i.e., the reason the person > fears the image it chooses). I think the boggart does have some of the powers of the thing it is impersonating. The clearest (and maybe only) example is when the boggart dims the lights when Lupin and Harry are learning the Patronus charm: "The lamps around the classroom flickered and went out." This was definitely not an illusion: "He took a bit of the chocolate and watched Lupin extinguishing the lamps that had rekindled with the disappearance of the dementor." This suggests to me that the boggart/dementor really did dim the lights in the classroom. Real dementors seem to have the power to extinguish lights, as the lights on the Hogwarts Express go out when the dementors arrive. I think boggarts really do take on some of the characteristics of the thing they are imitating. Things get even more complicated when we look at the boggart/dementor in the maze in GoF. Harry first believes it is a dementor, so he conjures a Patronus. What does the boggart do? It falls back and retreats, just like a real dementor would. But Lupin told us that Ridikkulus is the spell for fighting a boggart, not Expecto Patronum. A boggart shouldn't be bothered at all by a Patronus; it ought to keep right on coming, shouldn't it? So now we have some evidence that boggarts take on the powers of the thing they impersonate (dimming lights), and we see that they react in the same way as the thing they impersonate (retreating when confronted by a Patronus). But then again, the maze boggart doesn't become a perfect version of the dementor, does it? No, because it trips, and dementors don't trip. So that suggests that the boggart has some of the powers of the thing it becomes, but it doesn't become a perfect replica. It gets some details or characteristics wrong. (This is consistent with Lupin explaining to the students that he has seen boggarts get confused and become half a slug.) As applied to Lupin, then, the reason Lupin doesn't transform when confronted by a boggart moon might have nothing to do with how he feels, whether he is especially talented or experienced, whether he has fear, or whether he drank his potion recently. It could be simply that the boggart is doing its very best impersonation of the moon, but hasn't gotten the details right, just like its counterpart in the maze. What are the limits of the boggart's powers, then? Could the boggart perform the Kiss? Well, it could try, but it probably wouldn't get it right. As for why Hermione couldn't fight the boggart in the trunk, who knows? It may just be that she is the only student who had her first experience fighting boggarts when she was all by herself, without the moral support of other students in the room. It could also be that Hermione is humorless and can't think of a way to make her worst nightmare seem amusing. :-) Cindy From roughhouse at charter.net Tue Jan 8 21:19:41 2002 From: roughhouse at charter.net (Roughhouse) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 13:19:41 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Your Weight in Galleons or Tuition References: Message-ID: <001a01c1988a$301250a0$5024a842@cc594451a> No: HPFGUIDX 33024 > What is the source of funding for teachers' salaries or wages. Has it been considered that Nicolas Flamel, a close friend of Dumbledore, who possesed the Sorcerers stone which turns any metal into pure gold could have been a school benifactor who provided the school with all the gold it could ever possibly need? This could also take care of tuitions for students as well. -sean [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Elizabeth.Dalton at EAST.SUN.COM Tue Jan 8 18:50:59 2002 From: Elizabeth.Dalton at EAST.SUN.COM (Elizabeth Dalton) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 13:50:59 -0500 (EST) Subject: Teaching Potions Message-ID: <200201081850.NAA29818@gaea.East.Sun.COM> No: HPFGUIDX 33025 Margaret, Judy, Pippin, and others have all leapt to the defense of Snape, pointing out that teachers don't make potions either, that the Beauxbatons and Durmstrang students don't use potions, and that the market provides ready access to pre-made potions, so why would anyone bother to make their own? But in particular, I was challenged on Fred & George and whether they learned a potion (or general potions skill) to make Canary Creams while sitting in Snape's class. It was also pointed out that they made an Aging potion to cross Dumbledore's Age Line. I don't know if they made the Aging potion or bought it, but I'll give on this point. I very much doubt that Snape *wanted* Gred and Forge to be his best students, but they may well have been. I still think his attitude is inexcusable for a teacher, but given the subject and the apparent lack of relevance for most wizards and witches, I'll give up on the point about whether he's taught anyone. Elizabeth (Never let it be said that I won't change my mind, when presented with evidence... ;) From Elizabeth.Dalton at EAST.SUN.COM Tue Jan 8 19:10:42 2002 From: Elizabeth.Dalton at EAST.SUN.COM (Elizabeth Dalton) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 14:10:42 -0500 (EST) Subject: Defending Trelawney Message-ID: <200201081910.OAA29888@gaea.East.Sun.COM> No: HPFGUIDX 33026 After my scathing criticism of Trelawney, Cindy tried to defend her, and I wasn't buying it. Cindy insisted: > Wait! Wait! I can make you believe! :-) > Well... not yet, you haven't. But I'm having fun while you try, so if you're still having fun, I guess we're all set. :) > It seems that a good teacher ought to be able to do two things -- > master the subject matter being taught, and communicate it to assist > others in mastering it. If the subject matter depends heavily on > whether the student has natural talent, it doesn't seem fair to judge > the teacher's performance solely by whether the students master the > subject. Yes, for the first part, but only partly, for the second. I'll get back to this with your examples about voice and music, below. > > Here's the best case I can put together for Trelawney: > > Elizabeth wrote: > > > I think any success on her part was > > blind luck. She wanted to see a Grim -- it's a famous portent of > >death-- so she > > saw one. I think the resemblence to Sirius was accidental. > > Using that yardstick, Trelawney will never get credit for a > prediction, will she? Correct predictions can always be dismissed as > mere coincidence because Divination is inherently subjective. The > objective facts, however, are that Trelawney saw the Grim in the > crystal ball and the tea leaves. We can dismiss it as a coincidence, > but the fact remains that the Grim is a big black dog, and she saw it > when there was exactly such a creature "stalking" Harry. Well, no, I still can't give her credit for this entirely, because the Grim *wasn't* stalking Harry. Sirius was. Sirius may bear a resemblence to the Grim, but he *isn't* the Grim, and a true Seer really ought to be able to tell the difference, don't you think? This would be a partial credit, at best. Divination doesn't *have* to be inherently subjective. If it's to be useful at all, it should be measurable when it is correct. I note that you snipped all my suggestions about predicting cards or dice throws, or "Seeing" the contents of a sealed box. Other standard techniques Trelawney could use to validate her claims include documenting her predictions and storing them in sealed envelopes, to be opened and "judged" by an impartial observer at a later date, as indicated by the prediction in question. (Not McGonnagal-- I like her, but she's not impartial toward Trelawney.) These should all be items she was not, herself, capable of affecting, of course. Her "correct" score could thus be kept in a running tally. The basic problem with her claims, otherwise, is that people in general are more likely to remember the ones which have come true, and to generously interpret any ambiguous predictions. Try this: just for fun, have someone cut out the horoscopes in this week's paper, remove the signs, and mix them up. At the end of the week, try to identify yours. Probably you'll find several good candidates, none of which may be correct. Trelawney is relying on this coincidence effect to validate her predictions. It's not in her interest to track her success. Note that we could do this for her. I've suggested the idea of a Character Concordance before, and Trelawney practically screams for this technique. We could then realistically evaluate each of her predictions (at least as noted by Harry, who probably isn't impartial, but it's all we've got to go on). > > Also, she seemed disappointed when Harry did not see Buckbeak being > beheaded. I think that was because she had done her own Seeing and > seen the beheading. Buckbeak was in fact beheaded, so score one for > Trelawney. Perhaps she didn't also see Buckbeak's escape, but I > would think a Time Turner that changes events would foul up anyone's > Inner Eye. :-) Buckbeak was *not* beheaded. The kids rescued him, and he flew off with Sirius, remember? If she Saw that, she's not a very good Seer! I think she knew that was the most likely outcome, and thought Harry should be seeing it. You may be right about the Time Turner messing up the Inner Eye, though. My guess is that plenty of other effects have also been fouling her Sight. ;) > > She was on target with Lavender's rabbit, and she predicted > Hermione's exit. She was right about Neville's cup breakage. Small > stuff, but correct nonetheless. She was *not* right on target about the rabbit, as Hermione pointed out. Lavender got the news on the date, but the rabbit had died previously, and Lavender hadn't been particularly dreading the rabbit's death. I would venture to say that she *caused* the other two events. She did practically all she could to drive Hermione out, and she really psyched poor Neville out about those cups. (This stands out in my mind, btw, as the "worst of Trelawney." Neville has enough going on without her picking on him, too.) > > She made the following correct prediction in GoF: "Your worries are > not baseless. I see difficult times ahead for you . . . I fear the > thing you dread will indeed come to pass . . . and perhaps sooner > than you think." Voldemort did return, so score a big one for > Trelawney. Um... he's been picked for the triwizard tournament, against his will. How much of a guess does it take to predict that difficult things will happen? > > Now, I admit I was incorrect when I said Trelawney predicted Harry > would get stabbed in the back by a friend. Ron said that, which > shows that he's picking up a thing or two in Divination. :-) > You're not convincing me, but you're very, very funny. > > Oh, poor Trelawney gets no respect. Trelawney and Moody do exactly > the same thing in their classrooms -- they put the kids through their > paces under real life circumstances, and they do hands-on practical > demonstrations. Moody puts kids under Imperius, and only one kid > learns to throw it off. Trelawney gives them various tools (crystal > balls, tea leaves), and they try to use these tools to See. I don't > see much of a difference there. Well, first of all, one kid does actually learn to throw off the Imperius curse, which is more evidence than I think we get from Trelawney (Ron's "prediction" aside). Second, Crouch/Moody starts with a demonstration of real skill with the spiders, no mere "spooky manner" there, and his Imperius spell demonstrably works on the other kids. I will agree with you that spending a whole year discussing Curses that the students aren't supposed to use and that can't be countered probably isn't great lesson planning. But probably (and this is not canon, only my guess) part of what they were studying is how to recognize when someone *else* is acting under Imperius, which would be worth being able to figure out. In other words, you might be able to get me to demote Crouch/Moody with this argument, but you still aren't dong Sybil any good. :) > > Indeed, in both cases, the students are largely unsuccessful, even > though the teachers' methods are similar. As a matter of fact, Harry > rarely reports the predictions other kids are making, so perhaps they > are all making correct predictions, which would make Trelawney even > more effective than Moody. > Well, we could easily speculate away as to how effective any of the teachers are. (Fanfiction, anyone? Oops, wrong list. ;) > Elizabeth again: > > >Trelawney can't even tell that Harry and Ron are making up their > >answers. > > True, the students pull the wool over her eyes. Divination rests on > a foundation of trust, on the honor system, if you will. As an > analogy, suppose a physical education teacher assigns homework that > kids run a certain distance and record it in a log. Some kids decide > to lie and fabricate everything, and they don't get caught. That > doesn't make the teaching method ineffective, IMHO. It just means > these two kids aren't mature enough to be trusted, and as our parents > used to tell us, they're only hurting themselves when they cheat like > this. > This is an ok analogy if Trelawney asked them to write a "dream journal" or something, but she didn't, she asked them to do Astrology charts, which have math that can be checked. If an engineering teacher assigns a complex problem of circuit design that relies on math, the teacher still needs to look at the math the student did, no matter what the circuit looks like. Trelawney didn't even catch that they'd predicted their own deaths two months in a row. And she certainly didn't ask them to check their own results by tracking how accurate their predictions were, so if she was waiting for them to catch their own errors, this was a pretty poor way of setting that up. (Still snickering over that "foundation of trust" line.... Con-artistry depends on a foundation of trust, too.) > How do we know that Divination cannot be taught? I figure it is akin > to music or voice lessons. Some people have talent and some people > do not. With enough study, the truly talented will master the > subject. I think the jury is still out on Trelawney and on whether, > upon graduation, a few kids are good at Divination. > Ok, the jury is still out, but the preponderance of evidence is that she's not teaching anyone anything. Having had both music lessons (instrumental and theory) and voice lessons, I'd also say that a good teacher can generally improve the measurable skill of even someone with mediocre talent. But JKR loves to surprise us. I think it would be terrific if Lavender or Parvati DID turn out to be excellent at solid, accurate, useful divination, and that (much to HRH's surprise) turned out to be pivotal in some future conflict. > That said, I don't mean to say I completely buy Trelawney's act. I > do think she is one of JKR's better bit players, though. Even after > two books, she is still shrouded in mystery. I can't wait to find > out what happens. My own prediction is that Trelawney will prove to > be a true Seer and much more impressive than our current impression > of her. > Oh, I agree with this last paragraph. I like Trelawney enough that I'm going to *be* her this Saturday evening at my nephew's birthday party, after all. :) Ok, Cindy has made her prediction. I don't agree with her arguments that Trelawney is a good *teacher*, but I'll go along with her possibly being a good *Seer*. (Maybe she just does the "airy-fairy" act for fun? Maybe being a Seer has made her a bit unbalanced? Maybe she deludes herself into thinking her Seeing works more often then it does? Who knows?) What do the rest of you think? (If you're still reading, that is?) Elizabeth (Die-hard empiricist and former math and physics major-- who occasionally reads Tarot cards, but as a psychological tool) From ftah3 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 8 19:33:09 2002 From: ftah3 at yahoo.com (ftah3) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 19:33:09 -0000 Subject: Boggarts as Dementors and Moons (Was Boggarts 'n Such) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33027 cindysphynx wrote: > I think the boggart does have some of the powers of the thing it is > impersonating. The clearest (and maybe only) example is when the > boggart dims the lights when Lupin and Harry are learning the > Patronus charm: "The lamps around the classroom flickered and went > out." This was definitely not an illusion: "He took a bit of the > chocolate and watched Lupin extinguishing the lamps that had > rekindled with the disappearance of the dementor." > > This suggests to me that the boggart/dementor really did dim the > lights in the classroom. Real dementors seem to have the power to > extinguish lights, as the lights on the Hogwarts Express go out when > the dementors arrive. I think boggarts really do take on some of the > characteristics of the thing they are imitating. > look at the boggart/dementor > in the maze in GoF. Harry first believes it is a dementor, so he > conjures a Patronus. What does the boggart do? It falls back and > retreats, just like a real dementor would. But Lupin told us that > Ridikkulus is the spell for fighting a boggart, not Expecto > Patronum. A boggart shouldn't be bothered at all by a Patronus; it > ought to keep right on coming, shouldn't it? I have a kind of oddball idea in answer to this. How do we know that the dimming of the lights, and the actions of the boggart in the GoF maze, are not expressions of *Harry's* magical abilities, rather than of the boggart's? If the boggart has abilities outside of the magical power of suggestion, I think it would be a much greater force of mayhem; and yet we never see that it is any consistently great force other than in the fear it can call up in it's victim. On the other hand, we've seen countless examples of Harry unwittingly influencing his environment with magic when under duress (the boa constrictor event, blowing up Aunt Marge). And if he already associates his Dementor experience with a dimming of interior lights, and in light of his intense reaction to reliving the Dementor experience, it wouldn't surprise me a bit to find that he himself inadvertently puts a shadow over the lighting. Similarly, he knows the Dementor in the maze is a boggart, and by this time in his development is so utterly unimpressed by them as to run right past it. He automatically uses the Patronus on it, but what if mentally he was sort of combining spells ~ voicing the Patronus but imagining the thing falling on it's face? On both accounts the boggart acts as Harry expects and thus forces it to act ~ it retreats, a la real Dementor, and it bumbles foolishly, like a Riddikulus'd boggart. (Alternatively, and to dabble in conspiracy theory, what if the boggart-dementor in the maze was someone pulling a Malfoy, on the off chance that it would, if not stop, then perhaps slow Harry down? :-P All right, all right, I won't Go There any further.) Just thoughts, anyhow. Mahoney From pigwidgeon37 at yahoo.it Tue Jan 8 19:42:32 2002 From: pigwidgeon37 at yahoo.it (=?iso-8859-1?q?Susanna?=) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 19:42:32 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ways of teaching and house characteristics (WAS: Teaching Potions) In-Reply-To: <200201081850.NAA29818@gaea.East.Sun.COM> Message-ID: <20020108194232.97525.qmail@web14703.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33028 Elizabeth Dalton wrote: >I still think his attitude is inexcusable for a teacher, but given the >subject and the apparent lack of relevance for most wizards and >witches, I'll give up on the point about whether he's taught anyone. I think I already wrote something like this in a different context, but it might be worth repeating ;) : The eternal problem is that everything we see is refracted by Harry's perception of things. Whom of the teachers have we witnessed teaching classes so far? - McGonagall, ex-Gryffindor (if the assumption that Heads of House have to be ex-members of their respective houses is right)....Transfiguration for Gryffindors only -Flitwick, ex-Ravenclaw (see above)....Charms for Gryffindors only -Sprout, ex- Hufflepuff (see above)....Herbology for Gryffs and Huffles -Lupin, ex- Gryffindor (probably)....DADA for Gryffs only -Trelawney, difficult to say, I personally would guess Slytherin....Divination for Gryffs only -Quirrell, same as Trelawney IMHO....DADA for Gryffs only -Lockhart, likewise (still IMHO)....DADA for Gryffs only -Fake!Moody, everything but Hufflepuff....DADA for gryffs only - AAAAAND Snape, ex-Slytherin....Potions for Gryffs and Slytherins At least from canon evidence, it seems that the only "mixed" subjects are Herbology and Potions. IIRC, Sprout never shows any sign of favouring her own house, but then that would be a very un-Hufflepuff-ish trait, loyalty to your own house doesn't necessarily mean that you have to disparage the others. Which leads me to House characteristics: I don't remember that this has already been discussed, but Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff don't seem conflict-prone houses. Everybody gets along just fine with Hufflepuff, Slytherins despise them for their lack of raffinesse and ambition, but are never in open opposition to them. And Ravenclaw appears too withdrawn into their intellectual world to be in conflict with anybody. The ones who always are in search for conflicts are Gryffindors and Slytherins- maybe that can be explained by history, but it's an undeniable fact. (Just think of the Huffs' reaction to Harry in CoS- they are farid, but they never attack him openly, in spite of Justin having been petrified) Thus, it doesn't lack a certain logic that overreactions and abuse by teachers mostly show where Gryffindor and Slytherin are concerned: Just remember McGonagall dragging Draco along the corridor by the ear- that's not overly correct behaviour, is it? What I wanted to say is this: We completely lack testimony about other mixed classes, especially Gryff/Slyth, being taught by ex-Gryff or ex-Slyth teachers, as well as e.g. accounts about the Slytherins' Transfiguration lessons which I got a distinct feeling aren't a piece of cake. Of course, this serves the purpose of making Snape appear even more unlikeable, but as Advocatus Severi I have to underline that maybe McGonagall is equally unjust with the Slytherins. Another possibility is that perhaps all teachers' pedagogical methods *are* carefully chosen according to the characteristics of the house they find themselves confronted with. Praise a Gryiffindor too much and he will become insufferably arrogant (point in case: Sirius- ducks tomato avalanche). Daunt a Slytherin too much and he will probably find illicit ways of getting what he thinks he deserves. In fact, we rarely witness McGonagall overly emphasizing her Gryffindors' achievements in Transfiguration: Not even Hermione gets what I'd call "praise", her pincushion is qualified as merely "satisfactory" (GoF). So, I suppose we are extremely biased as far as teaching methods are concerned, I wish we knew more. Susanna/pigwidgeon37 Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT ________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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service. "And how come those portraits seem to be alive?" "What'ya mean? All paintings move." "No, they don't. We have lots of paintings in our villa, among them a real Chagall, and none of them..." "And d'ya expect that something painted by a jackal will move? Now really..." --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Get personalised at My Yahoo!. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From babelfisherperson at yahoo.com Tue Jan 8 19:57:26 2002 From: babelfisherperson at yahoo.com (babelfisherperson) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 19:57:26 -0000 Subject: SHIPS: Ron, Hermione, Harry and conflict. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33029 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Karl Haakonsen" wrote: > Thank you Penny. While most people acknowledge that Ron has > feelings for Hermione, it seemed obvious to me that Hermione has > feelings for Harry (though it seems that not many people share my > view on this). If I doubted that Hermione had a crush on Harry, > rereading GoF erased any doubt in my mind. Not only the kiss at the > end, but Krum's exasperation at the fact that "all she ever talks > about is Harry." Her reaction to the Rita Skeeter article about > herself... she could care less about Skeeter's comments about her > appearance, or even the implication that she and Harry are a > couple, but what sets her off is the insinuation that she broke > Harry's heart. Due to her general level-headedness, she's not about > to go off giggling and blushing like Ginny... that's way out of > character for her. But I agree with those who say she's "all girl" > (with the implication here that her affectational orientation is > toward boys).... and that nobody would grab her attention besides > Harry. I can't picture Hermione having a crush on anybody else. > > It is unclear whether Harry can muster feelings for Hermione in the > near future (other than platonic) because he's presently infatuated > with Cho. This, to me, is entirely realistic and is a large part of > the reason why every teenager isn't part of a romantic couple. When > I was a teenager, my single-mindedness in my crushes blinded me to > the possibility that another girl might actually like me. My self- > esteem was dependent on what my one crush-object thought about me > regardless of whether the entire female population of the school > dropped hints at me that they were interested (not that they all > did, but I'm trying to make a point). It also adds a touch of humor > in that "Love Stinks" kind of way... quoting the J.Geils Band: "You > love her, but she loves him. And he loves somebody else, you just > can't win." > > It could also be fertile ground for a H/H/R conflict... Harry has > everything Ron wants, including his girl. It would be in character > for Harry to be receiving the attentions of Hermione, but not > really wanting them (or, given Hermione's tendency to be subtle > about it, without even knowing he's receiving them), while at the > same time pissing off Ron, because of Ron's tendency to be that > way. If Ron is really into Hermione, he'd pick up on the energy of > Hermione's interest in Harry, even if Harry doesn't. For all the > Hermione fans out there who gag at Hermione stooping to swooning > over Harry with unrequited advances, I don't see that quite > happening either... If there's to be a pairing up, I see it being > H/H, because Hermione will get what she wants in the end. :-) Actually, I think Harry does return Hermione's interest, he just doesn't realize it yet. Look at how completely floored he is when he sees her at the Yule Ball. Here's a little excerpt: "Cedric and Cho were close to Harry too; he looked away from them so he wouldn't have to talk to them. His eyes fell instead on the girl next to Krum. His jaw dropped. It was Hermione. But she didn't look like Hermione at all. She had done something with her hair; it was no longer bushy but sleek and shiny, and twisted up into an elegant knot at the back of her head. She was wearing robes made of a floaty, periwinkle-blue material, and she was holding herself differently, somehow - or maybe it was merely the absence of the twenty or so books she usually had slung over her back. She was also smiling - rather nervously, it was true - but the reduction in the size of her front teeth was more noticeable than ever; Harry couldn't understand how he hadn't spotted it before." As I said last time I posted this little snippet (not in this group, of course): Oh yeah. No attraction there. None whatsoever. *rolls eyes* Note that he wasn't anywhere near that impressed by Cho, or by his own date Parvati, who's also supposed to be a very pretty girl (it was either Dean or Seamus, I think, who said Padma was the prettiest girl in their year). But he's completely stunned by how pretty Hermione is, and can't understand how he failed to notice it sooner (here's a hint, Harry: it's because she's your best friend, and you hadn't really been thinking of her as a girl before). Also, Harry spends most of the Ball watching not Cho, but Hermione. He glances over at Cho occassionally, but he notices pretty much *everything* that Hermione does. He catches the whole "Herm-own- ninny" exchange, and even notices what she's eating. With Cho he just see that, yeah, she's still over there with Cedric. I think that on some level Harry already knows that his crush on Cho is just that, and that his connection to Hermione is much deeper. He just hasn't consciously realized it yet. But I think he will soon. His guilt over Cedric's death is probably going to keep him from even thinking about pursuing Cho, so where else could he turn next? To Ginny, who he seems to think of as an annoying groupie? Or Parvati, who he completely ignored at the Ball, and everywhere else he's seen her for that matter? Or some random new girl *cough*MarySue*cough*? Of course not. Red XIV From babelfisherperson at yahoo.com Tue Jan 8 20:07:25 2002 From: babelfisherperson at yahoo.com (babelfisherperson) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 20:07:25 -0000 Subject: James' Q career In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33030 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amy Z" wrote: > I think I can rescue you from this one. Sports history is littered > with tales of superlative players who never won a championship. > Quidditch is a team sport, and a great Seeker can't carry the team > to victory all by himself (we might focus on Harry in the matches, > but Wood keeps making those incredible stops, the Gryffindor > Chasers keep zinging 'em home, etc.). Exactly. Look at the World Cup in GoF. It's made quite clear that Viktor Krum in an amazing Seeker. Ron is raving about how good he is before the match. He thoroughly embarrasses Ireland's Seeker with his Wronski Feint, and he's the one who catches the Snitch. Yet Ireland wins the match, and takes home the title. Viktor, for all his talent, is reduced to grabbing the snitch with his team down by 160 points, just to keep the game from being a humiliating blowout. Red XIV P.S. You forgot to mention that Gryffindor also has a pair of "human Bludgers" helping them along to victory. :p From babelfisherperson at yahoo.com Tue Jan 8 20:11:44 2002 From: babelfisherperson at yahoo.com (babelfisherperson) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 20:11:44 -0000 Subject: Inherent conflict in R/H - H/H - Teaching quality (Trelawney) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33031 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ftah3" wrote: > At any rate, as far as shippiness is concerned, I've stopped (with > all due respect, of course) reading onlist discussions of > interpretations of ships and ship-wishes and decided to go back to > what my initial, knee-jerk interpretation was, i.e. that if any > ship is going to happen, R/H and possibly H/G are most likely. Bleh. With the possible exception of H/C (Cho's grief & Harry's guilt over Cedric's death pretty well kill this one, I think), I can't see ANY ship being more unlikely than H/G. Groupies do NOT end up dating their celebrity idols, as a rule. Even celebrities who ENJOY being famous tend not to care much for fangirls. Harry hates being famous, so he's even less likely to hook up with somebody like Ginny. Red XIV From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Tue Jan 8 20:58:20 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 20:58:20 -0000 Subject: Inherent conflict in R/H - H/H - Teaching quality (Trelawney) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33032 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "babelfisherperson" > Bleh. With the possible exception of H/C (Cho's grief & Harry's guilt > over Cedric's death pretty well kill this one, I think), I can't see > ANY ship being more unlikely than H/G. Groupies do NOT end up dating > their celebrity idols, as a rule. Even celebrities who ENJOY being > famous tend not to care much for fangirls. Harry hates being famous, > so he's even less likely to hook up with somebody like Ginny. Aren't you assuming that Ginny will always stay a fangirl? It was so in CoS, but I'm not sure it's really true anymore, and I'm sure it will not be true in any way by the end of the series, just as I'm sure that Neville will have got over his inferiority complex. She still is subsceptible to Harry, but is there any indication she's acting like the insufferably immature 11 year old she once was. She's growing up, for heaven's sakes, just like Harry, Ron, and Hermione are. Ron and Harry never noticed the opposite sex until they were 14. Ginny at 11 was obsessed with Harry, but not in a serious fashion. She idolized Harry as 11 year old girls do, not as immature young women do. She is, therefore, not comparable to a groupie. Part of her 11 year old act was to make obvious, while keeping secret, her crush on Harry. Obnoxious behaviour like peeking out behind walls at him? Have we seen anything like that recently? In GoF, she has a nice scene, which really shows her maturing, where she refuses to betray Hermione's trust, keeps faith with Neville despite her inclinations, and comes off as a very ladylike figure, a contrast to her brother Ron, who is being extremely rude, pestering Hermione, and badmouthing Neville. She can have ordinary conversations with Harry now. She doesn't seek him out, as far as we can see. Ginny's 11 year old crush on Harry was typical, but it didn't have the same sort of emotional content as Viktor's crush on Hermione (ugghh). Now, that she is older, she still has feelings for Harry, but what she has is more like real adult love than before. It's the difference between enjoying the experience of feeling like you think being in love would feel, and actually being in love, even if shallowly and for a short time. But I want her for Neville. :-) Eileen From Edblanning at aol.com Tue Jan 8 21:38:29 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 16:38:29 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Teaching Potions/ DADA slight Message-ID: <3f.49bddf9.296cc0d5@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33033 Elizabeth writes: >Margaret, Judy, Pippin, and others have all leapt to the defense of >Snape, pointing out that teachers don't make potions either, that the >Beauxbatons and Durmstrang students don't use potions, and that the >market provides ready access to pre-made potions, so why would anyone >bother to make their own? A good question, but judging from Filch's Quikspell bumph, potion-making seems to be something one is expected to be competant at. Elizabeth again: > > But I still don't think [Snape]'s a good teacher.... I > > evaluate this by the lack of evidence that any of his students are > > learning much about potions except Hermione, and since she does so > > much self-study, I'm not sure we can count her. I don't think there's a lot of evidence either way here. I rather assume that the majority of students will do OK: they may hate the class and it may have nothing to do with Snape's qualities as a teacher, but would you DARE not do your homework thoroughly? ...and knowing he might try out your potion/ antidote on you must induce a certain amount of concentration. The thing that for me disqualifies him from any claim to being a *good* teacher is his attitude to Neville. To my mind a *good* teacher is one who encourages, who *draws out* the abilities of his students (the root meaning of education). Neville IMHO, should be good at Potions. It doesn't involve the "foolish wand waving" and harnessing of his magical powers required by some of the other disciplines. Isn't it significant that he seems to be quite good at Herbology which seems to share these same characteristics? When Neville's shrinking potion turns orange, he is able to correct it following Hermione's instructions, yet he can't follow Snape's. Professor Sprout's success with Neville, I think, shows that she is a true teacher, whereas Snape drains confidence like a dementor drains happiness. To add my own teacher reminiscences, I had a history mistress who was rather like McGonagall. We were all scared of her. She was very strict, but she was fair. You didn't dare do sloppy work for her....and we all loved her. On the other hand, I have been put in positions where I have been turned into a complete lump of jelly by one or two people less educationally qualified than my self but in positions of authority who have decided that I am an idiot. Now I have to say here that I agree wholeheartedly with a number of recent postings analysing Snape's character in terms of insecurity, low self- esteem etc. In this light, his treatment of this poor, insecure child is one of the things I find hardest to forgive him.Thinking about it now (and wanting to find a reason to excuse him), perhaps it is this insecurity that he can't stand: the faults we find hardest to cope with in others are often those we share with them. Nonetheless, a good teacher needs to rise above this. Chris says: (Re DADA) >Percy says Snape's been after his job >for years, implying that Quirrell has been in the position for more than one Forgive me if I'm wrong and Percy says this somewhere else, but I think this is a quote from the film (I certainly remember that precise wording in the aformentioned celluloid- that - must - not - be - named). I looked this up the other day in pursuit of another theory and at the feast in PS/SS Percy just says, 'everyone knows he's after Quirrell's job' The reason I was checking - and I know no-one's going to agree with this as from what I've read the concensus seems to be that Snape hasn't been many years at Hogwarts- was that it crossed my mind to wonder whether the six previous years of Slytherin winning the House Cup coincided with the length of time he had been there, cavalierly favouring his own house and penalising the others. If he had been there that bit longer, might it not make his being head of house more probable?? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com Tue Jan 8 22:05:44 2002 From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 16:05:44 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Green and red symbolism again + the Night... References: Message-ID: <3C3B6D38.BE30DA66@kingwoodcable.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33034 finwitch wrote: > Oh, and Lily's eyes... maybe Lily switched their eyes by magic? > Harry's Dementor-forbrought memory: > "I hear Voldemort kill my parents". No sight-memory at all, until the > green light. Was he blind because Lily had taken his eyes, giving him > hers, to protect him? Harry doesn't see well with Lily's eyes, in > fact he doesn't see anything but the green light that his eyes > reflect back. Lily dies, holding Harry, Voldemort flees. Acl! This seems a big gruesome don't ya think? Eye transplant...seems kind of ick to me. There is obviously a significant, but I think it has to do with the "Charms" ability that Lily had, and that Harry possibly has but has not been explored yet. -Katze From babelfisherperson at yahoo.com Tue Jan 8 22:53:20 2002 From: babelfisherperson at yahoo.com (babelfisherperson) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 22:53:20 -0000 Subject: Inherent conflict in R/H - H/H - Teaching quality (Trelawney) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33035 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lucky_kari" wrote: > Aren't you assuming that Ginny will always stay a fangirl? It was > so in CoS, but I'm not sure it's really true anymore, and I'm sure > it will not be true in any way by the end of the series, just as > I'm sure that Neville will have got over his inferiority complex. > She still is subsceptible to Harry, but is there any indication > she's acting like the insufferably immature 11 year old she once > was. She's growing up, for heaven's sakes, just like Harry, Ron, > and Hermione are. Ron and Harry never noticed the opposite sex > until they were 14. Ginny at 11 was obsessed with Harry, but not in > a serious fashion. She idolized Harry as 11 year old girls do, not > as immature young women do. She is, therefore, not comparable to a > groupie. Actually, her crush on Harry in CoS was quite similar to real-life girls of that age having crushes on Leonardo DiCaprio or their their favorite boy band member. And perhaps she's grown out of that, but I don't see anything more there. So if she's gotten over that, then there isn't even a one-way attraction with regard to H/G. > Part of her 11 year old act was to make obvious, while keeping > secret, her crush on Harry. Obnoxious behaviour like peeking out > behind walls at him? Have we seen anything like that recently? In > GoF, she has a nice scene, which really shows her maturing, where > she refuses to betray Hermione's trust, keeps faith with Neville > despite her inclinations, and comes off as a very ladylike figure, > a contrast to her brother Ron, who is being extremely rude, > pestering Hermione, and badmouthing Neville. She can have ordinary > conversations with Harry now. She doesn't seek him out, as far as > we can see. > > Ginny's 11 year old crush on Harry was typical, but it didn't have > the same sort of emotional content as Viktor's crush on Hermione > (ugghh). Now, that she is older, she still has feelings for Harry, > but what she has is more like real adult love than before. It's the > difference between enjoying the experience of feeling like you > think being in love would feel, and actually being in love, even if > shallowly and for a short time. Well, even if she does still have a crush on Harry, that doesn't make it more than a crush. 13-year-olds are just as capable of having meaningless crushes as 11-year-olds. She's STILL not "in love" with Harry. For heaven's sake, she doens't even really know him. She's barely ever talked to him. And I'm a firm believer that it's impossible to love somebody you don't even know. > But I want her for Neville. :-) There's something we can agree on, at least. :) Red XIV From step_cain at hotmail.com Tue Jan 8 20:27:57 2002 From: step_cain at hotmail.com (snacain) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 20:27:57 -0000 Subject: SHIP: Hermione-Krum Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33036 I am new to this wonderful forum- so I will probably make dozens of enemies with my first few posts!! I am not convinced that at this stage(end of GoF) Hermione has intense romantic feelings for either Harry or Ron. I think she likes Krum. And(ducking instinctively) I think thats just fine. While at the worlds cup she says"he was rather brave wasnt he?" about Krum. Although he is famous and has groupies swarming him for autographs- he hangs out in the library hoping for a chance to talk to nice, bright Hermione. I like that about him. I suspect Hermiones crossness with Ron(following the dance) stems from her recogniton that he never even thought of her as a "date prospect". he doesnt think of her as a 'girl". Ron is clearly furious that she goes with Viktor -this may be a sign of romantic jealousy- but it might also be that he is jealous of Hermione. She doesnt even know what a "wonky font" is and yet she has caught the attention of his hero. I will not deign to predict what will happen in future books- but thus far I remain unconvinced of any brewing roamnce amongst our beloved trio. Fire away!!! Steph From blenberry at altavista.com Tue Jan 8 20:35:52 2002 From: blenberry at altavista.com (blenberry) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 20:35:52 -0000 Subject: Galleons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33037 Having just learned the exchange rate for galleons, it struck me that the Omnioculars at the World Cup, at ten galleons each, were the equivalent of $70... pricey! (but supposedly a "bargain"). And Harry forks over three times that much. I must say, I'm shocked... I would've thought Omnioculars would be in the $15-25 range. From ChaserChick at hotmail.com Tue Jan 8 20:40:04 2002 From: ChaserChick at hotmail.com (Liz Sager) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 14:40:04 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: SHIP: And then theres Cho.... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33038 Ai-Chan wrote: >Do you believe Harry will have a crush on her in the next book? >The reason I ask this is this: >Credic and Cho were "going out" (or so looked like it to me o.o), but Harry >seems to feel responsible for Credic's death. >Or, let me put it THIS way O.x If Harry still does have these "feelings" >for >Cho, how do you think she would take to these affections? It would definitely be an awkward relationship...:) I think it definitely depends on in the next book how each of them is handling their grief. I have recently had to deal with the death of a close friend (while not in the romantic terms that Cedric and Cho had), and there has been very little romantical actions in our group of friends since his death. I don't know if subconciously it has to do with our close relationships with Cory and his death, or if its just a coincidence. I think Cho will need a little more grieving time than the others...mostly because of the close relationship that she had maintained with Cedric. However, if Harry does have the feeling for her that he has had in the last couple books, and they do end up dating each other, some might look upon it as tacky. Liz _________________________________________________________________ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com From ChaserChick at hotmail.com Tue Jan 8 21:05:14 2002 From: ChaserChick at hotmail.com (Liz Sager) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 15:05:14 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] the Sight - Trelawney & Ron Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33039 Katze wrote: >Or perhaps, Ron is a seventh son (is that where you were going with >this?). Would he be the seventh of a seventh (is Arthur a seventh)? Was >there a brother who died? Though I always remember Ron being quite >specific that he had "five older brothers", not "six, but one died". >Would be interesting... I've wondered often about this, and find it rather easy to buy into. We don't know how many siblings Arthur had, although if its in the Weasley genetics to have lots of kids, it seems very likely ;) And if Ron is indeed a seventh, and the sixth died, it would be very easy to forget him. For instance my grandmother miscarried a girl before my dad was born, but my dad always says he has one brother (my Uncle Randy), not one brother, and an older sister who was miscarried. Its very easy to forget about someone, especially if they died when you were really young. And if he did indeed die, and yet worse was killed by You-Know-Who, its probably something that the Weasleys wouldn't bring up very often, and probably most certainly not in the presense of Harry. > >Are sevenths of a seventh healers and seers? After all this talk about >Ron and his predictions, I think I'm going to have to go re-read his >(and Harry's) statements in light of this discussion. It would be an >interesting twist for Ron to turn out to be a true seer, probably be a >hell of a lot of fun too. Seventh sons of seventh sons are said to be healers, seers, and incredibly powerful. Ron and Harry do indeed have a most impressive track record in predictions, Ron more so, I believe. He has made several correct predictions, whether he remembers them or not. And even if he does think that Divination is bogus, maybe he does indeed have the gift of second sight. ;) >except for the second prediction, and she doesn't even >remember that. Was I the only one who got super freaked out when I read that? :) Liz _________________________________________________________________ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com From polscphd2b at hotmail.com Tue Jan 8 22:14:57 2002 From: polscphd2b at hotmail.com (polscphd2b) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 22:14:57 -0000 Subject: Teaching thread: the forgotten teacher In-Reply-To: <20020108194232.97525.qmail@web14703.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33040 Been following this "teaching" thread for the last couple of days, and I'm wondering why we haven't seen anything at all written about one teacher whose classes have been pretty thoroughly "covered" by Rowling: Hagrid. Yes, we tend to think of him as Harry, Hermione and Ron's friend who has a bit of a taste for nasty magical things with lots of teeth and claws, but we seem to have forgotten that, from PoA onward, he's also a Hogwarts faculty member... My two bits on Hagrid as care of magical creatures teacher: He certainly knows his subject matter, and he seems to know how to teach it, but the way in which he teaches it (i.e., his selection of critters) makes everyone universally unhappy (including Harry, Hermione and Ron, his best friends among the student body). As far as Hagrid's house, we also haven't found out to date exactly which house he was expelled from, have we? Don. From bluebellblaze at yahoo.com Tue Jan 8 22:44:10 2002 From: bluebellblaze at yahoo.com (bluebellblaze) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 22:44:10 -0000 Subject: Introduction and Q: Snape covers for Quirrell in PS/SS? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33041 Hello, I'm new, and I'm a grownup HP fan. :-) I have to say I only discovered HP books after going to see the movie with a nephew and absolutely loving it. I read straight through the four books in the next couple weeks. Anyway, I've been reading this group for a few days and have checked through many many of the past messages and have read through the VFAQ. Forgive me if this has been discussed endlessly already. If it has, just let me know and i'll try to search out the relevant posts, but here goes: Is Snape a vampire? kidding!!!! ;-) My real question: In SS/PS, Snape suspects Quirrell is after the stone and confronts him privately, but he does not go to Dumbledore with his suspicions. I know there is one theory that holds that Snape is doing his own detective work against Q, so he can eventually bust him single- handedly and take the credit all for himself, once he's got enough evidence. But what i get from reading the scene in that Snape is actually warning Q, as if he cares about his DADA rival (you better decide where your loyalties lie....), as if he is trying to warn him off doing whatever he's planning. But why? Could they have some sort of past together? Could Q have been a former DE like Snape, and Snape is sincerely trying to save him from turning back to the Dark Side? I"ve (only) read the books once each, so maybe i missed some tidbits of info that shed light on Quirrell's pre-Hogwarts life? mary From judyshapiro at earthlink.net Tue Jan 8 23:17:15 2002 From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 23:17:15 -0000 Subject: More about Teaching Potions In-Reply-To: <3f.49bddf9.296cc0d5@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33042 Edblanning at a... wrote: > The thing that for me disqualifies [Snape] from any claim to being a > *good* teacher is his attitude to Neville.... Neville IMHO, should > be good at Potions. It doesn't involve > the "foolish wand waving" and harnessing of his magical powers > required by some of the other disciplines....When > Neville's shrinking potion turns orange, he is able to correct it > following Hermione's instructions, yet he can't follow Snape's. Well, when it comes to Snape's bullying of students, I see only two possibilities. The first possibility is just that he is genuinely nasty. Whether this makes him a poor teacher or not depends on what one believes are the proper goals of teaching. Currently, most people believe that school should raise confidence and self-esteem, but as recently as a century ago, the goal was to induce humility, using techniques such as dunce caps. In many ways, Hogwarts adheres to an old or even medieval style of teaching, so we really don't know which goal (humility or confidence) is considered desirable in the wizarding world. The second possibility is that the nastiness is in fact an act, designed to serve some goal. Several people have mentioned that Snape might see harsh teaching as a way of preparing students for the harsh, Voldy-dominated world they will be entering. However, I think a better reason for a "nasty act" would be to convince the Slytherins in the class that Snape is on Voldemort's side. If Snape is really still infiltrating the Death Eaters (or planning to), then he *has* to be mean to Neville, Hermione and Harry. Neville's parents (or at least his father) were Aurors. Hermione is a muggle-born who keeps making the pure-bloods look bad. Harry, of course, is Voldy's enemy, big time. If Snape was nice to them, it would get back to Malfoy Sr., Crabbe Sr., Goyle Sr., and maybe other Death Eaters with children in the class. This would jeopardize Snape's life and his spying mission, which might leave Dumbledore without vital information needed in the campaign against Voldemort. When the fate of the world hangs in the balance, giving out a few undeserved detentions is no big deal. Snape's general favoratism towards the Slytherins can be justified by this same reason: convincing Voldy and the Death Eaters that he is on their side. As for other excuses offered for Snape's meanness -- low self-esteem, or being stressed out about Voldy's return -- I agree that these aren't good enough justifications for Snape's level of nastiness. They also seem out of character to me; Snape is generally pretty much in control of his behavior except when dealing with Sirius Black. This is already long, but I have some comments on Neville in particular. Possibly, making potions *does* require the same magical abilities as casting spells -- we really don't know. If making a potion just involves taking some magical ingredients and following a recipe, then it should be possible for Muggles to be good at making potions, and there is nothing at all in the canon to suggest that this is the case. Rowling just hasn't said how (or if) magical abilities are involved in making potions. So, perhaps Neville's problems interfere with potions as much as it does with spells. As for Hermione helping Neville with his shrinking solution, it seems clear to me that Neville was having trouble *remembering* the instructions for the potion. (Snape says "Does anything penetrate that thick skull of yours? Didn't you hear me say, quite clearly, that only one rat spleen was needed?" etc.) Hermione is giving continuous instructions to Neville, which avoids the problem with his memory. Snape apparently feels that students should make the potion without a non-stop stream of instructions. Also, if magical skill in involved, perhaps Hermione's involvement somehow imparts the necessary magical component. So, Hermione wasn't really teaching Neville how to make the potion on his own. By the way, an earlier question asked "What is the meanest thing Snape has ever done?" I'd say threatening to poison Neville's toad. Of course, Snape may have had an antidote ready (antidotes seem to work on a wide range of poisons), but Neville was still very scared. Did anyone notice that Snape gave Neville and Ron detentions that involved dismembering the type of animal they have as pets? (Neville, who has a pet toad, had to disembowel toads; Ron, who used to have a pet rat, had to pickle rat brains.) If this was supposed to be deliberate on Snape's part, it would argue that he was just plain mean, because the Slytherins might not even know what Neville and Ron had for detention. However, I am really hoping Rowling provides a good justification for Snape's behavior, he'd be so much less interesting as just another meany. From moongirlk at yahoo.com Wed Jan 9 00:19:36 2002 From: moongirlk at yahoo.com (moongirlk) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 00:19:36 -0000 Subject: Inherent conflict in R/H - H/H (SHIP) In-Reply-To: <3C3B245D.4040106@swbell.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33043 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Penny & Bryce wrote: > Good morning -- > >> > I wrote: > > >> If the romance angle is going to at all affect the bigger events, then > >> there must be conflict. > > > Amy responded: > > > > > I don't follow this. Romance can affect other events in lots of ways > > besides being conflicted in and of itself: e.g., the classic (I would say > > cliched) dilemma of the hero being diverted from his heroic task by concern > > for his True Love (do I save the world or save Hermione?). > Penny again: > As you & Luke point out, inherent was poor word choice. What I meant > here is: if romance is going to be a small subplot, intended to lighten > the mood of the books by providing humorous interludes & mishaps, then > R/H (and even H/G to some extent) works just fine. Ron likes Hermione, > and *IF* Hermione returns his interest as all the R/H theorists assure > us, then there's not much in the way of conflict there. They will > humorously manage to get hooked up as a couple after some typical > adolescent miscommunications, etc. This subplot could span several > books in fact ... but never really provide us with anything more than a > good laugh; a distraction from the main events...warm fuzzies as Ebony > has said before. I tried to keep out of the shipping this time - I really, really did, but this bit just stunned me into action. Isn't one of the biggest reasons that many people dislike the idea of R/H because of their *conflict* issues, or, as I've seen it referred to most often, "constant bickering". I can see all sorts of scenarios where that could cause greater problems amongst the trio or in the Big Picture, for example the two of them neglecting Harry and/or the Mission to spend time together, driving him insane with their "constant bickering", or (shocker) the possibility that I would assume those who prefer H/H would have to acknowlege (otherwise I really AM baffled) that Harry likes or will come to like Hermione. All the same conflicts that I might imagine should H/H happen ought also to be imaginable in the reverse if H/R happens, although I grant you that in my own world I seriously doubt the last one. Of course I agree that farmer in the dell would cause much more conflict that either of the above, but I'm one who thinks there's *plenty* of capital-C Conflict to go around without the romantic lives of the characters adding to it, and I'm hoping that there are areas (and that this is one of them) that will remain somewhat light. I'm going to need some areas of warm fuzzy to console me when the Hagrids, Dumbledores, Snapes, Nevilles, or whoevers start getting themselves killed. kimberly From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jan 9 00:40:56 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 00:40:56 -0000 Subject: New thought(!) on H/H (SHIP)-old thought on H/G Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33044 We've noticed that younger people tend to be more persuaded by the H/H evidence than the older listmembers. My fifteen year old is convinced, so are Ebony's classes. What if this is intentional? What if the situation that's being set up is that Harry is going to *think* Hermione has a crush on him? I can see plenty of potential for conflict in that. But I still hold for H/G as the ultimate resolution...that cameo at the beginning of SS/PS is otherwise inexplicable. She's not in the book to be the villain, like Quirrel, she's not there to give Harry something like Ollivander, she's not a member of the Old Crowd or a clue like Flamel. She's just the first eligible female Harry sees... Pippin From metal_tiara at hotmail.com Tue Jan 8 23:49:54 2002 From: metal_tiara at hotmail.com (sophineclaire) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 23:49:54 -0000 Subject: On the vampire issue (Was : Introduction and Q:...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33045 > > Is Snape a vampire? kidding!!!! ;-) My real question: > The more I hear it, they more I wonder. Asides from the stereotypical appearance ( The hair, the skin, the late noght prowling), there maybe some hints ( or tricks ) in the story. This arguement was in the groups.google.com, in the Harry Potter discussion group. In POA, Severus directs the attention of the DADA class that he is subbing to how to deal with Werewolves. When Lupin returned, he changed the essay to one on vampires and mentions that fact to Harry in front of Snape. We know that it isn't beyond Snape to do something like that and Lupin was probably reverting to marauder mode. It would be intersting to see it Snape is a full or even a half-blooded Vampire, but JKR is known for her plot twists. Then again, Severus could just be the son of a mechanic from Leeds who had to work in a Garage over the holidays to make money fo his school supplies. sophineclaire---- who never has anything of consequence to say. From CRSunrise at aol.com Tue Jan 8 23:58:11 2002 From: CRSunrise at aol.com (CRSunrise at aol.com) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 18:58:11 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Introduction and Q: Snape covers for Quirrell in PS/SS? Message-ID: <185.1cd96ec.296ce193@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33046 Mary Said: > But what i get from reading the scene in that Snape is > actually warning Q, as if he cares about his DADA rival (you > better decide where your loyalties lie....), as if he is trying to > warn him off doing whatever he's planning. But why? It's possible that he was trying to lead another person away from LV. Afterall, he knew first hand what could happen to the weak ones who joined with LV, and Quirrel was somewhat a weak character. For example when ex-drug users try to get other drug users to stay away from drugs. So Snape is doing what he can to get Quirrel away from LV before there are drastic consequences. Just my thoughts Crystal [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From hyam4 at hotmail.com Wed Jan 9 00:40:34 2002 From: hyam4 at hotmail.com (hyam4) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 00:40:34 -0000 Subject: Snape's teaching methods Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33047 Hi this is the first time I have posted on this site. As a teacher I have been following the discussion on Snape's teaching style with interest and while I agree with most that he is not what we would class as a good teacher and certainly would not get through an OFSTED inspection & so would not recommend Snape's methods. His methods do have some value, he may be working on the line that if he can get them mad at him they will work hard just to show him that he is wrong and that they are capable of making potions. As a student I found this approach valuable, having experienced a tutor who believed I was not capable of good grades, my only response was to show him that I was. Also following on from this, if the end of gof is anything to go by Snape has obviously changed sides and it may be that he is trying to prepare the principle characters for what they are about to face. By facing what is seen as an enemy on familiar territory they may be more prepared for facing the death eaters & Voldy later on. If this is the case then he has fulfilled his role as a teacher by preparing his students for the future. From tracym255 at aol.com Tue Jan 8 23:23:44 2002 From: tracym255 at aol.com (mullsym255) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 23:23:44 -0000 Subject: Inherent conflict in R/H - H/H - James' Q career - Galleons - Teaching quality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33048 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amy Z" wrote: > > However, I *don't* want James to have been Seeker. All that > "just-like-your-father" stuff, taken too far, makes me feel claustrophobic, > and I was very pleased when JKR said he was Chaser. > I completely agree with you here. I've been around to various HP message boards and I've rarely found anyone who prefers that James was a Chaser. But I really like it much better because it seems so much less cliche. I, too, was very happy when she said that James was a Chaser rather than a seeker. I was so upset that they changed this in the film and I wonder if it ever arises in future books which one JKR will stick to? Tracy From Joanne0012 at aol.com Wed Jan 9 01:02:15 2002 From: Joanne0012 at aol.com (joanne0012) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 01:02:15 -0000 Subject: Galleons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33049 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "blenberry" wrote: > Having just learned the exchange rate for galleons, it struck me that > the Omnioculars at the World Cup, at ten galleons each, were the > equivalent of $70... pricey! (but supposedly a "bargain"). And Harry > forks over three times that much. I must say, I'm shocked... I > would've thought Omnioculars would be in the $15-25 range. Considering what they can DO, I think $70 is a bargain. Wouldn't YOU pay that much to get your hands on one? These aren't your ordinary binoculars, after all! You must admit that Dragon's liver at 17 sickles per ounce is a great deal, considering what they must go through to get it and how rare it must be. I've always wondered . . . since 17 sickles equals a galleon, why not just say one galleon per ounce? Is this the equivalent of Muggles pricing things at 99 cents instead of a dollar ? From Zarleycat at aol.com Wed Jan 9 01:29:31 2002 From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 01:29:31 -0000 Subject: Ages of HP Characters In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33050 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "catlady_de_los_angeles" wrote: snip > > JKR said Snape 'is' thirty-five or thirty-six. I interpreted that 'is' to mean that he was 36 > years and several months at the moment GoF began in summer of '94. My impression of the "Snape is 35 or 36" comment was that that was his age at the end of GoF. Not that one year either way cleans up the potential mess in your time line regarding the date on the Potter plaque in the movie. I remember being surprised at that age because I had pictured Snape in my mind's eye at around 50. I had to do some quick mental readjusting. And then, once I had that settled, the movie gives me Alan Rickman... > However, that damn plaque in the movie messes it up. James Potter, > Seeker, 1972. In my world, James would have been a third-year in '72. > If the plaque stands for winning the Quidditch Cup, therefore Gryff > won it when James was third-year, then Gryff surely won it in other > years that James was on the team. And if the plaque is Player of the > Year and he won it as a third-year, he should have won it that much > more when he was older, more experienced, and bigger and stronger. > > DO YOU THINK THE PLAQUE COULD HAVE BEEN Rookie of the Year? Do you > think the great James Potter might not have made it onto the first > string until his third year, or that he was really Class of '75 not > '76 (and won Rookie of the Year as a second-year)? Lexicon Steve says > the movie is not canon, but I want that plaque to be real because I > want James to have been Seeker not Chaser. Since the plaque is for an individual, not a House team, I don't think the plaque is for winning the Quidditch Cup. Maybe there are MVP or Rookie of the Year awards, but we haven't been told about them in the books. You would think that awards would be announced or presented at the end-of-year feast. Surely Harry would have won a Rookie award at the end of his first year, if such a thing exists. Ron gets to clean trophies when serving detention in CoS. Perhaps the movie will use that to show us additional clues... Marianne From Rebecca.Allen at turner.com Wed Jan 9 01:48:21 2002 From: Rebecca.Allen at turner.com (Allen, Rebecca) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 20:48:21 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape's teaching methods, and a theory Message-ID: <759A085B4DB9AF47AD5BB22098C917280752EE@cnncex01.turner.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33051 Ah, more good observations on Snape's teaching methods; thank you to everyone posting on this. Having recently been in graduate school and getting it from both ends, both teaching and being taught, I certainly think it's a provoking issue. Anyway, I wanted to take the opportunity to launch my theory about Snape and Neville. If you think it's too bizarre to be feasible, please flame away. Preliminary point #1: However cruel Snape is to Neville, it still doesn't top what Neville's own family does to him to smoke out his magical abilities. Didn't they toss him out of a window and try to drown him when he was quite little in order to provoke him to summon his magical abilities? It seems his family's idea of tough love is much tougher than Snape's. Preliminary point #2: This treatment of Neville reminded me of what Hagrid says to Harry when he first picks him up from the Dursleys. He asks him if Harry ever noticed anything strange happening when he was particularly angry or frightened. And of course, Harry has. Thus it seems adrenaline has something to do with triggering magical ability. OK, my theory: What if Snape is deliberately trying to infuriate or terrify Neville; what if he thinks that the adrenaline rush or righteous fury or whatever will actually force Neville to summon all his magical ability in his own defense? I mean, wouldn't it be pretty cool is Neville's first successful spell was to transfigure Snape into a newt? If it could work that way it would be a brilliant ruse because it would fit right in with Snape's effort to torment the Gryffindors, which I also think is a ruse, but it would secretly be in Neville's best interest. Now I know that in the real world this wouldn't make much sense; Neville would need patient nurturing and maybe lots of therapy. But since JKR's world seems to have more black humor, I thought it just might work that way. Also, judyserenity asked: > Did anyone notice that Snape gave Neville and Ron detentions that involved > dismembering the type of animal they have as pets? (Neville, who has > a pet toad, had to disembowel toads; Ron, who used to have a pet rat, > had to pickle rat brains.) If this was supposed to be deliberate on > Snape's part, it would argue that he was just plain mean, because the > Slytherins might not even know what Neville and Ron had for > detention. True, but wasn't Ron's rat brain detention in GoF? At that point he might not be keen on rats any longer. ;-) > However, I am really hoping Rowling provides a good justification for > Snape's behavior, he'd be so much less interesting as just another > meany. > Me too! /Rebecca From Zarleycat at aol.com Wed Jan 9 01:57:07 2002 From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 01:57:07 -0000 Subject: Snape's teaching methods In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33052 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "hyam4" wrote: > His methods do have some value, he may be working on the line that if > he can get them mad at him they will work hard just to show him that > he is wrong and that they are capable of making potions. > Also following on from this, if the end of gof is anything to go by > Snape has obviously changed sides and it may be that he is trying to > prepare the principle characters for what they are about to face. By > facing what is seen as an enemy on familiar territory they may be > more prepared for facing the death eaters & Voldy later on. > > If this is the case then he has fulfilled his role as a teacher by > preparing his students for the future. Yes, Snape may be trying to further prepare his students to face the dangerous real world. But, if that's the case, why does he insist on trying to use identical methods to motivate all his students? Surely a mark of a good teacher is to realize that not all students respond to the same things. Some students want to learn, period, and will always apply themselves. Some don't care, some will understand with extra help, etc. By essentially treating all his students in the same way I think Snape does them a disservice. Marianne From margdean at erols.com Wed Jan 9 03:26:49 2002 From: margdean at erols.com (Margaret Dean) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 22:26:49 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape's teaching methods, and a theory References: <759A085B4DB9AF47AD5BB22098C917280752EE@cnncex01.turner.com> Message-ID: <3C3BB879.A5104A5F@erols.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33053 "Allen, Rebecca" wrote: > OK, my theory: What if Snape is deliberately trying to infuriate or terrify > Neville; what if he thinks that the adrenaline rush or righteous fury or > whatever will actually force Neville to summon all his magical ability in > his own defense? I mean, wouldn't it be pretty cool is Neville's first > successful spell was to transfigure Snape into a newt? If it could work that > way it would be a brilliant ruse because it would fit right in with Snape's > effort to torment the Gryffindors, which I also think is a ruse, but it > would secretly be in Neville's best interest. Hey, something very like that already worked once. I refer you to (drum roll please) Lupin's first DADA class. Do I think Snape and Lupin were actually in cahoots on this matter? Well, no . . . --Margaret Dean From margdean at erols.com Wed Jan 9 03:31:41 2002 From: margdean at erols.com (Margaret Dean) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 22:31:41 -0500 Subject: Omnioculars References: Message-ID: <3C3BB99D.61D32E8F@erols.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33054 joanne0012 wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "blenberry" wrote: > > Having just learned the exchange rate for galleons, it struck me that > > the Omnioculars at the World Cup, at ten galleons each, were the > > equivalent of $70... pricey! (but supposedly a "bargain"). And Harry > > forks over three times that much. I must say, I'm shocked... I > > would've thought Omnioculars would be in the $15-25 range. > > Considering what they can DO, I think $70 is a bargain. Wouldn't YOU pay that > much to get your hands on one? These aren't your ordinary binoculars, after all! Heck, a set of so-called "ordinary" Muggle binoculars often costs much more than $70! The birding magazine I get ran an article this month on the best birding binoculars, and the suggested prices at the =low= end of the scale started at $100+!! --Margaret Dean, who's suddenly realizing what a boon that "freeze-frame/slow motion" feature would be to a birder . . . No more "Was that a -- D*MN! There it goes!" From vencloviene at hotmail.com Wed Jan 9 03:27:34 2002 From: vencloviene at hotmail.com (anavenc) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 03:27:34 -0000 Subject: JKR's opinion on Snape's teaching methods Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33055 Following the thread on Snape's behaviour in the classroom: is his nastiness genuine or fake. Daily Prophet used to have a selection of highlights of several JKR's interviews, and in one of them she said about Snape: "He is a horrible person, sadistic teacher... But there is much more to him than that." Unluckily, I can't find this site anymore, but the citation is fairly accurate. So, here we go. I have never been in doubt, that Snape's classroom methods are genuinely sadistic, just because his behaviour is always so consistent. He just never slips. Even if he concsciously teaches his students a hard lesson of life - how to survive a Snape in a position of power, he does it with too much gusto for me to think that it's all a game and deep down he has a heart of gold. Many previous posts on Snape's emotional make-up speculated why Snape as a teacher is the way he is. But there is much more to him - that's why we all bother to write about him, and way too much. *grin* Cheers, Ana. From pennylin at swbell.net Wed Jan 9 03:41:50 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny & Bryce) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 21:41:50 -0600 Subject: Age of Shippers; Ginny as Harry's "fate"; and other SHIP thoughts References: Message-ID: <3C3BBBFE.1030303@swbell.net> No: HPFGUIDX 33056 Hi -- pippin_999 wrote: > We've noticed that younger people tend to be more persuaded > by the H/H evidence than the older listmembers. My fifteen year > old is convinced, so are Ebony's classes. What if this is > intentional? What if the situation that's being set up is that Harry > is going to *think* Hermione has a crush on him? I can see > plenty of potential for conflict in that. I don't know that the generalities really hold in terms of the age of the various shipper factions. It seemed to me that many of the 14/15 yr olds do think that Hermione likes Harry, but then, I don't think the H/H ship is confined strictly to the younger set. But, yes, there's certainly potential for conflict if Harry even *thinks* that Hermione likes him. There's even more potential for conflict if *Ron* is the one with the wrong idea. Yes? So, we're all agreed at least that there's some potential for general conflict in the shipping arena, even if there's certainly no consensus as to the nature of such conflict. :--) > But I still hold for H/G as the ultimate resolution...that cameo at > the beginning of SS/PS is otherwise inexplicable. She's not in > the book to be the villain, like Quirrel, she's not there to give Harry > something like Ollivander, she's not a member of the Old Crowd > or a clue like Flamel. She's just the first eligible female Harry > sees... Is she? Didn't Harry pass through a Platform 9 3/4 that was crowded with students, presumably 50% of whom were female? Presumably Harry takes in her contributions to the dialogue *before* he gets on the Platform (although I can't resist noting that he doesn't even register her appearance in the movie). But, as far as the first eligible female in the wizarding world that he really notices & interacts with, it's Hermione. I can think of lots of reasons for Ginny's appearance in that scene; none of which involve her being his fated True Love. (1) The Weasleys could hardly afford a child-minder for that shortish trek to King's Cross; Ginny would necessarily be with her mum. She'd also want to see her brothers off; (2) it needs to be established that Ron is not the youngest Weasley; and (3) she needed to be introduced since she would otherwise be a late addition as the victim of Tom Riddle if she'd not been mentioned until CoS. I know you commented on regressive behavior earlier this week, Pippin, but I still say that 10 yr olds don't act *that* young on average. Age 10 is a dim memory for me ... but I don't recall that I would willingly have held my mother's hand in public for one thing. I just re-read that scene to compose this message, and I just shudder at the characterization (now that I know she's 9/10). Kimberly asked: > Isn't one of the biggest > reasons that many people dislike the idea of R/H because of their > *conflict* issues, or, as I've seen it referred to most > often, "constant bickering". Welcome back, Kimberly! You'll be relieved to hear that we have not been having constant shipping discussions the entire time you've been gone. It's been very quiet on the shipping front as a matter of fact. Anyway ... I wasn't really addressing the constant bickering factor. I just was noting that if Hermione likes Ron back, they will eventually get together without too much conflict. If they both like each other & neither of them suspects the other of liking someone else that is. Make sense? I presume they will continue to bicker & squabble incessantly either way, which is why *I* think they would make a terrible couple but ... that's a personal thing. Maybe they'll get together but squabble their way into a breakup before OoP even ends? We can hope. :--) Eileen said: > Ginny's 11 year old crush on Harry was typical, but it didn't have the > same sort of emotional content as Viktor's crush on Hermione (ugghh). > Now, that she is older, she still has feelings for Harry, but what she > has is more like real adult love than before. I'm with Red on this one. Isn't Ginny 13/14? I don't think she or *any* of the characters has experienced real adult love yet. I don't think they should either really. Not until post-Hogwarts when they will actually be adults. Penny From hyam4 at hotmail.com Wed Jan 9 00:59:52 2002 From: hyam4 at hotmail.com (hyam4) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 00:59:52 -0000 Subject: New thought(!) on H/H (SHIP)-old thought on H/G In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33057 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" wrote: > But I still hold for H/G as the ultimate resolution...that cameo at > the beginning of SS/PS is otherwise inexplicable. She's not in > the book to be the villain, like Quirrel, she's not there to give Harry > something like Ollivander, she's not a member of the Old Crowd > or a clue like Flamel. She's just the first eligible female Harry > sees... I have to say that I was initially sure of the H/G connection but on second thought is it not just possible that she is simply his best friends little sister. Many of us have had crushes on older family friends that have come to nothing and JK does seem to like to twist the tale. I think Harry's love interest is yet to appear. I think the Cho thing is dead in the water he was there when her current boyfriend died and she is older than him (at 14 one year makes a big difference). But I could be completly wrong, never been much of a match maker From southernscotland at yahoo.com Wed Jan 9 03:01:12 2002 From: southernscotland at yahoo.com (southernscotland) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 03:01:12 -0000 Subject: Harry - genetics vs environment (WAS: Harry being afraid to cry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33058 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "joanne0012" wrote: > With all of JKR's emphasis on the importance of choices, I doubt that she'd place > responsibility here on some superior genes of Harry's. More likely, those first > 15 months with his mom helped give him a sense of security and confidence in > his own judgment. Well...yes, I agree with you about that. However, 15 months is not enough time to make a whole boy. Harry is the kind of polite and well- behaved child anyone would work years and years to get. I would understand it more if he were a little older when orphaned, say five or even three, but he is too young to even remember much about his early life. I know that this is the way J.K. wants him to be, but I still think it's extremely odd that he has turned out so well. Do you think maybe Dumbledore put some sort of spell on him so that he wouldn't be so tramatized, and that was why he felt ultimately comfortable with placing Harry with those wretched people? Otherwise, I feel that Dumbledore is very close to being an accessory to child abuse. Just wondering... lilahp From ebonyink at hotmail.com Wed Jan 9 04:12:04 2002 From: ebonyink at hotmail.com (selah_1977) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 04:12:04 -0000 Subject: New thought(!) on H/H (SHIP)-old thought on H/G In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33059 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" wrote: > We've noticed that younger people tend to be more persuaded > by the H/H evidence than the older listmembers. My fifteen year > old is convinced, so are Ebony's classes. What if this is > intentional? What if the situation that's being set up is that Harry is going to *think* Hermione has a crush on him? I can see > plenty of potential for conflict in that. I can go one better, Pip. If Hermione does have a crush on Harry (which we don't know yet), if Harry finds out and it's unreciprocated (that bit is canon so far), and if Ron then finds out, there's plenty of conflict in that. Early last year, Amy did an excellent post about what many R/Hers dislike most about H/H and/or FITD... and it made perfect sense to me. Perhaps if I get time in the near future, I'll dig it out. She raised some great points, and if her post is not part of the Pairings FAQ, it should be. I also don't really think that shipper preferences are directly proportionate to age. This is because over a year ago, when I shared the anecdote of my "shipper conversion" onlist, it was mentioned over and over again that American and British teens are likely different when it comes to things like this. So I really can't use my classes as shipper evidence, just as backup reasoning for my own convictions. I think that personality and past experiences play a much larger role in your shipping preference (or lack thereof) than how old you are does. > But I still hold for H/G as the ultimate resolution...that cameo at the beginning of SS/PS is otherwise inexplicable. She's not in > the book to be the villain, like Quirrel, she's not there to give Harry something like Ollivander, she's not a member of the Old Crowd > or a clue like Flamel. She's just the first eligible female Harry > sees... No, she's there in that scene as Ron's sister. :-) A thought about shipper prefs and the order in which you first encountered canon. You know, I read CoS first, and I'm not really sure if I got any shipper impressions from that at all. I do remember thinking Ginny's crush on Harry was cute but insignificant. If anything is the H/G foreshadowing volume, *that* is... and yet, no one cites it much. (Granted, it *is* the majority of the fandom's least favorite book.) I didn't see any embryonic R/H or H/H or anything else in that book at all. I read PS/SS and PoA all in one weekend, back to back... and the seeds were planted for my current state as H/H cheerleader. I had what was then the canon to date read, and I remember hearing the fourth book rumors and thinking very vague thoughts of "oh Lord, anyone but Cho". At the time I didn't care half as much about shipping as I do now, and goodness knows I never thought I'd spend this much time in an attempt to justify how I came up with my ship... I was active around the fandom for nearly six months before December 2000 rolled around and I jumped into the shipper fray for good. What I am wondering now is whether or not readers' pre- and post- fandom experiences have influenced their shipper preferences, if they have them. As for book five and beyond... I might as well start saying this now for the record. I shall repeat it at regular intervals, whenever this SHIP business comes up, so as to alleviate confusion when the fifth book comes out. I do not expect to see any of my ships in the next book. I fully expect to see more R/H development, maybe Harry/Cho, and perhaps the foundation laid for future H/G. I shall lap up Book 5 as hungrily as any other fan. With that said, I must say that I loved GoF, but I didn't care for the R--->H subtext. One can enjoy just about Anything and not like Everything about it. These are JKR's books. If she can convince me... *folds arms and presses lips together in her best McGonagall-like teacher face* --Ebony AKA AngieJ From punkieshazam at yahoo.com Wed Jan 9 04:17:06 2002 From: punkieshazam at yahoo.com (punkieshazam) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 04:17:06 -0000 Subject: Defending Trelawney In-Reply-To: <200201081910.OAA29888@gaea.East.Sun.COM> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33060 It is not my intention to defend Trelawney the seer, but the character Trelawney the very lame seer. I'm probably going to be sorry about outing myself, but I have been a professional psychic for 20 or 25 years. JKR has written a devastatingly accurate description of a certain type of deviner. I have laughed my a** off every time she has come into the action. However, her type of prediction is very destructive and sometimes damaging for those she reads for. People take us very seriously, and a lot of people, being told of their imminent demise, would be so upset that they would subconciously go out and drive into an underpass or off a bridge, making it a self-fulfilling prophecy. She has the potential to be very dangerous. Fortunately, most of these kids see through her as does the faculty, and this is probably why she keeps to her quarters. Elizabeth wrote: > The basic problem with her claims, otherwise, is that people in general > are more likely to remember the ones which have come true, and to > generously interpret any ambiguous predictions. This is absolutely true. You've paid your money and you have to make the best of what you get when you are dealing with a Trelawney (or Madame Zelda as I call this type), or any really good psychic who makes a bad prediction. Cindy wrote: > > How do we know that Divination cannot be taught? I figure it is akin > > to music or voice lessons. Some people have talent and some people > > do not. Divination can be taught. I have done it, but there has to be some predisposition or talent to build on. The music analogy is one that I have often used. Teaching my father to sing would have been futile since he was as tone deaf as any person can be. However, if this society had the same attitude toward singing as they do toward predictions, there would be no music and if anyone did try to sing, they would be asked why they were making that wierd noise. Cindy also said: > That said, I don't mean to say I completely buy Trelawney's act. I > > do think she is one of JKR's better bit players, though. Even after > > two books, she is still shrouded in mystery. I can't wait to find > > out what happens. Neither can I. JKR has said in one of her interviews that the first prediction is *very* important. But your prediction about Trelawney being a true seer is probably reaching. She has so far been a true seer exactly twice in her life according to Dumbledore. Elizabeth wrote: > (Die-hard empiricist and former math and physics major-- who occasionally > reads Tarot cards, but as a psychological tool) Ah, Elizabeth I, too, was a physics major once. Wound up with a degree in economics and urban studies. All devinition is a form of psychotherapy for the querant. The fact that the most commonly asked question is: "Does s/he love me?, Is s/he thinking about me? Will s/he call me? When?" is only an attempt to find inner peace about an issue that the person feels s/he has no control over. I went on way too long. Long live Trelawney in all her awfulness. Punkie Petunia is a squib. From babelfisherperson at yahoo.com Wed Jan 9 04:40:30 2002 From: babelfisherperson at yahoo.com (babelfisherperson) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 04:40:30 -0000 Subject: SHIP: And then theres Cho.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33061 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Liz Sager" wrote: > It would definitely be an awkward relationship...:) > > I think it definitely depends on in the next book how each of them > is handling their grief. I have recently had to deal with the death > of a close friend (while not in the romantic terms that Cedric and > Cho had), and there has been very little romantical actions in our > group of friends since his death. I don't know if subconciously it > has to do with our close relationships with Cory and his death, or > if its just a coincidence. > > I think Cho will need a little more grieving time than the others... > mostly because of the close relationship that she had maintained > with Cedric. However, if Harry does have the feeling for her that > he has had in the last couple books, and they do end up dating each > other, some might look upon it as tacky. Personally, I think Cho's feelings of grief are less of an obstacle than Harry's feelings of guilt. He blames himself for Cedric's death, and as such I think he'd feel guilty foor even THINKING about pursuing Cho now. And after he's taken a step back, I'm sure he'll realize that his feelings for Cho pretty much began & ended with "she's hot". His feelings are nothing more than a crush on a girl he doesn't even know, based entirely on her physical attractiveness. By the time she's gotten past her grief & he's gotten past his guilt, I don't think he'll be interested in her anymore. Red XIV From babelfisherperson at yahoo.com Wed Jan 9 04:52:59 2002 From: babelfisherperson at yahoo.com (babelfisherperson) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 04:52:59 -0000 Subject: New thought(!) on H/H (SHIP)-old thought on H/G In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33062 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" wrote: > But I still hold for H/G as the ultimate resolution...that cameo > at the beginning of SS/PS is otherwise inexplicable. She's not in > the book to be the villain, like Quirrel, she's not there to give > Harry something like Ollivander, she's not a member of the Old > Crowd or a clue like Flamel. She's just the first eligible female > Harry sees... That has got to be, bar none, the weakest ship arguement I've ever heard. Setting aside the ridiculousness of the notion that Harry MUST end up falling in love with "the first eligible female" he sees, there are most certainly other, far less clich?, reasons for Ginny to be there. JKR probably already intended for Ginny to have an important (albeit mostly behind-the-scenes) role in the 2nd book, so it makes sense for her to be given at least a passing introduction in the 1st. And her presence shows that Ron has a younger sister. Those are reason enough for Ginny to be there. Remember, JKR already knew that Harry Potter would be a series when she was writing PS. So just because Ginny served no particular purpose in that book (neither, I must point out, do the various random Hogwarts students who are mentioned at the Sorting Ceremony but who Harry has no interaction whatsoever with) doesn't mean she was introduced specifically to be a future love interest for Harry. Red XIV From marybear82 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 9 04:55:55 2002 From: marybear82 at yahoo.com (Mary Shearer) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 20:55:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry - genetics vs environment (WAS: Harry being afraid to cry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020109045555.33237.qmail@web14001.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33063 --- southernscotland wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "joanne0012" > wrote: > > With all of JKR's emphasis on the importance of > choices, I doubt > that she'd place > > responsibility here on some superior genes of > Harry's. More > likely, those first > > 15 months with his mom helped give him a sense of > security and > confidence in > > his own judgment. > > Well...yes, I agree with you about that. However, 15 > months is not > enough time to make a whole boy. Harry is the kind > of polite and well- > behaved child anyone would work years and years to > get. I would > understand it more if he were a little older when > orphaned, say five > or even three, but he is too young to even remember > much about his > early life. > > I know that this is the way J.K. wants him to be, > but I still think > it's extremely odd that he has turned out so well. > > Do you think maybe Dumbledore put some sort of spell > on him so that > he wouldn't be so tramatized, and that was why he > felt ultimately > comfortable with placing Harry with those wretched > people? > > Otherwise, I feel that Dumbledore is very close to > being an accessory > to child abuse. > > Just wondering... > > lilahp It beats me why Dumbledore feels that living with the Dursleys would be the best thing for Harry, unless it has something to do with security from Voldemort and his followers, but it *does* seem strange that Harry is so amazingly well-adjusted. Here is my half-baked theory :)... Though Rowlings stresses the importance of good choices, as Joanne pointed out, there are an awful lot of references (both positive and negative) to his similarity to his father, ironically made following many of his choices. This seems to point us squarely back to genetics. For example, in PoA, Snape says that he thinks Harry is above the rules, just like his father. Likewise, Sirius' last words to him following that dramatic and heroic rescue are, "You are - truly your father's son, Harry." Dumbledore goes a step farther by saying, "In a way, you did see your father - you found him inside yourself." Later on, in GoF, it is Harry's father himself (or his shadowy form, rather) who gives him the instructions he needs to escape Voldemort. I can't help but think that as the story progresses, this link will become even stronger - and through Harry, we will get to know James better. I, for one, would be interested to know more about who James and Lily Potter were! JKR herself has said that Harry will begin to ask some of the really important questions we've all been waiting for him to ask. (sorry, don't have a reference for that right offhand) So, anyhoo - that is one possibility... that Harry's choices are governed by his inherent personality traits - the strength of character he inherited from his father, and his gentleness of spirit from his - er...mother(?) Boy, would I like to know more about her! Otherwise, there is little explanation (beyond literary license) as to why he is such a shining soul. This serves a two-fold purpose: to reveal the back story of James/Lily's death, and Harry's orphaned status...and to establish Harry's role in coming events - a foreshadowing of his destiny as a great wizard, perhaps? I don't know - I've confused myself now, but that doesn't stop me from hitting "send." Mary - who got herself into trouble in many a lit class this way (thinking out half-baked theories out loud) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ From pigwidgeon37 at yahoo.it Wed Jan 9 06:22:49 2002 From: pigwidgeon37 at yahoo.it (=?iso-8859-1?q?Susanna?=) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 06:22:49 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Introduction and Q: Snape covers for Quirrell in PS/SS? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020109062249.95728.qmail@web14704.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33064 bluebellblaze wrote: >In SS/PS, Snape suspects Quirrell is after the stone and confronts >him privately, but he does not go to Dumbledore with his suspicions. >I know there is one theory that holds that Snape is doing his own >detective work against Q, so he can eventually bust him single- >handedly and take the credit all for himself, once he's got enough >evidence. But what i get from reading the scene in that Snape is >actually warning Q, as if he cares about his DADA rival (you >better decide where your loyalties lie....), as if he is trying to >warn him off doing whatever he's planning. But why? Could they have >some sort of past together? Could Q have been a former DE like Snape, >and Snape is sincerely trying to save him from turning back to the >Dark Side? I"ve (only) read the books once each, so maybe i missed >some tidbits of info that shed light on Quirrell's pre-Hogwarts life? The last time this discussion came up was the chapter summary of ch.13 PS/SS- the thread starts with post 28904. But you didn't miss anything about Quirrell's pre-Hogwarts life that might indicate any connection to Snape, IIRC. susanna/pigwidgeon37 Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT ________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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service. "And how come those portraits seem to be alive?" "What'ya mean? All paintings move." "No, they don't. We have lots of paintings in our villa, among them a real Chagall, and none of them..." "And d'ya expect that something painted by a jackal will move? Now really..." --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Get personalised at My Yahoo!. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From catlady at wicca.net Wed Jan 9 06:34:12 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 06:34:12 -0000 Subject: Harry nice kid / Harry & Cho Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33065 Lilah P[otter?] wrote: > Do you think maybe Dumbledore put some sort of spell on him so that > he wouldn't be so tramatized, and that was why he felt ultimately > comfortable with placing Harry with those wretched people? > Otherwise, I feel that Dumbledore is very close to being an > accessory to child abuse. I don't think *Dumbledore* put an emotional-protection spell on baby Harry: I think *LILY* did. This is one of the things I keep saying so that everyone gets bored with me: Lily stayed there for Voldemort to kill her instead of Apparating away (leaving Harry behind) or ducking (with magical assistance) out of the way of the Avada Kevadra. One reason was that she was shielding baby Harry with her body, but I think another reason was that she was using those last moments and all her magic power to put a magic image of herself in baby Harry's mind. Which he now perceives as kind of an 'imaginary mum' like an 'imaginary friend'. But it's more than imaginary: it has real Lilyness in it, some of her magic power, some of her love for Harry, some of her ethics, etc. So he spent childhood years in that cupboard with shadow-Lily to hug him and tell him he a good kid, that he doesn't deserve the way the Dursleys treat him, tell him about how decent people would behave... And when he resists the Imperius Curse in fake-Moody's class, it says "a voice in his head" told him not to obey the command: I think that voice was shadow-Lily! Either Dumbledore didn't realize just how bad the Dursleys were, and didn't check up on them over the years, or he WAS an accessory to child abuse. Dumbledore is not all-knowing: he was deceived by fake-Moody for a whole school year, so he could have been wrong about the Dursleys. On the other hand, he made have known that they would mistreat Harry and try to beat the magic out of him, and calculated that that upbringing would give Harry character traits (independent, lonely, self-reliant, untrusting, humble, thirsty to prove himself, ignorant of wizarding world) that he would need to carry out his destiny. Mary Bear wrote: > It beats me why Dumbledore feels that living with the Dursleys > would be the best thing for Harry, unless it has something to do > with security from Voldemort and his followers, Supposedly there is some 'ancient magic' that will keep Harry safe while he is with his relatives, and Dumbledore told McGonagall in the very first chapter that 'they are the only family he has left'. I theorize that Harry is protected for a certain period of time after each stay with his relatives, so he can be left temporarily with Mrs. Figg in childhood, and can go stay at the Burrow AFTER he begins the summer holiday with the Dursleys. > his similarity to his father, ironically made following many of his > choices. This seems to point us squarely back to genetics. Per above, **I** think it's magic rather than genetics, and his *mother* rather than his father. I think he thinks and wonders so much about his father and not about his mother because he's already known his mother for years, through that mental imprint. Red XIV wrote: > His feelings are nothing more than a crush on a girl he doesn't > even know, based entirely on her physical attractiveness. By the > time she's gotten past her grief & he's gotten past his guilt, I > don't think he'll be interested in her anymore. There is canon evidence that Cho is a really nice kid. She didn't wear a Potter Stinks badge even tho' it also said Support Cedric Diggory. She was very gentle about rejecting Harry's invitation to the Ball. Thus, he would like her even better once he did get to know her. Which I believe could perfectly well happen. If events threw them together, they could soon develop a non-romantic a-sexual friendship that starting with trying to comfort each other's grief over Cedric and continued on by commiserating on the difficulties of living in both Muggle and wizarding worlds, and of playing Seeker against Malfoy... They could eventually find their friendship turning into something more... late in sixth year, I should think... From blenberry at altavista.com Wed Jan 9 03:48:39 2002 From: blenberry at altavista.com (blenberry) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 03:48:39 -0000 Subject: Omnioculars In-Reply-To: <3C3BB99D.61D32E8F@erols.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33066 > joanne0012 wrote: > > Considering what they can DO, I think $70 is a bargain. Wouldn't YOU pay that > > much to get your hands on one? These aren't your ordinary binoculars, after all! I agree, but $210 is a lot of pocket money for a 14-year old! In PoA, Harry struck me as conservative with money, especially when he was coveting the Firebolt near the beginning. He knew he still had five years at Hogwarts to pay for. Do we have any idea how much Sirius paid for the Firebolt, btw? From christi0469 at hotmail.com Wed Jan 9 04:44:16 2002 From: christi0469 at hotmail.com (christi0469) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 04:44:16 -0000 Subject: Green and red symbolism again + the Night... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33067 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "finwitch" wrote: > > Harry has green eyes. In other words, they reflect green light! (And > Avada Kedavra shouts green light)... > > Oh, and Lily's eyes... maybe Lily switched their eyes by magic? > Harry's Dementor-forbrought memory: > "I hear Voldemort kill my parents". No sight-memory at all, until the > green light. Was he blind because Lily had taken his eyes, giving him > hers, to protect him? Harry doesn't see well with Lily's eyes, in > fact he doesn't see anything but the green light that his eyes > reflect back. Lily dies, holding Harry, Voldemort flees. > > Toddler Harry, being very scared (and as dead Mommy isn't > saying "it's all right, Harry"), the house explodes, (Maybe Harry > even used Lily's wand??) Harry begins to cry... This theory would leave us with a problem-people with green eyes (and people who are blind)would be immune to the Avada Kedavra curse. It would also mean that Harry is still immune it. Taking this a step further, this immunity suggests that you would have to see the green light to be affected by the curse, meaning that you could protect yourself from it by wearing green tinted glasses or simply closing your eyes. I also wonder about the theory that Harry was saved simply because his mother was willing to die for him. While this could have been a contibuting factor to Harry's survival, I doubt it could hardly have been the one thing that saved him. In all the murders that LV committed, surely one other person gave their life so that a loved one could live. James tried to hold LV off, wouldn't this have counted? Something else has to be going on here. Wishing that it all could really be that simple, Christi From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Wed Jan 9 12:47:12 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 12:47:12 -0000 Subject: Teaching thread: the forgotten teacher In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33068 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "polscphd2b" wrote: > As far as Hagrid's house, we also haven't found out to date exactly > which house he was expelled from, have we? > > Don. --------------- I believe JK stated that he was "from Gryffindor, of course". He does look like he should have been in Hufflepuff, but so does Neville, when you think about it. It does take some bravery to keep a dragon egg, anyway. Also, there seems to be some remanent from a teenage love between Hagrid and McGonnagal, which would have been easier if they were in the same house (before you poke holes through this, I know it's a weak reason, but it IS a reason. I know that love between houses exists, that McG and H aren't necessarily from the same year, and that this SHIP hasn't been considered before, so don't shpout at me with this) Hope that helps Grey Wolf From ickle_ronniekins at yahoo.com Wed Jan 9 11:01:21 2002 From: ickle_ronniekins at yahoo.com (Ronald Rae Yu) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 03:01:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: Flooing and Brooming Around / Apparating Message-ID: <20020109110121.92393.qmail@web21108.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33069 Someone brought up the toping on flooing around Hogwarts and it made me think. Floo powder wouldn't make visiting dear Bill in Egypt (or Charlie) for vacation much of a trouble, then. How do they travel internationally, anyway? And with Apparating, working in Egypt or Romania isn't a big deal. Bill and Charlie can go home whenever they want to, and go back to work presumably as quick as a flash. It's a bit like working next door. (Unless they really have to stay there in their jobs, like the Hogwarts boarding school concept. Then again if home is virtually 'next door' they don't need to.) Why don't they use brooms to navigate the school? The grounds, at least. And if flying in public is in danger of being seen by Muggles, brooms should now lose their transportation value (much like flying cars, for instance). Also, floo is faster and in a way, safer. A little off-topic. Do they use brooms to clean places? Filch has a broom cupboard. Ron Yu __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ From kristie_renee at yahoo.com Wed Jan 9 05:43:28 2002 From: kristie_renee at yahoo.com (Kristie) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 21:43:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: Introduction and Q: Snape covers for Quirrell in PS/SS? In-Reply-To: <1010549828.3088.7129.m10@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20020109054328.49668.qmail@web10003.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33070 > From: "bluebellblaze" > Could they have > some sort of past together? Could Q have been a > former DE like Snape, > and Snape is sincerely trying to save him from > turning back to the > Dark Side? Quirrell wasn't a Death Eater though. This was made clearly at the end of Book 4, when in true Scooby Doo fashion, Voldemort revealed pretty much the entirety of his attempts to come back before actually beating Harry completely. Voldemort says that he met Quirrell when their paths crossed in the forest where V made his home. He makes no mention that he knew Q beforehand. He would probably call him a "faithful Death Eater" for actually finding him, or at least helping him. He refers to Crouch Jr. as much many times over. There's also no space in the circle where Q's space was supposed to be. I agree with Crystal that he might have been trying to get Quirrell to get away from Voldemort as sort of a been-there-done-that way. Give him a chance to be a good person. I also do agree with Mary (Original poster) that Snape could have been trying to take the glory all for himself, we can see that evidenced in PoA. So that's it from me! Kristie __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ From roughhouse at charter.net Wed Jan 9 09:09:08 2002 From: roughhouse at charter.net (Roughhouse) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 01:09:08 -0800 Subject: why Dumblelore does what he does Message-ID: <001101c198ed$4bb4dd60$5024a842@cc594451a> No: HPFGUIDX 33071 ----- Original Message ----- From: southernscotland .Do you think maybe Dumbledore put some sort of spell on him so that .he wouldn't be so tramatized, and that was why he felt ultimately .comfortable with placing Harry with those wretched people? .Otherwise, I feel that Dumbledore is very close to being an accessory .to child abuse. .Just wondering... .lilahp I don't remember exactly where in the series it is, but I believe somewhere Dumbledore states that Harry is with the Dursleys because some form of magic will protect Harry when he is with relatives. That was his reason for not letting the Weasleys take Harry home after the Triwizard finale. Growing up with the Dursleys is also a way to keep Harrys ego in check. as quoted from book one... "Exactly," sadi Dumbledore, looking very seriously over the top of his half-moon glasses. "It would be enough to turn any boy's head. Famous before he can walk and talk! Famous for something he won't even remember! Can't you see how much better off he'll be, growing up away from all that until he's ready to take it?" -sean [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From christi0469 at hotmail.com Wed Jan 9 06:26:19 2002 From: christi0469 at hotmail.com (christi0469) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 06:26:19 -0000 Subject: Harry - genetics vs environment (WAS: Harry being afraid to cry) In-Reply-To: <20020109045555.33237.qmail@web14001.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33072 Mary wrote > It beats me why Dumbledore feels that living with the > Dursleys would be the best thing for Harry, unless it > has something to do with security from Voldemort and > his followers, but it *does* seem strange that Harry > is so amazingly well-adjusted. I do agree that Harry has turned out to be surprisingly well adjusted (at least from what we have seen so far);however, I believe taht the primary reason for Dumbledore for leaving Harry with the Dursleys was to keep him from believing his own press. If Harry had thought that he was God's gift to the wizarding world, I doubt that he would possess the strength and nobility of character we have seen in books 1-4. He comes to Hogwarts believing he is nothing out of the ordinary. He has also developed a very strong survival instinct from years of outsmarting and outrunning Dudley. I don't think for one moment that the Dursleys deserve any credit for Harry turning out so well-IMHO they are no more than they seem (monstrous). I do however believe that Dumbledore deserves credit for recognizing that tough living conditions would bring out a great dela of strength in Harry(that which does not kill us makes us stronger...) Perhaps Dumbledore already had a feel for the person Harry would turn out to be. Ceertainly the security issues with Voldemort were a consideration, but when McGonagall asks why Dumbledore why he would leave Harry with those awful Muggles he tells her it is because of the fame issue, not a security issue. Christi From btk6y at virginia.edu Wed Jan 9 14:52:10 2002 From: btk6y at virginia.edu (btk6y) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 14:52:10 -0000 Subject: Harry and the Imperius Curse... how many times? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33073 Surely this has been discussed, but I am just looking for an answer. In GoF, Moody put Harry through the Imperius Curse "four straight times" until he could completely throw it off. However, when he and Voldemort are dueling, the book says that Harry felt the bliss of the Imperius Curse "for the third time in his life". What's up with that? When was the second time? Even if you look at the prior lesson as a different episode each time he went under the curse, then it would have been the fifth time when he was dueling Voldemort, not the third. One more note dealing with the Imperius Curse and Ron's character. Moody specifically states that it takes a "lot of character" to throw off the Imperius Curse, and compares your ability to throw off the Imperius Curse directly with the amount of character you have. He does NOT mention at any time that the ability to throw off the Imperius Curse is at all related to DADA ability, only character. Now, character is a nebulous term to begin with, I suppose, but I take character to mean all that good stuff like loyalty, integrity, honesty, etc. Given this (which you may not agree with), and considering that Ron had a very "difficult time" throwing off the Imperius Curse, does this forshadow an eventual betrayal by Ron, intentionally or not? My gut says no, but I think it's an interesting bit of foreshadowing that is not there for no reason. All thoughts are appreciated. Bobby From roughhouse at charter.net Wed Jan 9 16:53:38 2002 From: roughhouse at charter.net (Roughhouse) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 08:53:38 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Introduction and Q: Snape covers for Quirrell in PS/SS? References: <20020109054328.49668.qmail@web10003.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001f01c1992e$2f886da0$5024a842@cc594451a> No: HPFGUIDX 33074 >I agree with Crystal that he might have been trying to >get Quirrell to get away from Voldemort as sort of a >been-there-done-that way. Give him a chance to be a >good person. I also do agree with Mary (Original >poster) that Snape could have been trying to take the >glory all for himself, we can see that evidenced in >PoA. The only problem with both of these scenarios is that if Snape was trying to bust Q then Lord V would know that Snape was loyal to Dumbledore, making it impossible for Snape to return as a double agent to the Death Eaters circle as clearly was asked of him by Dumbledore at the end of book four in the hospital wing. I think it was JKR's intention for us to believe as Harry did that Snape was the badguy trying to get Q on his side. Thats my two knuts worth... -sean [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cstump at kirkwood.cc.ia.us Wed Jan 9 14:07:59 2002 From: cstump at kirkwood.cc.ia.us (grandisiowa) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 14:07:59 -0000 Subject: why Dumblelore does what he does In-Reply-To: <001101c198ed$4bb4dd60$5024a842@cc594451a> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33075 > From: southernscotland > .Do you think maybe Dumbledore put some sort of spell on him so that > .he wouldn't be so tramatized, and that was why he felt ultimately > .comfortable with placing Harry with those wretched people? Sean said: > I don't remember exactly where in the series it is, but I believe somewhere Dumbledore states that Harry is with the Dursleys because some form of magic will protect Harry when he is with relatives. It's in Goblet of Fire. I remember thinking ah-hah when I read it. Harry is spending the first part of the summer with the Dursley's, which seems appropriate if the blood bond is his protection, and Lord Voldemort is truly gunning for him. What I wonder about is what will Dumbledore and the others do that makes it possible for Harry to go to the Burrow the second part of the summer? Or will he just take his chances? One things for sure--growing up with the Dursleys would do nothing for anyone's self esteem. Catherine From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jan 9 15:35:19 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 15:35:19 -0000 Subject: New thought(!) on H/H (SHIP)-old thought on H/G In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33076 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "babelfisherperson" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" wrote: > > But I still hold for H/G as the ultimate resolution...that cameo > > at the beginning of SS/PS is otherwise inexplicable. She's not in > > the book to be the villain, like Quirrel, she's not there to give > > Harry something like Ollivander, she's not a member of the Old > > Crowd or a clue like Flamel. She's just the first eligible female > > Harry sees... > > That has got to be, bar none, the weakest ship arguement I've ever > heard. Setting aside the ridiculousness of the notion that Harry MUST > end up falling in love with "the first eligible female" he sees, > there are most certainly other, far less clich?, reasons for Ginny to > be there. JKR probably already intended for Ginny to have an > important (albeit mostly behind-the-scenes) role in the 2nd book, so > it makes sense for her to be given at least a passing introduction in > the 1st. And her presence shows that Ron has a younger sister. Those > are reason enough for Ginny to be there. Remember, JKR already knew > that Harry Potter would be a series when she was writing PS. So just > because Ginny served no particular purpose in that book (neither, I > must point out, do the various random Hogwarts students who are > mentioned at the Sorting Ceremony but who Harry has no interaction > whatsoever with) doesn't mean she was introduced specifically to be a > future love interest for Harry. How can it be both a ridiculous notion (something that would never happen) and a cliche (an utterly predictable development)? I must point out that JKR manages to establish that Bill and Charlie exist without dragging them onto the platform at King's Cross or giving them a cameo, even though Charlie plays a larger part in the first book than Ginny does. Penny said: >> The Weasleys could hardly afford a child-minder for that shortish trek to King's Cross; Ginny would necessarily be with her mum. She'd also want to see her brothers off;<< If Mrs. W has no one to leave her with, then it's not Ginny's first time at King's Cross, so why on earth is Ginny so excited? And who needs a Childminder? Are we to suppose that poor Ginny's spent her first 10 years in social isolation out at The Burrow? She couldn't have Floo'd over to visit a friend or one of those hypothetical Weasley cousins? ? I'm sure it would have been much easier on Molly to leave Ginny behind than to try to keep track of her in the station. I just re-read the platform scene...you could just as well see the hand holding as Mrs. Weasley being over-protective(Now hold my hand dear, this is a busy place and we don't want you getting lost,do we)...and the first "Oh mum, can I go..." as Ginny's attempt to get away and look at the Muggle shops or something. She cries and chases after the train, which makes me think she must be at least nine..old enough to get away with running on a railway platform (my mother would have screamed for fear I'd slip and fall under the wheels), and old enough to feel sentimental that her last brother's on his way to boarding school. If it was mere separation anxiety she wouldn't be laughing too. Pippin From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com Wed Jan 9 16:09:46 2002 From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 10:09:46 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] RE: Harry nice kid / Harry & Cho References: Message-ID: <3C3C6B4A.DFA8F80A@kingwoodcable.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33077 catlady_de_los_angeles wrote: > I don't think *Dumbledore* put an emotional-protection spell on baby > Harry: I think *LILY* did. This is one of the things I keep saying so > that everyone gets bored with me: Lily stayed there for Voldemort to > kill her instead of Apparating away (leaving Harry behind) or ducking > (with magical assistance) out of the way of the Avada Kevadra. One > reason was that she was shielding baby Harry with her body, but I > think another reason was that she was using those last moments and > all her magic power to put a magic image of herself in baby Harry's > mind. Which he now perceives as kind of an 'imaginary mum' like an > 'imaginary friend'. But it's more than imaginary: it has real > Lilyness in it, some of her magic power, some of her love for Harry, > some of her ethics, etc. So he spent childhood years in that cupboard > with shadow-Lily to hug him and tell him he a good kid, that he > doesn't deserve the way the Dursleys treat him, tell him about how > decent people would behave... And when he resists the Imperius Curse > in fake-Moody's class, it says "a voice in his head" told him not to > obey the command: I think that voice was shadow-Lily! I wouldn't get bored with this. This is the first time I've seen a theory like this stated, and I like it just fine. I had also wondered who was inside Harry's head and thought it might be Lily. We *know* that she used "old magic" to protect Harry, by way of Voldemort's rant in the Death Eater chapter. If Voldemort was able to transfer some of his powers to Harry, albeit accidentally, why couldn't Lily? We don't have any idea of what kind of witch Lily was before her death. The only clues we have cause us to believe that she was very good in charms and spells. Perhaps she has some unique power that she was able to transfer to Harry, like a shadow of herself. I'm not sure why Harry ended up good, but there are times where kids who grow up in bad situations end up good anyway. I think it's very fortunate that he went to Hogwarts as young as he did, because I think he would've started to have greater developmental problems if he hadn't gone. He certainly isn't perfect, as we know that he has a hard time controlling his anger, and I think this will grow in books as the pressure on him begins to mount. JMO -Katze From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com Wed Jan 9 16:18:52 2002 From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 10:18:52 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] why Dumblelore does what he does References: <001101c198ed$4bb4dd60$5024a842@cc594451a> Message-ID: <3C3C6D6C.494AB919@kingwoodcable.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33078 Roughhouse wrote: > I don't remember exactly where in the series it is, but I believe somewhere Dumbledore states that Harry is with the Dursleys because some form of magic will protect Harry when he is with relatives. That was his reason for not letting the Weasleys take Harry home after the Triwizard finale. Growing up with the Dursleys is also a way to keep Harrys ego in check. as quoted from book one... > "Exactly," sadi Dumbledore, looking very seriously over the top of his half-moon glasses. "It would be enough to turn any boy's head. Famous before he can walk and talk! Famous for something he won't even remember! Can't you see how much better off he'll be, growing up away from all that until he's ready to take it?" > > -sean IIRC, It's actually Voldemort who says that Dumbledore used ancient magic to protect Harry while he's in his relations' care. This may have been addressed elsewhere, but I distinctly remember V stating this and this is why he had use Crouch the portkey to get to Harry. Harry's life is an extreme. As wretched as they are, the Dursleys in a round-about way do keep Harry in the real world. At Hogwarts, he is exactly as Snape says, "A Celebrity". while he's with the Dursleys, he's absolutely the opposite. I think it's also interesting that Snape takes on somewhat of a Durselys persona at Hogwarts, in my believe, also to keep him grounded. I like to believe that Dumbledore was not fully aware of the Dursely's treatment of Harry before he arrived at Hogwarts, but surely he knew that he stayed in the cupboard because of the way the letter was addressed. Harry does at least have his own room now. -Katze From klhurt at yahoo.com Wed Jan 9 16:45:55 2002 From: klhurt at yahoo.com (Kelly Hurt) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 08:45:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: Astronomy + House-Elf Relocation + Quirell & Trolls + Apparating Internationally In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020109164555.34831.qmail@web14202.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33079 In reply to the question "What use do wizards use have for Astronomy?", rycar007 wrote: >There are a few reasons I can think of >where wizards would have to use >astronomy. 1) For use in certain >spells or rituals that require the >moon to be at a certain point. This is true. In Diagon Alley, Harry overhears a wizard showing off his new lunosomething (no books handy) and saying (paraphrased) that he would no longer have to make his own charts. --- I wrote: >[This part of the theory is based on >the fact that there is a House Elf >Relocation Office & I can't think of >any other reason for JKR to have >included such a detail.] To which Gabriel Edson rather bluntly replied: >I don't believe such an office exists, According to the 'author blurb', Newt Scamander, the 'author' of _Fantastic Beasts and Were to Find Them_, once worked in the Office of House-Elf Relocation. If you're still not convinced and you don't have a copy of _Fantastic Beasts..._, it is also referenced at the Lexicon at Gabriel Edson continued: >and if it did, why would Winky and >Dobby go desperately seeking new >positions when they lost theirs? After >all, if they could just apply to this >theoretical office and wait for a >call, why would they have to canvass >on their own? Perhaps Dobby would, >since he wanted to be paid, but not >Winky. For the same reason that humans place their resums with employment agencies and yet continue to use other methods of searching: they still don't have a job. Crouch, Sr. freed Winky, the human equivalent of being fired. She may have contacted the OHER with no luck. --- Elizabeth Dalton wrote: >[McGonnagal's] students seemto have an >awful lot of trouble with the tasks >she assigns, and don't seem to try to >use Transfiguration outside of >class... Actually, in GoF, Cedric transfigured a rock into a dog during the first task. --- Cassandra wrote: >If this was the case, wouldn't he've >been suspicious of Quirrell when he >freaked out over a Troll that was >actually smaller than the one he was >able to control and put in the >chamber? Actually, that's a common assumption but nowhere in the book does it specifically say Quirrell was responsible for placing the Troll in the chamber. --- Ronald Rae Yu wrote: >How do they travel internationally, >anyway? According to _Quidditch through the Ages_, apparating over long distances is difficult, so most people stick with brooms. Kelly the Yarn Junkie ===== Pensieve A Harry Potter List for Adults Low Traffic - High Quality http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pensieve __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Wed Jan 9 16:55:30 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 16:55:30 -0000 Subject: (SHIP) Ginny as Harry's "fate": literary arguments In-Reply-To: <3C3BBBFE.1030303@swbell.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33080 Pippin wrote: > > But I still hold for H/G as the ultimate resolution...that cameo at > > the beginning of SS/PS is otherwise inexplicable. She's not in > > the book to be the villain, like Quirrel, she's not there to give Harry > > something like Ollivander, she's not a member of the Old Crowd > > or a clue like Flamel. She's just the first eligible female Harry > > sees... Penny replied: > Is she? Didn't Harry pass through a Platform 9 3/4 that was crowded with students, presumably 50% of whom were female? Presumably Harry takes in her contributions to the dialogue *before* he gets on the Platform (although I can't resist noting that he doesn't even register her appearance in the movie). But, as far as the first eligible female in the wizarding world that he really notices & interacts with, it's Hermione. > > I can think of lots of reasons for Ginny's appearance in that scene; none of which involve her being his fated True Love. (1) The Weasleys could hardly afford a child-minder for that shortish trek to King's Cross; Ginny would necessarily be with her mum. She'd also want to see her brothers off; (2) it needs to be established that Ron is not the youngest Weasley; and (3) she needed to be introduced since she would otherwise be a late addition as the victim of Tom Riddle if she'd not been mentioned until CoS. First, a newbie-style apology: I'm really about 15 digests behind, but I noticed this and couldn't resist - so, if I'm cutting across something already said, I'm sorry. I just know that by the time I've read everything to date (I still try to read all posts) this will be a cold dish. The sections quoted above are quite long, but I do refer to nearly everything in them. What interests me about this exchange is the nature of the arguments deployed. Pippin's argument is very clinical: each segment of text serves a purpose; what purpose does this cameo serve? It is nothing to do with what is realistic for the Weasleys or whether Ginny is a suitable partner for Harry. It is what I think of as a literary argument. A more common kind of literary argument is, for example, the one that says Snape can't die until Book 7 because there is still a lot of mileage left in his character. Notice that this kind of argument can't be used about real-life events, which rarely pan out in story-book form. 'IRL', Snape could die at any time. Penny's reply uses a mixture of literary arguments and what I think of as 'story' or perhaps 'realism' arguments. For example, the argument that the Weasleys could not afford a babysitter so Ginny had to be there. This is the commonest kind of argument used on this list. It assumes that the events described 'really happened' and seeks a causal explanation. It is the only kind of argument available to someone 'inside' the story, and the only kind in real life. A 'realism' argument (terminology, please, Luke?) for Snape living longer would be that as an accomplished wizard in the prime of life with known experience of the Dark Arts and a clear will to live he would be very difficult for Voldemort to kill. My comment is that it is very difficult to mix these types of argument successfully. So, for example, imagine JKR writing this scene (PLatform 9 3/4). If it suits her purpose for Ginny to be present or absent, babysitters will not stop her. They can be called up with an old family friend and dismissed with a sudden bout of flu at will. Doing so may create downstream problems (for example, if Madam Pomfrey cures somebody's flu with a wave of her wand, or it is established for some other plot purpose that the Weasleys are very isolated); unfortunately, it is precisely these sorts of logical glitches that HP is full of. I would say that it is very evident that JKR is very good at thinking up tactical explanations for contriving events, and less good at resolving the implications of some of these explanations for the wider strategic development of the story. If people are interested I will try to do a list of examples - but just looking at message subjects here is all you really need do. I believe that literary arguments *can* be mixed with 'realism' arguments, but it's jolly difficult to do. So I think that it's possible to posit Harry's character development combining the literary theme of choice with the 'reality' view that he is a growing teenager, say. On this basis, I'd say that Pippin isn't saying that Ginny is Harry's 'fated' love - just that in her view that it's JKR's intention to bring them together. Its validity largely stands or falls by its conformance to literary convention, and whether JKR herself will follow the same convention. I find it hard to comment on that. The point about being the 'first eligible female Harry sees' is not so much to do with *Harry's* experience, but the reader's, given Harry is the POV character. In Pippin's argument (as I understand it), Hermione appears at the wrong time; other girls Harry may have met (at primary school too) are not visible for the reader. Establishing that Ron is not the youngest, and foreshadowing COS, are, however, literary arguments for Ginny appearing at some stage - I think that if Pippin wanted to press her point she would have to show that JKR could do those things in other ways better if she did not have an additional purpose in showing Ginny to the reader at Platform 9 3/4. That is IMO quite difficult to do. David From christi0469 at hotmail.com Wed Jan 9 16:42:52 2002 From: christi0469 at hotmail.com (christi0469) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 16:42:52 -0000 Subject: Harry and the Imperius Curse... how many times? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33081 Bobby wrote, Moody specifically states that it takes a "lot of > character" to throw off the Imperius Curse, and compares your ability > to throw off the Imperius Curse directly with the amount of character > you have. He does NOT mention at any time that the ability to throw > off the Imperius Curse is at all related to DADA ability, only > character. Now, character is a nebulous term to begin with, I > suppose, but I take character to mean all that good stuff like > loyalty, integrity, honesty, etc. Given this (which you may not > agree with), and considering that Ron had a very "difficult time" > throwing off the Imperius Curse, does this forshadow an eventual > betrayal by Ron, intentionally or not? My gut says no, but I think > it's an interesting bit of foreshadowing that is not there for no > reason. All thoughts are appreciated. Perhaps Ron's refusal to believe Harry about the Goblet of Fire, and his attitude and actions toward Harry after could be considered a betrayal. The affects upon Harry were certainly devastating, considering this would be a time when Harry would need his friends most. Also, Ron's difficulty with the curse is in comparison to Harry's, so Ron might have been much better at resisting it than the rest of his classmates. We do not see how well Hermione resisted it. IMHO Harry, Ron, and Hermione all display many if not all of the traits normally associated with strength of character loyalty, honesty, integrity, compassion, etc. To this list I would also add detemination and will power, as they would seem to figure into how well someone could resist the curse. Harry advantage here might be the fact that he had to endure all those years with the Dursleys and develope a strong survival instinct. Christi From Ali at zymurgy.org Wed Jan 9 16:55:37 2002 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 16:55:37 -0000 Subject: why Dumblelore does what he does In-Reply-To: <3C3C6D6C.494AB919@kingwoodcable.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33082 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Katze wrote: > Roughhouse wrote: > > > I don't remember exactly where in the series it is, but I believe somewhere Dumbledore states that Harry is with the Dursleys because some form of magic will protect Harry when he is with relatives. That was his reason for not letting the Weasleys take Harry home after the Triwizard finale. Growing up with the Dursleys is also a way to keep Harrys ego in check. as quoted from book one... > > "Exactly," sadi Dumbledore, looking very seriously over the top of his half-moon glasses. "It would be enough to turn any boy's head. Famous before he can walk and talk! Famous for something he won't even remember! Can't you see how much better off he'll be, growing up away from all that until he's ready to take it?" > > > > -sean > > IIRC, It's actually Voldemort who says that Dumbledore used ancient > magic to protect Harry while he's in his relations' care. This may have > been addressed elsewhere, but I distinctly remember V stating this and > this is why he had use Crouch the portkey to get to Harry. > > Harry's life is an extreme. As wretched as they are, the Dursleys in a > round-about way do keep Harry in the real world. At Hogwarts, he is > exactly as Snape says, "A Celebrity". while he's with the Dursleys, he's > absolutely the opposite. I think it's also interesting that Snape takes > on somewhat of a Durselys persona at Hogwarts, in my believe, also to > keep him grounded. I like to believe that Dumbledore was not fully aware > of the Dursely's treatment of Harry before he arrived at Hogwarts, but > surely he knew that he stayed in the cupboard because of the way the > letter was addressed. Harry does at least have his own room now. > > -Katze I can't believe that Dumbledore didn't know of Harry's treatment at the Dursley's. Harry went to Mrs Figg's every year on Dudley's birthday. JKR has admitted that Mrs Figg is the same as the Arabella Figg mentioned as part of the "old crowd" in GoF. So she must be a witch on the same side as Dumbledore. It seems to me that if she was keeping an eye on Harry, then she probably kept Dumbledore informed. Maybe they all felt that keeping Harry downtrodden was all somehow part of destiny - seems cruel to me though!! I still wonder if Trelawney's 1st real prediction - that Dumbledore never explained - might have had something to do with Harry. Maybe it was something to do with this that made Voldemort want to kill Harry - and the reason Dumbledore allowed him to be mistreated. That maybe a bit far fetched, but it's just one of my ideas! Ali From pennylin at swbell.net Wed Jan 9 17:21:40 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny & Bryce) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 11:21:40 -0600 Subject: Ginny & the Platform Scene References: Message-ID: <3C3C7C24.2090204@swbell.net> No: HPFGUIDX 33083 Hi -- pippin_999 wrote: > I must point out that JKR manages to establish that Bill and > Charlie exist without dragging them onto the platform at King's > Cross or giving them a cameo, even though Charlie plays a > larger part in the first book than Ginny does. Yes, but Ron doesn't wear Ginny's hand-me-down clothes or have expectations to live up to regarding her past performance at Hogwarts. Bill & Charlie are easy enough to introduce conversationally. Bill & Charlie are also working or studying in another country at the time the rest of the kids leave for Hogwarts that September. Would be a bit odd if they had turned up at the Platform ... given there was no QWC to attend that August. > I said: > >> The Weasleys > could hardly afford a child-minder for that shortish trek to King's > Cross; Ginny would necessarily be with her mum. She'd also > want to see her brothers off;<< Pippin responded: > > If Mrs. W has no one to leave her with, then it's not Ginny's first > time at King's Cross, so why on earth is Ginny so excited? I interpret her behavior as juvenile rather than excited. She's excited at the prospect that she might meet the famous Harry Potter, but her behavior up to that time is merely to answer her mum's question about the Platform # (some evidence she *has* been there before) & whine/beg about why she can't go to Hogwarts (I concede that we don't know precisely where she meant to go & maybe it was to look in the muggle shops ... but her mother interprets her question as Hogwarts so...). In other words, I don't see any "excitement" in her actions prior to learning that the famous Boy Who Lived is on the train & her twin brothers have met him. And > who needs a Childminder? Um....well perhaps Molly would feel comfortable leaving her 9/10 yr old alone at *the Burrow* (small village location in England), but I assure you I won't be leaving my daughter unattended in Houston TX at the age of 10. Although if Molly is uncomfortable allowing her 10 yr old daughter to traverse the train station without holding tightly to her hand, I doubt seriously that she'd leave her unattended at home either. :--) Are we to suppose that poor Ginny's > spent her first 10 years in social isolation out at The Burrow? > She couldn't have Floo'd over to visit a friend or one of those > hypothetical Weasley cousins? ? I'm sure it would have been > much easier on Molly to leave Ginny behind than to try to keep > track of her in the station. Molly's behavior is over-protective ... IMO anyway. I doubt she'd leave Ginny behind. As for the social isolation, I fall into the Weasleys must have been home-schooled camp. They have little knowledge of muggle life, which indicates they likely didn't attend the muggle school in Ottery St. Catchpole. The Diggorys live near enough, but based on the Portkey in GoF, we can assume there aren't many more wizarding families in the vicinity of the Burrow. Probably not enough to support a wizarding primary school in any case. So .... if the Weasleys were home-schooled, then I'd say they might have been relatively isolated. > I just re-read the platform scene...you could just as well see the > hand holding as Mrs. Weasley being over-protective(Now hold > my hand dear, this is a busy place and we don't want you getting > lost,do we)...and the first "Oh mum, can I go..." as Ginny's > attempt to get away and look at the Muggle shops or something. Oh, I think Molly is definitely over-protective of Ginny. I've little doubt of that. But, the depiction of Ginny in that scene is still pretty darn juvenile IMHO. > She cries and chases after the train, which makes me think she > must be at least nine..old enough to get away with running on a > railway platform (my mother would have screamed for fear I'd > slip and fall under the wheels), Maybe Molly was screaming, but Harry couldn't hear her. I bet she was shrieking as a matter of fact. Having seen some of those train station platforms in England ("mind the gap"), I can say that it took some nerve for me to get myself onto the train sometimes, let alone seeing to one or more children. :::shudders:::: So, I bet Molly *was* screaming. :--D You've not yet convinced me that this is a typical 9/10 yr old girl. I still say she's no more than 6 the way she's depicted. But, that's just my opinion obviously. Penny From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jan 9 17:26:30 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 17:26:30 -0000 Subject: why Dumblelore does what he does In-Reply-To: <3C3C6D6C.494AB919@kingwoodcable.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33084 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Katze wrote: I like to believe that Dumbledore was not fully aware > of the Dursely's treatment of Harry before he arrived at Hogwarts, but > surely he knew that he stayed in the cupboard because of the way the > letter was addressed. Harry does at least have his own room now. Dumbledore might have had a reason for tolerating the closet. It might provide an extra measure of protection against those spells and hexes that only work if there's eye contact with the victim. Now Voldemort apparently thinks that the "ancient magic" Dumbledore invoked *will* block any attempt to harm Harry while he's on Privet Drive, including the supposedly unblockable AK. But how can he, or Dumbledore, be sure? Pippin From love2write_11098 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 9 17:59:24 2002 From: love2write_11098 at yahoo.com (love2write_11098) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 17:59:24 -0000 Subject: Age of Shippers; Ginny as Harry's "fate"; and other SHIP thoughts In-Reply-To: <3C3BBBFE.1030303@swbell.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33085 Hello everyone. I'm delurking for this. Eileen said: > > Ginny's 11 year old crush on Harry was typical, but it didn't have the > > same sort of emotional content as Viktor's crush on Hermione (ugghh). > > Now, that she is older, she still has feelings for Harry, but what she > > has is more like real adult love than before. Penny replied: > > I'm with Red on this one. Isn't Ginny 13/14? I don't think she or > *any* of the characters has experienced real adult love yet. I don't > think they should either really. Not until post-Hogwarts when they will > actually be adults. I would have to agree with Penny here, and not because I think that a fourteen year old is not *capable* of experiencing adult love (or at least intense feelings that, if the relationship continues long enough, may evolve into mature love), but because Ginny's behavior does not seem to indicate that she feels anything of the kind toward Harry. She still has a crush on her hero, which is rather odd considering that Harry is one of her brother's best friends and she should know him well enough *not* to look at him that way by now. I mean really, all that time at the Weasleys and Ginny scarcely seems to know Harry any better than she did in CoS. Her reaction in the scene in GoF where they're discussing dates for the Yule Ball is indicative of this. I *hope* that the characters do not experience real love until after they leave Hogwarts as well, Penny. Love before the age of twenty is a pain in the butt because it either makes you give up doing things that you would have done otherwise (which is dumb) or it makes doing those things harder. Hermione, in particular, who often seems to be at the apex of whatever love triangle (or square) that we discussing, will have opportunities abound when she leaves Hogwarts, and I would hate, *hate,* HATE to see her give up any of them because she's fallen in BIG LOVE with one of the boys. This is not to say that Harry and Ron will not have many opportunities. Assuming that Harry lives, he will be hounded by people wanting him to do this and do that and promote this and promote that . . . but I can see him possibly (if he is with Hermione or even *gulp* Ginny) wanting to experience a quiet life, for awhile at least, while Hermione is the type to never stop moving, never stop going on to the next thing. Ron, assuming he lives (I did not make that statement with Hermione, because I just don't see JKR killing her), will also have many opportunities -- but, looking at his parents who appear to have gotten married just out of Hogwarts, he also might want to settle down right away. I just don't see Hermione willing to do that with either of them, and with Ron it might especially be a problem. He might want a big family with lots of kids, and she wants a career. I love both Hermione and Molly, but they are VERY different people. Harry would probably give her more room to be herself (I'm a big post-Hogwarts H/H shipper). Stacy From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com Wed Jan 9 18:30:44 2002 From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 12:30:44 -0600 Subject: Ginny as Harry's "fate"; and other SHIP thoughts References: Message-ID: <3C3C8C54.A0643E6@kingwoodcable.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33086 love2write_11098 wrote: > I would have to agree with Penny here, and not because I think that a > fourteen year old is not *capable* of experiencing adult love (or at > least intense feelings that, if the relationship continues long > enough, may evolve into mature love), but because Ginny's behavior > does not seem to indicate that she feels anything of the kind toward > Harry. She still has a crush on her hero, which is rather odd > considering that Harry is one of her brother's best friends and she > should know him well enough *not* to look at him that way by now. I > mean really, all that time at the Weasleys and Ginny scarcely seems > to know Harry any better than she did in CoS. Her reaction in the > scene in GoF where they're discussing dates for the Yule Ball is > indicative of this. > I have to disagree with this. A girl that I grew up with had an older brother by two years. Even though I was her best friend (since age 6), I still developed a crush for her bother at age 10-11. Being her friend didn't stop me, and there was never anything saying that I should know enough not to have a crush. I think this happens quite often, and I wasn't at all surprised that Ginny had a crush. To add to that, she'd probably grown up hearing about Harry, and developed an image of him in her own mind. > I *hope* that the characters do not experience real love until after > they leave Hogwarts as well, Penny. Love before the age of twenty is > a pain in the butt because it either makes you give up doing things > that you would have done otherwise (which is dumb) or it makes doing > those things harder. Hermione, in particular, who often seems to be > at the apex of whatever love triangle (or square) that we discussing, > will have opportunities abound when she leaves Hogwarts, and I would > hate, *hate,* HATE to see her give up any of them because she's > fallen in BIG LOVE with one of the boys. I usually stay away from this stuff, because I really don't want the romance angle in the book to be at the forefront. I like the teenage musing with romance, but I can't stand it when it's the only story. I'm going to have to put on record that I do not want Harry with Ginny. I don't like Ginny. I don't know why...I just don't. Perhaps she'll grow on me in the next book, since I still see her being 11 years old. I don't think anything more will happen with Cho and Harry because it's tainted now. Cho does not blame Harry, but Harry still blames himself. I think they might have a fling (very low percentage in my opinion), but it won't last. I don't think we've been introduced to Harry's future love (how do we know that he doesn't become a loner?). If any ship does happen, I hope it's with Ron and Hermione, but *after* Hogwarts. So...there's what I think...simply stated...nothing elaborate ;-) _Katze From hollydaze at btinternet.com Wed Jan 9 18:28:30 2002 From: hollydaze at btinternet.com (Hollydaze) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 18:28:30 -0000 Subject: Time Turner Q, Teaching Potions, McGonagal's Teaching, Making a Portkey Message-ID: <003301c1993b$9d68dd20$b703073e@j0dhe> No: HPFGUIDX 33087 YET ANOTHER TIME TURNER Q: Seiryuu wrote: > But when Harry sees himself, he is not startled; he is just > reminded of his father, James. It is BECAUSE he *saw his father* that he was not startled, if he had recognised himself he probably would have been startled. And it is very likely that Harry (if this had been real) would have confused himself for his father: 1. He looks a lot like his dad. 2. It was across the lake (quite a big distance I should think) 3. It was dark and Harry 2 was only lit up by the stag. 4. Harry 1's vision was clouding over (by the Dementors), (5. Perhaps he even *wanted* to see his dad which altered how he saw things). It is not really a surprise that he thought it was his dad. He is not really reminded of his father so much as thinking he did actually see him and that it was him. If you were in this situation and you looked a lot like your Mum/Dad you would probably think the same thing. > So if you know what to look for, why would you be scared by the > Time-Turnered second person? If Hermione saw herself sitting at a > desk, for instance, wouldn't she think "Oh crap, I've messed up > with the Time Turner. Better get out of this room," instead of > "It's Dark Arts! Die!!"? Hermione may not have been worried about seeing herself, she was more worried about Harry 1 seeing Harry 2. Hermione 1 might have known about the time turner and ignored Hermione 2 but (at the time) Harry 1, Ron and even Hagrid did NOT know about the TT and probably would have reacted in the same way as Hermione 2 describes. Also your presumption is only in Hermione's case. There could well be other people who have travelled back to a time where they didn't know about the time turner and have then scene themselves, this would result in the same thing as Hermione described. > So there can't be too harsh consequences for being seen while TTed > (Harry doesn't seem to come out of it any worse), why do people > who use it worry about it? The only thing to worry about is being > seen at the same time by the same person. Yes but that is because he didn't think it was himself, he thought it was someone else (his dad). Because of this he didn't *go mad*, *kill himself* or any of those other things that Hermione mentions, because he didn't think it was dark magic because as far *as he knows* there are not two of him in the same area. > Point: When Hermione pulls Harry back, Hagrid appears, and heads > towards the castle. If Harry _was_ seen, how would that have > changed the past? It's the same predicament as Hermione using the > TT to go to 2 classes. Sure, they would have been slowed down, > but nothing catastrophic would have happened. This could have been bad for another reason, I think Dumbledore tells them not to be seen on three counts: 1) Don't be seen by yourself: For the reasons that Hermione states, going mad, killing past/future self etc. 2) Messing with time is against the law. If say Hagrid (as you suggested) did see them, then he accidentally mentions to Snape/Fudge that he saw them, they might put two and two together and think "huh, they were in the shack at that time" now Snape may not know the significance of this but Fudge would (being the Minister of Magic he may know that Hermione has the TT) and he would be slightly puzzled by them being in two places at once, this could result in some rather difficult questions being asked even if he doesn't know about the TT. 3) It may mess up saving Sirius. Again as an example Hagrid mentions to Snape that he saw them and then Snape has evidence that they were somehow in tow places at once and so could well have had something to do with saving Sirius. Even if he doesn't know about the TT (and it is unlikely that he does) he could presume they were suing some sort of time travel device. Again it would lead to very awkward questions. I haven't explained those very well but I hope you get my meaning (2 and 3 are very closely related) The precautions they have to take don't just relate to the law but to situations that could arise from being seen by other people that may have nothing to do with the law (e.g. Snape realising that they did save Sirius because of what person X tells him). *********************************** TEACHING POTIONS: Elizabeth Dalton > And though we see various instances of kids using charms or spells > like Accio to do things on their own time, no one (again, except > Hermione) ever seems to make a potion for any purpose of their > own Fred and George use a potion. When they want to age themselves to get into the Goblet, they use an Ageing Potion. It is also the first thing they think of, they don't think of charms etc first they go straight to the potion. In reply to an un-named person saying that they didn't use potions in the TWT. Elizabeth wrote: > Because none of them were supposed to know there *were* > dragons in the first task! Showing up prepared with an > anti-dragon potion would be a bit much, I think. Well couldn't the same apply to Harry and Cedric then, they didn't use potions because it would have given it away a bit. I also ask about the other tasks, you only address the first task. Why then didn't Krum or Fluer use a potion in the second task? Or in their preparations for the third task, you can't argue that they didn't know what was coming in the second task as most of them worked it out (Krum certainly had enough time to think about potions). *********************************** MCGONAGAL IS A "BAD" TEACHER: As a quick reference to however said that McGonagall is not as good a teacher as everyone seems to think on the basis (mainly) that on ones ever seems to use transfiguration to solve problems: I can't actually think of anywhere in the books where Harry, Ron and Hermione would need to use transfiguration to solve a problem, if you can think of somewhere please tell me *********************************** HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE TO MAKE A PORTKEY? Tabouli wrote: > I think we have to assume that making a Portkey is a long and > difficult process, otherwise it opens up too many plot holes, not > the least of which is the infamous Crouch/Moody and Harry > situation. I don't think it cane be that long as there is a quote at the end of GoF that states otherwise: "Then Dumbledore said, 'And Tonight...' 'I offered to carry the Triwizard Cup into the maze before Dinner,' whispered Bart Crouch. 'Turned it into a Portkey.' " (GoF Pg 600 UK) That implies to me that it can't take too long to turn something into a portkey. HOLLYDAZE!!! Who wishes to thank Amanda for making her a L.O.O.N. and is very proud to be one! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Ali at zymurgy.org Wed Jan 9 19:31:17 2002 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 19:31:17 -0000 Subject: Harry and the Imperius Curse... how many times? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33088 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "btk6y" wrote: Bobby wrote: > Surely this has been discussed, but I am just looking for an answer. > In GoF, Moody put Harry through the Imperius Curse "four straight > times" until he could completely throw it off. However, when he and > Voldemort are dueling, the book says that Harry felt the bliss of the > Imperius Curse "for the third time in his life". What's up with > that? When was the second time? Even if you look at the prior > lesson as a different episode each time he went under the curse, then > it would have been the fifth time when he was dueling Voldemort, not > the third. I think there are 2 possibilities here: either 1) it is a simple mistake, and it should read 5 times or 2)The book doesn't say that Harry felt the bliss of the Imperius Curse for the 3rd time, only that it was the 3rd time his mind had been wiped of all thought. On p94 of GoF we are told that Harry's mind had gone completely and blissfully blank when he saw the Veela. Thus, when he saw the Veela, this might have been the 1st time his mind went blank, followed by the time (or 4 times with Crouch/Moody) and then for the 3rd time under Voldemort. The wording for seeing the Veela and being under the Imperius Curse are very similar, so what do you think? Ali From jmmears at prodigy.net Wed Jan 9 20:36:54 2002 From: jmmears at prodigy.net (serenadust) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 20:36:54 -0000 Subject: why Dumblelore does what he does/ Harry's self esteem In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33089 > > Catherine wrote: > > One things for sure--growing up with the Dursleys would do nothing > for anyone's self esteem. > I don't know about that. The usual assumption is that being praised and told how wonderful you are throughout your childhood develops self esteem. However, I think that it is possible that accomplishment itself has more to do with developing true self esteem than kind words. Dumbledore certainly has shown that he doesn't know everything and that he can be misled (ie Quirrel, Sirius Black, fake Moody etc.), but I suspect that if he was close to the Potters, he must have known something about Lily's family. Since he told McGonagall "Can't you see how much better off he'll be, growing up away from all that (ie the fame in the WW for something he can't remember) until he's ready to take it?" I suspect that he knew that Harry would not have an easy time of it with the Dursleys, but that he was counting on him to be strong enough and humble enough as a result of his time with them, to be able to cope with his fame and the attention he would receive when he enters the Wizarding world in 10 years. And, in spite of how truly horrible they are to him, it seems that Dumbledore was right. Harry truly is strong enough to not have his "head turned" by the adulation. Would he have turned out as well, growing up with a loving and doting wizarding family? I'm certainly not endorsing the way the Dursleys treated him (abuse and neglect), and in RL they should be doing time. However, JKR is not a very sentimental writer, and I think that they are used in the books as a device to help show the sharp contrast between Harry's two worlds. Jo From babelfisherperson at yahoo.com Wed Jan 9 21:04:54 2002 From: babelfisherperson at yahoo.com (babelfisherperson) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 21:04:54 -0000 Subject: Harry nice kid / Harry & Cho In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33090 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "catlady_de_los_angeles" wrote: > There is canon evidence that Cho is a really nice kid. She didn't > wear a Potter Stinks badge even tho' it also said Support Cedric > Diggory. She was very gentle about rejecting Harry's invitation to > the Ball. Thus, he would like her even better once he did get to > know her. Which I believe could perfectly well happen. If events > threw them together, they could soon develop a non-romantic a- > sexual friendship that starting with trying to comfort each other's > grief over Cedric and continued on by commiserating on the > difficulties of living in both Muggle and wizarding worlds, and of > playing Seeker against Malfoy... They could eventually find their > friendship turning into something more... late in sixth year, I > should think... Yes, Cho seems to be a nice girl. But I don't know that Harry ever WILL get to know her better. I imagine that just looking in her direction will make him feel bad in book 5. Besides, it seemed pretty clear to me from the time she was introduced (and nothing later changed that impression) that Cho was meant to be the "unattainable first crush" for Harry. The girl he looks longingly at across the Great Hall, but who he can never "get". Red XIV From Edblanning at aol.com Wed Jan 9 21:09:38 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 16:09:38 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Time Turner Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33091 I've picked up on this thread late, so this is probably very gauche. It just struck me, if Buckbeak hadn't have been involved, or at least if Dumbledore hadn't wanted to save him or the trio hadn't realised that was part of the plan, wouldn't it have been so much easier just to give the Time Turner one twist, purloin a school broom for Sirius and fly up to Flitwick's office with it? Would this have been possible? Or would Harry actually be worse than dead having failed to rescue himself and Sirius from the Dementors? and therefore he couldn't have made that choice in the first place. Help! I'm going to stop here: my brain can't cope with this! Eloise. Getting a headache. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From babelfisherperson at yahoo.com Wed Jan 9 21:14:37 2002 From: babelfisherperson at yahoo.com (babelfisherperson) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 21:14:37 -0000 Subject: New thought(!) on H/H (SHIP)-old thought on H/G In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33092 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" wrote: > How can it be both a ridiculous notion (something that would > never happen) and a cliche (an utterly predictable development)? It's ridiculous because JKR would not do anything so clich? as having Harry automatically end up falling in love with the first eligible girl he sees (or, more accurately, that we're told about him seeing). Even if Harry does end up with Ginny, I can't imagine that it even occurred to JKR that Ginny's appearance at King's Cross could be considered a hint. And clich?s can be fundamentally ridiculous. The "hero falls for the first girl in the story" falls under that category. It doesn't work that way in any remotely realistic story (it's not inherently unrealistic to end up with the first eligible girl you meet, but it is unrealistic to end up with her BECAUSE she's the first eligible girl you meet), and while this is a fantasy story, JKR makes the characters quite realistic. > I must point out that JKR manages to establish that Bill and > Charlie exist without dragging them onto the platform at King's > Cross or giving them a cameo, even though Charlie plays a > larger part in the first book than Ginny does. That's because they're adults, and don't live with their parents (or even in England) anymore. They also have full-time jobs. It wouldn't make any sense for them to be there. Red XIV From babelfisherperson at yahoo.com Wed Jan 9 21:21:09 2002 From: babelfisherperson at yahoo.com (babelfisherperson) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 21:21:09 -0000 Subject: Ginny & the Platform Scene In-Reply-To: <3C3C7C24.2090204@swbell.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33093 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Penny & Bryce wrote: > You've not yet convinced me that this is a typical 9/10 yr old > girl. I still say she's no more than 6 the way she's depicted. > But, that's just my opinion obviously. > > Penny Er, you've lost me. Are you talking about Ginny here? Because she *is* 10 years old in PS, obviously. Otherwise she wouldn't be starting at Hogwarts in CoS. Red XIV From jmmears at prodigy.net Wed Jan 9 21:27:49 2002 From: jmmears at prodigy.net (serenadust) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 21:27:49 -0000 Subject: Ginny & the Platform Scene In-Reply-To: <3C3C7C24.2090204@swbell.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33094 > >> > > > > > Pippin responded: > > > > > If Mrs. W has no one to leave her with, then it's not Ginny's first > > time at King's Cross, so why on earth is Ginny so excited? > > I interpret her behavior as juvenile rather than excited. She's excited > at the prospect that she might meet the famous Harry Potter, but her > behavior up to that time is merely to answer her mum's question about > the Platform # (some evidence she *has* been there before) & whine/beg > about why she can't go to Hogwarts (I concede that we don't know > precisely where she meant to go & maybe it was to look in the muggle > shops ... but her mother interprets her question as Hogwarts so...). In > other words, I don't see any "excitement" in her actions prior to > learning that the famous Boy Who Lived is on the train & her twin > brothers have met him. > > Penny wrote: > > Um....well perhaps Molly would feel comfortable leaving her 9/10 yr old > alone at *the Burrow* (small village location in England), but I assure > you I won't be leaving my daughter unattended in Houston TX at the age > of 10. Although if Molly is uncomfortable allowing her 10 yr old > daughter to traverse the train station without holding tightly to her > hand, I doubt seriously that she'd leave her unattended at home either. :--) > > > Molly's behavior is over-protective ... IMO anyway. I doubt she'd leave > Ginny behind. As for the social isolation, I fall into the Weasleys > must have been home-schooled camp. They have little knowledge of muggle > life, which indicates they likely didn't attend the muggle school in > Ottery St. Catchpole. The Diggorys live near enough, but based on the > Portkey in GoF, we can assume there aren't many more wizarding families > in the vicinity of the Burrow. Probably not enough to support a > wizarding primary school in any case. So .... if the Weasleys were > home-schooled, then I'd say they might have been relatively isolated. Pippin wrote: > > I just re-read the platform scene...you could just as well see the > > hand holding as Mrs. Weasley being over-protective(Now hold > > my hand dear, this is a busy place and we don't want you getting > > lost,do we)...and the first "Oh mum, can I go..." as Ginny's > > attempt to get away and look at the Muggle shops or something. > Penny wrote: > Oh, I think Molly is definitely over-protective of Ginny. I've little > doubt of that. But, the depiction of Ginny in that scene is still > pretty darn juvenile IMHO. > > > Maybe Molly was screaming, but Harry couldn't hear her. I bet she > was shrieking as a matter of fact. Having seen some of those train > station platforms in England ("mind the gap"), I can say that it took > some nerve for me to get myself onto the train sometimes, let alone > seeing to one or more children. :::shudders:::: So, I bet Molly *was* > screaming. :--D > > You've not yet convinced me that this is a typical 9/10 yr old girl. I > still say she's no more than 6 the way she's depicted. But, that's just > my opinion obviously. > Hi, I think that Ginny seems immature to many of us who are used to the usual American/suburban girls of this age (dressing like Britney Spears, watching MTV). When I lived in the UK a few years ago (in Hampshire, NOT London), the children seemed refreshingly unsophisticated compared to the children in the Washington DC 'burbs where I now live. It has always seemed to me that the wizarding world we've been shown so far is rather socially conservative and old fashioned. Since the Weasleys do seem to be somewhat isolated geographically, Ginny's behavior does not seem especially immature to me. If you read books set in the early part of the 20th century, girls of this age are still very close to their families, playing with dolls, etc. and behave more like contemporary 6-7 year olds (unless the stories are set among the urban poor). Why do so many people seem a bit hostile to Ginny. It doesn't seem to me that we've seen her do anything distasteful. The only crying she seems to do is in COS, when she has been taken to the chamber to die. In contrast, Hermione has cried a fair bit, and has never been in any real personal danger except in POA (and not really very much even there), but nobody seems to think that this shows weakness on her part. I think that Tabouli needs to come up with an acromim for the Ginny defenders. Jo From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jan 9 21:43:39 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 21:43:39 -0000 Subject: Ginny & the Platform Scene In-Reply-To: <3C3C7C24.2090204@swbell.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33095 I wrote: > > I must point out that JKR manages to establish that Bill andCharlie exist without dragging them onto the platform at King's Cross or giving them a cameo, even though Charlie plays a larger part in the first book than Ginny does. And Penny replied: > Yes, but Ron doesn't wear Ginny's hand-me-down clothes or have expectations to live up to regarding her past performance at Hogwarts. Bill & Charlie are easy enough to introduce conversationally. << It wouldn't have been hard for JKR to leave Ginny out of the platform scene and still convey the needed information. The conversation on the train would have been just a little different: Ron says "And a sister. Ginny'll be starting Hogwarts next year. Bet *she* gets new robes." > > who needs a Childminder? > > Um....well perhaps Molly would feel comfortable leaving her 9/10 yr old alone at *the Burrow* (small village location in England), but I assure you I won't be leaving my daughter unattended in Houston TX at the age of 10. Although if Molly is uncomfortable allowing her 10 yr old daughter to traverse the train station without holding tightly to her hand, I doubt seriously that she'd leave her unattended at home either. :--)<< I didn't mean to suggest that Ginny would have been left home alone either, but it's not out of the question, IMO. I live in an rural area, where a kid is more likely to encounter a rattlesnake than a home invader. Most parents here wouldn't mind leaving a ten year old on her own for a few hours during the day, provided there was an adult she could reach by phone in an emergency. A wizard child could use the fire instead. I said: > > Are we to suppose that poor Ginny's > > spent her first 10 years in social isolation out at The Burrow? > > She couldn't have Floo'd over to visit a friend or one of those > > hypothetical Weasley cousins? ? I'm sure it would have been > > much easier on Molly to leave Ginny behind than to try to keepvtrack of her in the station. Penny: > > Molly's behavior is over-protective ... IMO anyway. I doubt she'd leave Ginny behind. As for the social isolation, I fall into the Weasleys must have been home-schooled camp. They have little knowledge of muggle life, which indicates they likely didn't attend the muggle school in Ottery St. Catchpole. The Diggorys live near enough, but based on the Portkey in GoF, we can assume there aren't many more wizarding families in the vicinity of the Burrow. Probably not enough to support a wizarding primary school in any case. So .... if the Weasleys were > home-schooled, then I'd say they might have been relatively isolated.<< Home schooling doesn't have to mean total isolation with parents who ward off visitors with a shotgun and spend their free time ranting about the IRS. I don't know what it's like in Houston, but the homeschoolers around here are conscientious about giving their kids lots of opportunities to socialize: playdates, Scouts, church, etc. Surely there are wizard equivalents. As for how she'd travel, what about floo powder? Nobody says it's her first time when Ginny goes to Diagon Alley in CoS, and even Molly doesn't seem worried that she'll go astray. I don't see it as more dangerous than crossing a city street or riding the bus, and I've been doing that since I was seven. On the other hand I wasn't allowed to go Downtown by myself till I was sixteen, so I can see Molly being nervous and more protective than usual in what amounts to a foreign country. As for the ever vexing "What's the platform" question, I think it's a family joke, like asking "What's for dinner" on Thanksgiving. I said: old enough to get away with running on a > > railway platform (my mother would have screamed for fear I'd > > slip and fall under the wheels), Penny: > Maybe Molly was screaming, but Harry couldn't hear her. I bet she was shrieking as a matter of fact. Having seen some of those train station platforms in England ("mind the gap"), I can say that it took some nerve for me to get myself onto the train sometimes, let alone seeing to one or more children. :::shudders:::: So, I bet Molly *was* screaming. :--D Eureka! Penny, you have unearthed the Holy Grail of H/G shippers...the long sought evidence of Ginny's heretofore hypothetical independent streak. I salute you :--D Pippin From farris5 at swbell.net Wed Jan 9 21:59:45 2002 From: farris5 at swbell.net (Russ & Wanda) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 15:59:45 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ginny & the Platform Scene References: Message-ID: <014e01c19958$f3922ea0$affdbed0@hppav> No: HPFGUIDX 33096 I will join the Protect Ginny club. When I read the books, I thought she was a normal girl with a crush on an unattainable boy. And, I homeschool my kids, all girls. There is nothing wrong with that and I applaud Ms. Weasley if she homeschooled those rowdy twins! She is a heck of a woman. Wanda Why do so many people seem a bit hostile to Ginny. It doesn't seem to me that we've seen her do anything distasteful. The only crying she seems to do is in COS, when she has been taken to the chamber to die. In contrast, Hermione has cried a fair bit, and has never been in any real personal danger except in POA (and not really very much even there), but nobody seems to think that this shows weakness on her part. I think that Tabouli needs to come up with an acromim for the Ginny defenders. Jo [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bonnie at niche-associates.com Wed Jan 9 20:49:27 2002 From: bonnie at niche-associates.com (dicentra_spectabilis_alba) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 20:49:27 -0000 Subject: why Dumblelore does what he does In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33097 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Katze wrote: > I like to believe that Dumbledore was not fully aware > > of the Dursely's treatment of Harry before he arrived at > Hogwarts, but > > surely he knew that he stayed in the cupboard because of the > way the > > letter was addressed. Harry does at least have his own room > now. > > Dumbledore might have had a reason for tolerating the closet. Remember, though, that we're talking about a work of fiction. JKR has no intention of making the Dursleys in any way real. Their actions are exaggerated for the sake of comedy--poking fun at unimaginative people in general and making an enjoyable story. It's not unlike Charlie's miserable but fictional poverty in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. The very idea of keeping a kid in the cupboard under the stairs is ludicrous--and hilarious. So is the way in which they spoil Dudley, and their reaction to all things magic (the letters, etc.). JKR wrote Harry as a kid who survives it all and keeps his humanity intact, which would not happen if the fictional HP world were meant to function the same as the real world. Dicentra, who thinks the Dursleys are a scream. From babelfisherperson at yahoo.com Wed Jan 9 22:06:06 2002 From: babelfisherperson at yahoo.com (babelfisherperson) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 22:06:06 -0000 Subject: Ginny & the Platform Scene In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33098 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" wrote: > It wouldn't have been hard for JKR to leave Ginny out of the > platform scene and still convey the needed information. The > conversation on the train would have been just a little different: > Ron says "And a sister. Ginny'll be starting Hogwarts next year. > Bet *she* gets new robes." What would be the point, though? How does that accomplish the goals of establishing her existance & showing that Ron isn't the youngest child any better than actually having her present? Answer: it doesn't. Red XIV From zidanenomiko at yahoo.com Wed Jan 9 22:29:04 2002 From: zidanenomiko at yahoo.com (Hikaru) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 17:29:04 -0500 Subject: H/H/G Love Triangle, Vampires, Snape and Ron, Oh My! References: <3C3BBBFE.1030303@swbell.net> Message-ID: <011101c1995d$0d4f65c0$6c628541@compaq> No: HPFGUIDX 33099 Gah O_o so many posts, so little time. I've tried to arrange these by content. I hope I'm not repeating anything that has already been said, seeing as I've been following these threads pretty tightly to make sure, but you never know... Ron/Hermione/Harry/Cho "Rabu-Rabu" (love love) - Ebony said: > I read PS/SS and PoA all in one weekend, back to back... and the > seeds were planted for my current state as H/H cheerleader. I had > what was then the canon to date read, and I remember hearing the > fourth book rumors and thinking very vague thoughts of "oh Lord, > anyone but Cho". At the time I didn't care half as much about > shipping as I do now, and goodness knows I never thought I'd spend > this much time in an attempt to justify how I came up with my ship... > I was active around the fandom for nearly six months before December > 2000 rolled around and I jumped into the shipper fray for good. I had to resist throwing the book around whenever Harry got all googly-eyed with Cho around. I mean, she's great and all, but Harry-- Harry... You only liked her because she was cute! I think this is one of those times that JKR is trying to teach us a lesson: Looks don't mean everything! That is why, I believe, that Hermione *had* that physical flaw of her teeth until GoF. During GoF, the students who are directly involved with Harry's life mature- and the change of Hermione physical appearance just adds to her maturity during the book. Appeal to the two boys? Yes, indeed she did that night at the ball. Something is beginning with the three friends-- Penny Said: > I don't know that the generalities really hold in terms of the age of > the various shipper factions. It seemed to me that many of the 14/15 yr > olds do think that Hermione likes Harry, but then, I don't think the H/H > ship is confined strictly to the younger set. > > But, yes, there's certainly potential for conflict if Harry even > *thinks* that Hermione likes him. There's even more potential for > conflict if *Ron* is the one with the wrong idea. Yes? Even more thought provoking is the theory that we have a triangle forming between Ron, Harry and Hermione. There is blatant evidence in GoF that Ron likes Hermione, however odd it is. Yes, he is jealous over the attention Hermione is giving to Krum instead of him, but the ball stays vivid in my mind. Even considering that Ron was bitter he didn't get a "decent" date, he was extremely upset about Hermione-- and I believe that Hermione was let down that neither Harry OR Ron had asked her to be their date (although I believe she would have said no-- more about that later). It is also apparent that Hermione likes Harry; examples being the goodbye kiss, and just the fact that she didn't hang with Ron as much when H and R had their fight in GoF. Hermione, from the way JKR is building it up, is becoming a sort of third wheel in their little group; and I also believe Hermione understands this. She can't get romantically involved with Ron without making Harry jealous or uncomfortable; vice versa if she went out with Harry. She is torn, because it is very obvious that she has very *strong* feelings for one of them, or both of them even (Hermione, you little flirt ^_~). This is why she goes to the ball with Krum instead of those two-- she didn't wait for one them to ask, or ask one of them herself. However, the ball could also be interpreted as Hermione trying to make Harry/Ron notice her, seeing as she dresses up quite nicely for Krum, and is not ashamed of showing Harry/Ron how much fun she is having, while they are loathing the ball because of their last-minute dates. The fact is, we could probably argue about this forever until the end of the series finally brings a conclusion to these SHIPS (as the epilogue is supposed to explain who ends up with who), but I believe that Harry and Hermione will end up together in a James and Lily Fashion. Like father, like son... more about this in the Ron part of this post.... Gah... head hurts o_O Next subject... Ron in the Future - Bobby said: >One more note dealing with the Imperius Curse and Ron's > character. Moody specifically states that it takes a "lot of > character" to throw off the Imperius Curse, and compares your ability > to throw off the Imperius Curse directly with the amount of character > you have. He does NOT mention at any time that the ability to throw > off the Imperius Curse is at all related to DADA ability, only > character. Now, character is a nebulous term to begin with, I > suppose, but I take character to mean all that good stuff like > loyalty, integrity, honesty, etc. Given this (which you may not > agree with), and considering that Ron had a very "difficult time" > throwing off the Imperius Curse, does this forshadow an eventual > betrayal by Ron, intentionally or not? My gut says no, but I think > it's an interesting bit of foreshadowing that is not there for no > reason. All thoughts are appreciated. > Well it's good to know I'm not the only one who believes this! I think the entire HP series is kind of a like-father, like-son type of story, that Harry will astray from in the end. Why is this relevant to Ron betraying Harry? If you examine the facts from a Snape-liked-Lily POV, we can begin to see the similarities between James and Harry. If Ron indeed likes Hermione (which I doubt can really be denied now), then if Hermione end up liking/loving Harry in a James and Lily like fashion, then the chance that Ron might betray Harry because of his jealousy, rises extremely. As his actions have shown in the past, Ron doesn't take lightly to other men touching Hermione, which could lead to a sticky situation if a H/H relationship does happen. Much like the if Snape-liked-Lily theory, Ron would probably grow bitter towards Harry as Snape was bitter to James. Expanding on this further could be the fact that (I feel) that Snape was always left out of lime-light, as Ron is-- while James was Head-Boy, on the Quidditch team, etc., etc. which is basically Harry's reality now. I fully expect that Ron's bitterness (shown in GoF) towards Harry and his popularity is far from being over- and with LV on the rise, I would not be surprised if Ron ends up running to LV for a solution for his problem, just as Snape did. Snape's Ways - sophineclaire said: > > Is Snape a vampire? kidding!!!! ;-) My real question: > > > > > The more I hear it, they more I wonder. Asides from the stereotypical > appearance ( The hair, the skin, the late noght prowling), there > maybe some hints ( or tricks ) in the story. > This arguement was in the groups.google.com, in the Harry Potter > discussion group. In POA, Severus directs the attention of the DADA > class that he is subbing to how to deal with Werewolves. When Lupin > returned, he changed the essay to one on vampires and mentions that > fact to Harry in front of Snape. > We know that it isn't beyond Snape to do something like that and > Lupin was probably reverting to marauder mode. It would be intersting > to see it Snape is a full or even a half-blooded Vampire, but JKR is > known for her plot twists. As much as I would love Snape to be a vampire (I have this vampire fetish... mmm Anne Rice...), I think the facts are kind of stacked against that fact. Snape goes outside during Quidditch matches, in the sun-- bad for vampires. In fact, in most legends, vampires disintegrate when sunlight touches their skin; or at least causes extreme pain. I highly doubt Snape could have cast that protection spell on Harry (as Q was trying to kill him in PS/SS) while in extreme pain caused by the sun burning his skin. The other point I must focus on is again in PS/SS, where Harry sees blood on Snape's leg, and the fact that he limps for a little while. If Snape was a full-fledged vampire, his wound would have healed VERY quickly, if not instantly. I think this is just a ship that has been created for more of a comedic POV of Snape than anything... honestly, anyone could be a Goth and prowl at night... it's part of Snape's charm ^_~ Marianne said: > Yes, Snape may be trying to further prepare his students to face the > dangerous real world. But, if that's the case, why does he insist on > trying to use identical methods to motivate all his students? Surely > a mark of a good teacher is to realize that not all students respond > to the same things. Some students want to learn, period, and will > always apply themselves. Some don't care, some will understand with > extra help, etc. By essentially treating all his students in the > same way I think Snape does them a disservice. > Snape acts like most teachers in real world high schools, I believe. Snape is partial to his house (or a real world look would be the students who are "popular" or "preps"), because of his ties with LV still. I mean, I know he's trying to let go of that part of his past, but one can't help but wonder why he favors Malfoy so much, when we all know that Lucius Malfoy and his wife are both DE. He knew most of the children's parents during his school days seeing that he was in the house of S house as well. Besides, he detests Harry and anyone associated with Harry because it's well-- Harry. The whole "James-look-alike" factor of Harry's appearance drives Snape to be mean to Harry and his friends, as he was mean to James and his friends. Growing Up In Other Hands - Catlady said: > Either Dumbledore didn't realize just how bad the Dursleys were, and > didn't check up on them over the years, or he WAS an accessory to > child abuse. Dumbledore is not all-knowing: he was deceived by > fake-Moody for a whole school year, so he could have been wrong about > the Dursleys. On the other hand, he made have known that they would > mistreat Harry and try to beat the magic out of him, and calculated > that that upbringing would give Harry character traits (independent, > lonely, self-reliant, untrusting, humble, thirsty to prove himself, > ignorant of wizarding world) that he would need to carry out his > destiny. > Dumbledore was warned by Mrs. M before he left Harry on the Dursley's doorsteps. I believe he knew exactly of how they were, especially Petunia's bitterness towards her sister. I'm sure Lily would have conveyed this to Dumbledore at some point (since evidence in PoA shows that Dumbledore was close to the Potters before the accident). I think Dumbledore knew that Harry would grow up to be a better person at the Dursley's-- after all, look at Cinderella (hehe, Dumbledore-like theory right there o_O) It's hard to imagine what could have happened if Harry was raised by Sirius or someone else (as many fanfictions are based off of). It's hard to deny that Harry, knowing what he was and about his extreme popularity, would have grown up to be a Draco *wince* and probably ended up in the house of S when sorted-- changing the whole HP-verse. As much as I would have loved seeing Harry end up with Sirius, we can't deny that Harry wouldn't be the same Harry that exists because of his up-bringing in the Dursley house. -Hikaru Founder of the Harry Potter Anime Fangirls Anonymous Glomping Butterflies * http://oohikaruoo.pitas.com (directory) Catadamon * http://daintyrose.org/catadamon (fanfiction archive) Mystical Thoughts * http://daintyrose.org/catadamon/blog (fic blog) From ebonyink at hotmail.com Wed Jan 9 22:25:07 2002 From: ebonyink at hotmail.com (selah_1977) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 22:25:07 -0000 Subject: Ginny & the Platform Scene (with lit theory and post-canon SHIP) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33100 Happy Hump Day! Quick musings before class tonight-- David wrote: "What interests me about this exchange is the nature of the arguments deployed. Pippin's argument is very clinical: each segment of text serves a purpose..." I read your post with interest, Dave. However, I'm not sure that this can be applied to only the Ginny and the Platform scene thread. If we apply structural criticism to the Harry Potter canon, I'd like to see it applied across the board. A year ago I took a stab at psychoanalytic criticism of the potential romance subplot of HP. The largest issue I ran into was the fact that canon isn't closed... it would be like trying to apply Lacan's theories to only the first half of *Frankenstein*, you know. So I have the draft of the paper still on my hard drive, waiting for whenever canon closes. While I applaud the thought that went into the analysis and see where you're coming from, I don't think we can say that Pip is applying a specific critical theory until we can look "back" from a vantage point in canon where H/G occurs in some form. Katze: "I don't think anything more will happen with Cho and Harry because it's tainted now. Cho does not blame Harry, but Harry still blames himself. I think they might have a fling (very low percentage in my opinion), but it won't last. I don't think we've been introduced to Harry's future love (how do we know that he doesn't become a loner?). If any ship does happen, I hope it's with Ron and Hermione, but *after* Hogwarts." I agree with most of the above. Harry/Cho is tainted, although perhaps not for good. I also do feel that Harry's fate in the next few books and in the near future immediately following canon is as a loner. He's been alone for most of his life. He is still in a sense "alone" throughout Books 1-4 because there are parts of his quest that even his closest friends cannot share. I'm almost certain he'll have to face more peril all alone before canon is over. And after canon, I see him pulling a Frodo and leaving the wizarding world--either voluntarily or through some sacrifice. I don't *like* the idea of Harry being alone, but I think it's necessary. So I am not sure that he's going to have any lasting romance in canon. And as for Ron/Hermione post-Hogwarts, I think the idea is a prescription for disaster. I like Ron as a character (surprise!) and I love Hermione, but I do not like them together for long stretches of time. Teenage sweethearts, maybe (and that "maybe" is thin IMO). Anything in adulthood or long-term, absolutely no way. Jo wrote: "I think that Ginny seems immature to many of us who are used to the usual American/suburban girls of this age (dressing like Britney Spears, watching MTV). When I lived in the UK a few years ago (in Hampshire, NOT London), the children seemed refreshingly unsophisticated compared to the children in the Washington DC 'burbs where I now live." You know, I can't say for sure, because I'm not British, but one of the things that made me laugh to myself most this summer was how much more similar British kids and adolescents are to their American counterparts than they are different. I visited ten schools while in the UK, none of them in London... and the conclusion I drew was that kids are kids are kids. There are cultural differences, but we're all human... more alike than different. "Why do so many people seem a bit hostile to Ginny. It doesn't seem to me that we've seen her do anything distasteful. The only crying she seems to do is in COS, when she has been taken to the chamber to die. In contrast, Hermione has cried a fair bit, and has never been in any real personal danger except in POA (and not really very much even there), but nobody seems to think that this shows weakness on her part." And thank goodness Hermione *does* cry... if she didn't, her detractors would say she was cold and unfeeling. ^_^ I do like Ginny very much as a character. Just not with Harry. She's cute and sweet and the bit we've seen of her reminds me of my own baby sister. I think that the "independent streak" Pippin mentioned would be better served by her not dating a guy that her mother just may soon have mentally dressed and trussed for her. (Which is yet another thing that nags me about OBHWF (R/H and H/G combined--the sneaking suspicion that neither Harry nor Hermione were consulted first in this arrangement.) I love Ginny so much that I enthusiastically ride an extracanonical Ginny ship--Redeemed!Draco/Feisty!Ginny, but that's another story for another day. --Ebony AKA AngieJ From moongirlk at yahoo.com Wed Jan 9 22:56:26 2002 From: moongirlk at yahoo.com (moongirlk) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 22:56:26 -0000 Subject: Ginny-lovers, unite! (was Ginny & the platform scene) In-Reply-To: <014e01c19958$f3922ea0$affdbed0@hppav> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33101 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Russ & Wanda wrote: > I will join the Protect Ginny club. When I read the books, I thought she was a normal girl with a crush on an unattainable boy. And, I homeschool my kids, all girls. There is nothing wrong with that and I applaud Ms. Weasley if she homeschooled those rowdy twins! She is a heck of a woman. > Wanda This was in response to Jo, who said: > Why do so many people seem a bit hostile to Ginny. It doesn't seem to > me that we've seen her do anything distasteful. The only crying she > seems to do is in COS, when she has been taken to the chamber to die.> In contrast, Hermione has cried a fair bit, and has never been in any > real personal danger except in POA (and not really very much even > there), but nobody seems to think that this shows weakness on her > part. > I think that Tabouli needs to come up with an acromim for the Ginny > defenders. > > Jo I suppose the moderator types would frown on me if I just said "Yay!", or even "Go Ginny-defenders, go!", so in my Ginny-loving enthusiasm, I'll add that even if Ginny's independence, strenght of character, etc. *are* still somewhat hypothetical, I think the hypothesis is still a well educated guess based on more current scenes in cannon, specifically the pre-yule ball scene. the Ginny in GoF has clearly matured a reasonable amount, in my opinion. The fact is, she had a shot at going th the Yule Ball with Harry. She could have easily found a way to go with him. In fact, she could even have done so without really hurting Neville's feelings. We know already that she wasn't his first choice - she could easily have gone on the pretext that Harry, as a champion, had to have a partner for the opening dance, but she didn't. Even knowing that she was his second choice, Ginny stuck by Neville *and* defended him in front of the very boy of whom she's supposedly nothing more than a groupie. If she were still just some kid who hero-worshipped him because of his fame, I don't think she'd be doing that. And I'd say that there's reasonable evidence that she's in Hermione's confidence, whatever their level of friendship is. We know that Hermione didn't confide in Lavendar or Parvati, who are her roomates, and her own age. I am guessing that this is because of their personalities. They are characterized as giggly and boy-crazy, and also credulous, in regards to Telawny. I think Hermione chose someone who she considered to be more mature and sensible. Of course I can't prove that Hermione confided in her rather than her eaves dropping or being told by someone else, but I find one much easier to infer than the other. both because there is no *reason* to make me think otherwise, and in large part because Ginny determines to keep the confidence. So there we are, my "me too" post got a little out of hand, I think, but it's a pet subject of mine. As far as I'm concerned, JKR is heading towards a Ginny that is plenty worthy of my somewhat premature admiration, and of Harry's as well, if she's still interested. kimberly, defender of Weasleys From ck32976 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 9 22:25:29 2002 From: ck32976 at yahoo.com (ck32976) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 22:25:29 -0000 Subject: Time Turner In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33102 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote: > It just struck me, if Buckbeak hadn't have been involved, or at least if > Dumbledore hadn't wanted to save him or the trio hadn't realised that was > part of the plan, wouldn't it have been so much easier just to give the Time > Turner one twist, purloin a school broom for Sirius and fly up to Flitwick's > office with it? > > Would this have been possible? Or would Harry actually be worse than dead > having failed to rescue himself and Sirius from the Dementors? Seeing as how I haven't got the book in front of me, I'm not sure but doesn't Dumbledore just say that they could save more than one life. He may have known that Harry needed to be at the lake to send the patronus, but in true Dumbledore style, wanted to give Harry a chance to figure it out for himself. IMHO Buckbeak was just a useful way of getting Harry and Hermione to go back far enough. Anyway, I could be wrong...I'm new to this. ck32976 From cindysphynx at home.com Wed Jan 9 23:58:39 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 23:58:39 -0000 Subject: Ginny as a Character (WAS Ginny & the Platform Scene) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33103 Jo wrote: > Why do so many people seem a bit hostile to Ginny. It doesn't seem to > me that we've seen her do anything distasteful. The only crying she > seems to do is in COS, when she has been taken to the chamber to die. > In contrast, Hermione has cried a fair bit, and has never been in any > real personal danger except in POA (and not really very much even > there), but nobody seems to think that this shows weakness on her > part. > I think that Tabouli needs to come up with an acromim for the Ginny > defenders. > I think Hermione has faced her fair share of personal danger. She risked being bonked on the head in the PS/SS chess game, she drank first in the potions challenge and so risked being poisoned, she was at risk twice from the three-headed dog, she was in the Forbidden Forest, and she helped Harry with the dragon. She got petrified in CoS. She handled all of these challenges well with a minimal amount of sobbing, and in PS/SS, Hermione was 10. And then we have Ginny. Ginny acts like 6-year-old child on the platform (I'm with Penny on this point). Ginny has undoubtedly seen her brothers off to Hogwarts many times, yet she goes to pieces on the Platform. I attribute this to JKR needing to have Ginny do something other than just stand there -- which is what a typical bored 10-year-old girl would have done. Primarily, though, I have to decline membership in any Ginny fan club because Ginny is very wooden and underdeveloped. Really, if I had to describe her character in a few words, I couldn't do it. She shines for a few sentences in GoF, but that's about it. Tragically, her big turn in the spotlight was in CoS, and the scenes in Dumbledore's office didn't do much for me, quite frankly. Maybe it was the stammer, but her lines seemed a little forced. Part of the trouble with Ginny is that she doesn't seem to have a very close relationship with Ron. Oh, sure, he gives a "strangled cheer" when he learns she is not dead, but that's about it. Ron is rude to her on the train in PoA, and he does not take her into his confidence. Perhaps if he acted like he cared about his kid sister, then maybe I could, too. Cindy (who will offer up Ginny if it will spare the lives of Sirius or Lupin) From virtualworldofhp at yahoo.com Thu Jan 10 00:15:38 2002 From: virtualworldofhp at yahoo.com (virtualworldofhp) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 00:15:38 -0000 Subject: Ginny & the Platform Scene In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33104 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" wrote: > I said: > old enough to get away with running on a > > > railway platform (my mother would have screamed for fear I'd > > > slip and fall under the wheels), > > Penny: > > Maybe Molly was screaming, but Harry couldn't hear her. I > bet she was shrieking as a matter of fact. Having seen some of > those train station platforms in England ("mind the gap"), I can > say that it took some nerve for me to get myself onto the train > sometimes, let alone seeing to one or more children. > :::shudders:::: So, I bet Molly *was* screaming. :--D > > Eureka! Penny, you have unearthed the Holy Grail of H/G > shippers...the long sought evidence of Ginny's heretofore > hypothetical independent streak. I salute you :--D > > Pippin Independent streak? What do you call writing in a secret diary for nine months, not to mentioning opening a secret chamber to unleash a deadly beast? Independent is keeping this to herself once she realized what she was doing (she almost told Harry). Hmmm, something for H/Gers to ponder on. What do you take of the fact that Ginny was going to reveal this huge, huge, *HUGE* secret ("Hey everyone! I might be the one petrifying people!") to Harry and Ron? Do you think she was doing it purposefully because she thought that somehow Harry's specialness (ala Mr-saved-the-world-from-Moldy-Voldy-last-year) could help her, or was it just a general plea to the nearest person at the time? Okay, so I got off-topic from my original reply. I'd say "independent streak" could more-than-well be defined by the contents of CoS. -Megan (not really a Ginny fan, but this thread got her thinking) From virtualworldofhp at yahoo.com Thu Jan 10 00:21:45 2002 From: virtualworldofhp at yahoo.com (virtualworldofhp) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 00:21:45 -0000 Subject: H/H/G Love Triangle, Vampires, Snape and Ron, Oh My! In-Reply-To: <011101c1995d$0d4f65c0$6c628541@compaq> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33105 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Hikaru" wrote: > Hermione, from the way JKR is building it up, is becoming a sort of > third wheel in their little group; and I also believe Hermione > understands this. She can't get romantically involved with Ron without > making Harry jealous or uncomfortable; vice versa if she went out with > Harry. She is torn, because it is very obvious that she has very > *strong* feelings for one of them, or both of them even (Hermione, you > little flirt ^_~). This is why she goes to the ball with Krum instead > of those two-- she didn't wait for one them to ask, or ask one of them > herself. However, the ball could also be interpreted as Hermione trying > to make Harry/Ron notice her, seeing as she dresses up quite nicely for > Krum, and is not ashamed of showing Harry/Ron how much fun she is > having, while they are loathing the ball because of their last-minute > dates. What do we say for the reasons behind Hermione keeping her date with Krum secret (save Ginny)? Do you think it was merely the complex of a previous not-so-attractive girl suddenly getting asked out by the most popular guy in school? She's modest, so I wouldn't expect her to brag about it, but why the complete secrecy? Maybe something inside of her wanted to shock Harry/Ron/other boys into the fact that now she has become something of on the pedestool of "highly desirable" territory. Just wondering what shippers think of this and the effect Hermione was trying to give. -Megan From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com Thu Jan 10 00:34:21 2002 From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 18:34:21 -0600 Subject: H/H/R triangle (SHIP), Ron's fate References: <3C3BBBFE.1030303@swbell.net> <011101c1995d$0d4f65c0$6c628541@compaq> Message-ID: <3C3CE18D.2E304CC@kingwoodcable.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33106 Hikaru wrote: > As his actions have shown in the past, Ron doesn't take lightly to > other men touching Hermione, which could lead to a sticky situation if > a H/H relationship does happen. Much like the if Snape-liked-Lily > theory, Ron would probably grow bitter towards Harry as Snape was > bitter to James. Expanding on this further could be the fact that (I > feel) that Snape was always left out of lime-light, as Ron is-- while > James was Head-Boy, on the Quidditch team, etc., etc. which is > basically Harry's reality now. I fully expect that Ron's bitterness > (shown in GoF) towards Harry and his popularity is far from being over- > and with LV on the rise, I would not be surprised if Ron ends up > running to LV for a solution for his problem, just as Snape did. I think this is why I'm against an H/H SHIP. I think that if there were to happen before Ron is able to control himself, then I think this would ultimately end up in the "betrayal" category, as Ron might be willing ot go extremes to get the upper hand over Harry. Then, after Ron has gone to the extreme, is brought back to reality and decides to redeem himself by sacrificing himself to save Harry or Hermione. I like Ron too much, and I don't want to see him this torn between what he wants and what is right. Though...I'm sure that if JKR went this route she'd make a satisfying redemption for Ron, but I want for him what I want for Harry and Hermione -- to have long happy life after V is taken out. In my mind this just can't happen if Ron goes to the dark side, but my gut says he won't. He might be tempted, but he won't go. -Katze From ebonyink at hotmail.com Thu Jan 10 01:10:32 2002 From: ebonyink at hotmail.com (selah_1977) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 01:10:32 -0000 Subject: Sacrifice and HP (non-SHIP, was Re: H/H/R Triangle) In-Reply-To: <3C3CE18D.2E304CC@kingwoodcable.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33107 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Katze wrote: > Hikaru wrote: > I think this is why I'm against an H/H SHIP. I think that if there were to happen before Ron is able to control himself, then I think this would ultimately end up in the "betrayal" category, as Ron might be willing ot go extremes to get the upper hand over Harry. Then, after Ron has gone to the extreme, is brought back to reality and decides to redeem himself by sacrificing himself to save Harry or Hermione. I like Ron too much, and I don't want to see him this torn between what he wants and what is right. Though...I'm sure that if JKR went this route she'd make a satisfying redemption for Ron, but I want for him what I want for Harry and Hermione -- to have long happy life after V is taken out. In my mind this just can't happen if Ron goes to the dark side, but my gut says he won't. He might be tempted, but he won't go. > I tend to agree. I wouldn't be surprised if Ron did go "dark", but ultimately I'd be surprised if it happens. It's just too obvious. However, the more and more fantasy literature that I read, I am beginning to recognize a pattern: one of the subgeneric conventions is that of sacrifice. We have seen various sacrifices already in the Harry Potter series--Lily's being perhaps the most prominent example cited by fans (although I'm not in the 'Lily's Sacrifice Accounts For Everything That Harry Is' camp). I am sure that as the stakes are raised later in the series, the sacrifices that are required will become either more frequent or more dire. Anthropologist Rene Girard posits a theory that I think directly relates to this line of thinking about Ron's fate. I'll handle this the same way I handled the Lacan-H/H post in December 2000--let me give the argument, then discuss how it might apply to Ron. (The following is excerpted from course material prepared by Ken Jackson, a current instructor/colleague of mine. He summarizes Girard much better than I could for the purposes of this debate) --------- "Violence *happens*. Always has, always will. Contrary to popular belief, violence occurs not because of differences but because of similarities. We strike out in order to establish difference, to carve out space, to affirm our uniqueness and identity. "Indeed, violence is one means of creating a "self", a process that usually begins by creating an "other"--someone or something different that can be destroyed to identify the self. (Eb's note-- *coughLacancough*) Violent destruction, however, usually prompts someone to strike back in revenge. Violence is thus reciprocal, endlessly so. "If we gain some distance from the cyclical violence that encloses us all, we discover that there is no difference between the "perpetrator" and the "revenger". The two are interchangeable because we always discover that the perpetrator is enacting vengeance and the revenger is becoming a perpetrator. "In order to interrupt temporarily this reciprocal violence--and preserve the species--revenger and perpetrator will occasionally find a scapegoat to sacrifice, a more or less neutral party to kill, thus satisfying our violent natures without setting off another revenge cycle. Only sacrifice--a form of violence--interrupts violence." -------- I found this theory compelling--is anyone familiar with it? Would you agree that sacrifice is often elemental to much of fantasy literature? The Quest motif seems sacrificial in and of itself... and in many, many fantasy works prior to Harry Potter, it seems as if the ultimate sacrifice is demanded. The wizarding world can be restored to normalcy, but only at great cost to someone IMO. The final aspect of sacrifice--and this I am getting from my admittedly limited knowledge of comparative religion, coupled with my own religion--is that you cannot sacrifice just any old thing. Somehow, I doubt that this is exclusive to Christianity. Many of the characters who are proposed as (I quote) "cannon fodder" do not have the same emotional value as others who we assume are protected. "To whom much is given, much is also required." Makes me wonder just who--or *what*--the Paschal lamb of the wizarding world will be. --Ebony AKA AngieJ From southernscotland at yahoo.com Thu Jan 10 00:56:45 2002 From: southernscotland at yahoo.com (southernscotland) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 00:56:45 -0000 Subject: Ginny & the Platform Scene (with lit theory and post-canon SHIP) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33108 > I also do feel that Harry's fate in the next few books and in the > near future immediately following canon is as a loner. He's been > alone for most of his life. He is still in a sense "alone" > throughout Books 1-4 because there are parts of his quest that even > his closest friends cannot share. I'm almost certain he'll have to > face more peril all alone before canon is over. And after canon, I > see him pulling a Frodo and leaving the wizarding world--either > voluntarily or through some sacrifice. > > I don't *like* the idea of Harry being alone, but I think it's > necessary. I absolutely agree with what has been said about Harry being a loner. To me, he is going to have the "Luke Skywalker" part of the story - his friends are part of his life, and then they are not, too. He doesn't totally fit in in the Muggle world, or the wizarding world, either. When you bring up Frodo, it takes me to a troubling thought. J.K. likes for Harry to suffer. He has been suffering in one way or another for four books now, and the suffering has been "racheted up" in Book 4. What is she going to do to him in the next three books? Awhile back, some of you stated that you thought that Harry might be alive by the end of Book 7, but "damaged" in some way. How? Physically, they seem to be able to mend broken bones and a lot of other things without much thought in the wizarding world. Mentally, he is so young - what could happen here? Torture? I am quite worried that he will die. If he dies, then he will be the big hero, no matter what anyone else does. If Ron dies, then Ron will have made a larger sacrifice than Harry, and Harry must make the largest sacrifice. The story could become tragic, as a lot of Harry's life so far has been. Of course, he may not. These are, in some ways, children's books, plus the movie people may not have wanted a hero who does not survive. (Although they haven't said they would do all the books, and they could change the ending.) What may happen in this kind of "heroic epic" story? What will Harry be called upon to sacrifice? His existence? Wondering and worrying, lilahp From zidanenomiko at yahoo.com Thu Jan 10 01:22:39 2002 From: zidanenomiko at yahoo.com (Hikaru) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 20:22:39 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] H/H/R triangle (SHIP), Ron's fate References: <3C3BBBFE.1030303@swbell.net> <011101c1995d$0d4f65c0$6c628541@compaq> <3C3CE18D.2E304CC@kingwoodcable.com> Message-ID: <000d01c19975$4d719fc0$6c628541@compaq> No: HPFGUIDX 33109 > I think this is why I'm against an H/H SHIP. I think that if there were > to happen before Ron is able to control himself, then I think this would > ultimately end up in the "betrayal" category, as Ron might be willing ot > go extremes to get the upper hand over Harry. Then, after Ron has gone > to the extreme, is brought back to reality and decides to redeem himself > by sacrificing himself to save Harry or Hermione. I like Ron too much, > and I don't want to see him this torn between what he wants and what is > right. Though...I'm sure that if JKR went this route she'd make a > satisfying redemption for Ron, but I want for him what I want for Harry > and Hermione -- to have long happy life after V is taken out. In my mind > this just can't happen if Ron goes to the dark side, but my gut says he > won't. He might be tempted, but he won't go. For Ron's sake, I hope you're right. However, Ron's actions in GoF lead me in the other direction. His complete "blackout" of Harry, just because of the Tournament, was very childish. I understand Ron's POV about this -Harry does get all the glory- but he should have been happy or at least worried for Harry participating in the Tournament. If something putting Harry in the spotlight occurs again during book 5 or later, leaving Ron out of it again, then I do believe the bridge will break and something serious between their friendship will happen. After all, things such as this do occur in real life-- you don't normally stay friends with someone your entire middle/high school career, unless it's a extremely close friend. Now, I'm not saying that Ron and Harry are not close, nor that Ron totally resents Harry for being-well, Harry; but the factor still remains that we have seen that Ron can get jealous over his best friend's popularity, and may more frequently in the future-- to the point where he may turn against him. I do hope against hope that I am wrong- or at least, if Ron turns, then he will redeem himself in the end- just like I believe Wormtail (JERK) will help Harry in some way by the end of his school career as well. -Hikaru Founder of the Harry Potter Anime Fangirls Anonymous Glomping Butterflies * http://oohikaruoo.pitas.com (directory) Catadamon * http://daintyrose.org/catadamon (fanfiction archive) Mystical Thoughts * http://daintyrose.org/catadamon/blog (fic blog) From midwife34 at aol.com Thu Jan 10 01:14:10 2002 From: midwife34 at aol.com (jrober4211) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 01:14:10 -0000 Subject: Ginny and the Platform Scene Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33110 I read the recent posts regarding Ginny, with her mother, seeing the boys off for school at the platform. My take on the scene was that Ginny was crying because she wanted to go too, and did not want to be left behind. Having been the oldest of four, I remember my siblings getting upset when I went off to summer camp, not so much that they would miss the bossy elder sister, but that I might possibly have more fun than they would be having all summer. Ginny being the youngest and the only daughter out of seven children, it stands to reason that the whole family is over protective of Ginny. The scene where Ginny has a cold in her first year at Hogwarts and Percy forces her to take the cold medicine that made smoke come out of her ears is a good example of this. I get the impression that the Weasley's do lead an isolated existance by Mrs. Weasley's remark when she sent the letter to the Dursley's asking if Harry could come with them to the QWC, " It would be best for Harry to send us an answer in the normal way, because the Muggle postman has never delivered to our house, and I am not sure he even knows where it is." I got the impression that the Burrow, which is held together by magic according to Harry's impression of how incongruent the whole structure was when he first saw it, is probably invisible to muggle eyes. Since Ron was unfamiliar with how to correctly speak in a telephone when he called Harry over the summer, I think its safe to say the Weasley children have had very little interaction with Muggle society.For this reason, I can understand why Mrs. Weasley would be holding Ginny's hand at the platform for fear that she might get seperated from her in an unknown environment, even if it wasn't Ginny's first trip to the platform. Based on these things , I did not see Ginny's behaviour at age 10 particularly immature considering her upbringing and circumstances. Ginny's brothers were probably her only constant companions and Ron was the last brother to leave for school ,leaving her home alone with just her parents for several months before seeing them again on Christmas holidays. That would have made me cry at age 10. Jo Ellen From sfrankel at si.rr.com Thu Jan 10 01:51:31 2002 From: sfrankel at si.rr.com (sheryl) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 20:51:31 -0500 Subject: hello and a few thoughts References: Message-ID: <002601c19979$538c9820$d2115a18@si.rr.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33111 It seems there are quite a few new members popping up so I might as well be one of them. I have been lurking for a few days now and just finished GoF this evening. Please forgive me if this has been hashed over before. Does anyone think that Draco, Crabbe and Goyle (sp?, I listened to the tapes) will return to Hogwarts? I think it would be very difficult for them there now that their fathers are known to be Deatheaters. Would Dumbledore allow them back or would he let them in just so he could keep an eye on them.? I also think that perhaps Voldemort might have a bit of a problem with some of the Deatheaters that watched the duel. After all, here is the Dark Lord who vows to kill Harry and then a 14 year old boy, with minimal experience in the ways of wizarding in actuality bests him. If I were there the thought might occur to me that maybe this Dark One wasn't as powerful as he thinks he is. It sure would lead to questions if what he was demanding from me was worth it if a child could best him. Anyway please be kind in responding. I'm sure many other thoughts will occur to me as I digest what I just read(heard). Sheryl [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From brewpub44 at earthlink.net Thu Jan 10 02:40:38 2002 From: brewpub44 at earthlink.net (brewpub44) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 02:40:38 -0000 Subject: hello and a few thoughts In-Reply-To: <002601c19979$538c9820$d2115a18@si.rr.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33112 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "sheryl" wrote: > Does anyone think that Draco, Crabbe and Goyle (sp?, I listened to the tapes) will return to Hogwarts? I think it would be very difficult for them there now that their fathers are known to be Deatheaters. Would Dumbledore allow them back or would he let them in just so he could keep an eye on them.? I think it is wholly possible that their parents won't let them return, if they either dislike, or distrust, Dumbledore & co. enough to keep their kids out of that school. So that is a possibility. However, I don't think Dumbledore will keep them from coming back. Dumbledore states over and over again, for all four books, on how it is individual choices that make the difference. He also knows all about prejudice (werewolves, giants, et al), and knows that banning them from school because of their parents counteracts his own philosophy. Story-wise, that could become an important arc: if Dumbledore gets through to one of these kids somehow so they refute their own parents' teachings to become one of hte good guys? Plot- wise, I doubt that's likely for the D, C & G, (I think JKR has other plans for them, especially Draco) but for other DE kids? Would be interesting to see how that might play out. > I also think that perhaps Voldemort might have a bit of a problem with some of the Deatheaters that watched the duel. After all, here is the Dark Lord who vows to kill Harry and then a 14 year old boy, with minimal experience in the ways of wizarding in actuality bests him. If I were there the thought might occur to me that maybe this Dark One wasn't as powerful as he thinks he is. It sure would lead to questions if what he was demanding from me was worth it if a child could best him. I think this is an interesting idea. Perhaps that's why LV did all those curses on the DE members at the cemetary, effectively telling them "I am still very powerful, and Harry is just a fluke". Also, LV now believes he has Harry's special protection because of the blood Harry unwillingly gave to revive LV's body. So if the DE's believe that a) HP is a fluke and b) LV has his special protection, then no, the DEs are still pretty much screwed. A Barkeep in Diagon Alley From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com Thu Jan 10 02:45:43 2002 From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 20:45:43 -0600 Subject: Draco and his cronies, Voldemort/Death Eaters References: <002601c19979$538c9820$d2115a18@si.rr.com> Message-ID: <3C3D0057.E7BEE102@kingwoodcable.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33113 sheryl wrote: >>>Does anyone think that Draco, Crabbe and Goyle (sp?, I listened to the tapes) will return to Hogwarts? I think it would be very difficult for them there now that their fathers are known to be Deatheaters. Would Dumbledore allow them back or would he let them in just so he could keep an eye on them.?<<< Dumbledore accepts anyone who has talent (can't remember which books he stated this in...CoS?)...and this even includes children of Death Eaters. I do see Draco, Crabbe, and Goyle coming back. In the eyes of the Ministry, their fathers were all cleared. I suspect Crabbe and Goyle got off with the same excuse Malfoy did...they were acting under the Imperius Curse. The only people who know that those three are still death eaters are the those who were in the room when Harry spat out names to Dumbledore and Fudge. Dumbledore believes that it's a person's choices that makes them who they are, which means the kids don't have to end up like their fathers, if they choose. I don't see Draco fighting along side of Harry, but I don't see Draco becoming a death eater either. I think that while Draco knows his father has a dark history and was involved in Dark Magic, he doesn't know to the full extent how bad his father really is. I think Draco is going to have his own struggle, and he's going to have the make the choice that Dumbledore put in front of everyone: What's right and what's easy. Someone made a great post regarding Draco and his personal struggle for acceptance from his father, and clearly points out that Draco is constantly being compared to those who did better, especially those who are "mudbloods". Draco has his own personal conflict to contend with, and this will effect his choices in the future. If Draco is redeemed by the end of the books, then he's going to have a massive struggle on his hands against his father. I think the closer he gets to the dealing with V, the more to light the true situation with his father will come. I don't want to see Draco die, and I think I think he's going to be similar to Snape. Dark, but on the good side. Draco's journey to this point is a struggle (this word keeps popping up) I do not want to miss. As for Crabbe and Goyle...they are such minor characters, I see them doing the same as their fathers, and eventually getting whacked, which is fine by me. >>>I also think that perhaps Voldemort might have a bit of a problem with some of the Deatheaters that watched the duel. After all, here is the Dark Lord who vows to kill Harry and then a 14 year old boy, with minimal experience in the ways of wizarding in actuality bests him. If I were there the thought might occur to me that maybe this Dark One wasn't as powerful as he thinks he is. It sure would lead to questions if what he was demanding from me was worth it if a child could best him.<<< He had this with the first round as well, and that's why he was so intent on killing Harry in the graveyard. His arrogance has really caused a problem. He's too sure of himself, and now he's been bested 3 times (4, if you include the young Riddle in CoS). A lot of the Death Eaters shrugged him off when they thought he'd left for good (IIRC he points this out that only Peter sought him out after his first attempt to kill Harry), so why would they be completely loyal to him now, after a young raw wizard was able to beat him with just sheer will power (that's what it came down to when the wands connected, and before the shadows came out, IMO). I'm in complete agreement with you that perhaps what is being asked of them may or may not be worth it. -Katze From pennylin at swbell.net Thu Jan 10 03:34:24 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny & Bryce) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 21:34:24 -0600 Subject: More on Ginny References: Message-ID: <3C3D0BC0.1030106@swbell.net> No: HPFGUIDX 33114 Hi -- pippin_999 wrote: > Home schooling doesn't have to mean total isolation with > parents who ward off visitors with a shotgun and spend their free > time ranting about the IRS. I don't know what it's like in Houston, > but the homeschoolers around here are conscientious about > giving their kids lots of opportunities to socialize: playdates, > Scouts, church, etc. Surely there are wizard equivalents. Yes, but as I mentioned, if there aren't enough wizarding families in the general vicinity to support a wizarding primary school, then it's doubtful there would be loads of opportunities for home-schooled wizard social outings, field trips, etc. BTW, I was in no way denigrating home-schooling; I was merely stating that if the Weasley children were home-schooled, it might well be that they were more isolated than they would have been if they'd attended an actual primary school (wizard or muggle). In any case, we have zero evidence that Ginny has any friends, before Hogwarts or while she's at Hogwarts. There's no mention of any friends whatsoever. The twins have Lee Jordan. Percy has girlfriend Penelope. Ron has Harry & Hermione. Ginny has ....???? [I do *assume* the poor girl must have some friends, but there's definitely no canon evidence of this]. This leads to... Cindy said: > Primarily, though, I have to decline membership in any Ginny fan club > because Ginny is very wooden and underdeveloped. Really, if I had to > describe her character in a few words, I couldn't do it. She shines > for a few sentences in GoF, but that's about it. Tragically, her big > turn in the spotlight was in CoS, and the scenes in Dumbledore's > office didn't do much for me, quite frankly. Maybe it was the > stammer, but her lines seemed a little forced. I too must decline membership in whatever Ginny fan club gets going (gasp! surprise all around, I know, I know). I completely agree with Cindy that Ginny is just very ...flat. There's no substance IMO. I too couldn't possibly come up with a phrase or two describing who Ginny is. I've no idea who she is other than Ron's younger sister. Exactly. They aren't particularly close from all appearances. And, as I've said before, for being only one year apart in age, they receive drastically different characterization. Thanks for the back-up on the "Ginny seems more like 6 than 10 in the Platform scene." Her development, book by book, is consistently that of a younger child than just one year younger than Ron. I assume there's a reason besides her surname that she was sorted into Gryffindor, but darn if I can see what it might be at this juncture. No, I don't think the events of CoS qualify. As her father told her in Dumbledore's office, she clearly should have told someone something, instead of continuing to write in a talking diary, esp. once she knew something was terribly wrong. Not bravery or independence in my book. But, then again, I'm not Ginny's biggest fan by any stretch. Not trusting adults enough to go to them for guidance works well enough for Harry, and we can excuse this in him because of his background. Ginny? Nah ... this doesn't work for her I'm afraid. Penny (who would also offer up Ginny in return for Sirius or Lupin or McGonagall or well....lots of other more beloved characters) From mdemeran at hotmail.com Thu Jan 10 03:08:38 2002 From: mdemeran at hotmail.com (demeranville) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 03:08:38 -0000 Subject: Hi and the question of colors Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33115 I am new so please be patient if I am bringing up something that was already said or decided. I have read the books several times and have noticed the very obvious use of colors throughout the books. Maybe it is because a professor of mine always emphasized color ("There is always inherent meaning in the use of color in literature"), I am not sure, but I think that there is a meaning to JKR's use of colors. For example, the use of red and yellow of all shades around Harry or things that are "safe" or "good". Examples would include obviously the Gryffindor house colors, the glint of gold off Fred or George's watch during a Quidditch match, the Gringotts' guard's uniforms, Fawkes, the Weasley's red hair, Ron's maroon sweaters and the red and then gold light coming from Harry's wand in GoF against LV. She also seems to use green for things that are "evil" (for lack of a better word). Examples would include obviously Slytherin House colors, the green of the AK curse, and so on. (I would have other examples but a friend is borrowing books 1 through 3, and so I am going on memory). JKR seems to be a very deliberate writer. The stories are well thought out and seem to follow a progression where information crucial for later is routinely foreshadowed, even across books. The Polyjuice potion seems to be one of these things. It is first introduced and used in CoS but becomes very important to GoF. I am not sure why the color thing bothers me so much but it seems very deliberate, bordering on contrived and I wonder if the use of color to identify that which is "good or bad" will be important later on. Does anyone see what I am talking about, or have too many classes with nutty English professors done me in? Meg From blenberry at altavista.com Thu Jan 10 01:32:23 2002 From: blenberry at altavista.com (blenberry) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 01:32:23 -0000 Subject: Brooming Around In-Reply-To: <20020109110121.92393.qmail@web21108.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33116 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Ronald Rae Yu wrote: > Why don't they use brooms to navigate the school? The > grounds, at least. And if flying in public is in > danger of being seen by Muggles, brooms should now > lose their transportation value (much like flying > cars, for instance). Also, floo is faster and in a > way, safer. > > A little off-topic. Do they use brooms to clean > places? Filch has a broom cupboard. > > Ron Yu I have a related question: why are carpets Muggle artifacts, but brooms are not? Of course it's a legislated classification, so it doesn't necessarily have to make sense. From tabouli at unite.com.au Thu Jan 10 03:54:16 2002 From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 14:54:16 +1100 Subject: Emotions, GIANTCUSHION, Ron and sister Message-ID: <004d01c1998a$8ddb9880$9c30c2cb@price> No: HPFGUIDX 33117 Stacy: > I would have to agree with Penny here, and not because I think that a fourteen year old is not *capable* of experiencing adult love (or at least intense feelings that, if the relationship continues long enough, may evolve into mature love), but because Ginny's behavior does not seem to indicate that she feels anything of the kind toward Harry.< I think emotions are often at their *most* intense at fourteen, when they are new and raw and before the person concerned has had enough life experience to develop emotional scar tissue, or coping strategies. OK, not often long-lasting, but often very, *very* intense. Jo: > I think that Tabouli needs to come up with an acronym for the Ginny defenders. Admittedly I subscribe a little to the "needs a more oomph and maturity to win Harry" arguments, but I agree that she's copping a lot more flack than she deserves. She's a kind, loyal, discreet kid, and hey, she's 13. 13 year old girls *do* have unrequited crushes and *are* young... we can't all be strong and assertive and mature like Hermione. I wouldn't write her off until she's had more time, experience and space away from Molly to show what she's made of. G.I.A.N.T.C.U.S.H.I.O.N. (Ginny Isn't A Naive, Trivial Child Unworthy of Securing Harry's Interest: Object Now!) I also think people are being a bit harsh about Pippin's comment that Harry and Ginny were destined to be together because she was the first eligible girl he saw. My impression was that Pippin wasn't really positing this as a bona fide theory with canon evidence, more as a popular light-hearted literary device which JKR might have used (not impossible: JKR has a whimsical sense of humour). Forcing Pippin into turning her light-hearted suggestion into a fortress of unassailable argument is a rather rough, IMO. Ebony: > And after canon, I see him pulling a Frodo and leaving the wizarding world--either voluntarily or through some sacrifice.< Yup, that makes two of us. Not that I think he'll specifically leave the wizarding world, but I certainly think a broken, tragic Harry paralleling Frodo at the end of LOTR is likely, if he survives (and I think he will). Cindy: > Primarily, though, I have to decline membership in any Ginny fan club because Ginny is very wooden and underdeveloped (...) Perhaps if (Ron) acted like he cared about his kid sister, then maybe I could, too.< Underdeveloped, reasonably, but I think 'wooden' takes it too far... low-key, perhaps. In the background, which is of course where the Trio puts her (e.g. Ron throwing her out unceremoniously when the Trio want to talk). I think Ron's attitude to Ginny is very believable... he, after all, sees her as his annoying kid sister who never shuts up, and the last thing he wants is her childish presence with his friends. This doesn't mean he doesn't care about her when the chips are down and the Chamber is about to swallow her... overwhelming sentimental concern on an everyday basis for his sister in front of Harry would probably come into the same category as crying (embarrassing emotional weakness). Tabouli. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jestahijinx at hotmail.com Thu Jan 10 04:21:08 2002 From: jestahijinx at hotmail.com (Jesta Hijinx) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 04:21:08 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ginny & the Platform Scene Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33118 Why Ginny was brought along to Platform 9 3/4: Okay, some more theories: this is going to be the first time all of Ginny's brothers have been away to school and away from home. Perhaps Molly brought her along with the promise of a special "just us girls" outing for a sundae or something afterwards. Also, doesn't anybody else remember being a kid and not wanting to be left out of things? And finally, pulling from my own childhood where I was much the youngest and a girl and my mother was terribly overprotective, and not usually in a nice way: probably Molly was bolstering herself against her own slight empty nest syndrome, with all her boys gone, and wanted Ginny with her so she wouldn't have to return home alone. Ginny doesn't have to be a destructive spoilt brat in order to fit in logically at the train station. One of the "old-fashioned values" I think Rowling has put out here as part of the wizarding community is close families, for the most part. Felinia _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com From jestahijinx at hotmail.com Thu Jan 10 04:26:16 2002 From: jestahijinx at hotmail.com (Jesta Hijinx) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 04:26:16 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ginny as Harry's "fate"; and other SHIP thoughts Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33119 I'm neither 'ship' nor beast nor fowl, but... There's another reason why Ginny might come to assume a romantic angle for Harry. She's a Weasley--part of a family that's becoming almost like his own. One tack on that would be to have them eventually evolve into a sibling-like relationship. Harry has no siblings of his own. Molly seems to have taken him under her wing; it would stand to reason the family will always be close, barring some major split with one going to the camp of Voldemort and the other group not--but I don't think that will happen. But, much like Lawrie in Little Women (of all things), I could see a more mature Harry, having gotten through his crush on Cho, maybe a coming to terms with Hermione that they would never do as a married couple, finally coming to feel that he should have always been a part of the Weasley family. They all love him, it's not like he'd have a problem with in-laws. Even today, in a world that cheers on self-absorption, a real marriage is about more than just the two people involved--there's family, there are friends, there's community. From that perspective, Ginny (who shows no signs of growing up to be unpleasant to look at, either) could come to appeal to Harry very much indeed. It may not sound sexy, but given the loss of his own parents, I'll bet a solid family is ultimately going to prove to be very important to him. Felinia _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. From jestahijinx at hotmail.com Thu Jan 10 04:31:26 2002 From: jestahijinx at hotmail.com (Jesta Hijinx) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 04:31:26 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] H/H/G Love Triangle, Vampires, Snape and Ron, Oh My! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33120 >As his actions have shown in the past, Ron doesn't take lightly to >other men touching Hermione, which could lead to a sticky situation if >a H/H relationship does happen. Much like the if Snape-liked-Lily >theory, Ron would probably grow bitter towards Harry as Snape was >bitter to James. Expanding on this further could be the fact that (I >feel) that Snape was always left out of lime-light, as Ron is-- while >James was Head-Boy, on the Quidditch team, etc., etc. which is >basically Harry's reality now. I fully expect that Ron's bitterness >(shown in GoF) towards Harry and his popularity is far from being over- >and with LV on the rise, I would not be surprised if Ron ends up >running to LV for a solution for his problem, just as Snape did. > On Hermione and her many men :-): I think Hermione will have an initial involvement with Viktor Krum. I think his straightforward admiration will prove very appealing to her, and her lack of interest in his international celebrity vice versa. I think it will make Ron jealous; I don't see it so much with Harry at this stage. I think Viktor will be all the more appealing to her precisely because he doesn't force her into the dilemma of altering her relationship with both her closest friends while they're all still living in the same school, in the same house. Felinia _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx From jmmears at prodigy.net Thu Jan 10 05:00:41 2002 From: jmmears at prodigy.net (serenadust) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 05:00:41 -0000 Subject: Ginny as a Character (WAS Ginny & the Platform Scene) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33121 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > I think Hermione has faced her fair share of personal danger. She > risked being bonked on the head in the PS/SS chess game, she drank > first in the potions challenge and so risked being poisoned, There was no serious risk to Hermione in either the chess scene or the potions scene, where she easily and quickly determined the correct potions for her and Harry to drink (with nary a doubt about being 100% correct as usual). was > at risk twice from the three-headed dog, she was in the Forbidden > Forest, and she helped Harry with the dragon. She got petrified in > CoS. She handled all of these challenges well with a minimal amount > of sobbing, and in PS/SS, Hermione was 10. Don't you mean 12 ? Sorry Cindy but I don't see comparing the bit in the Forbidden forest and with the dragon to having your self slowly and insidiously taken over by the most evil dark wizard in modern times. Hermione is never alone and unprotected in any of the above scenes with the exception of the petrification in CoS (when she couldn't sob because she never got the chance). At no point in any of the books is she left alone and defenseless facing someone trying to kill her. Hermione weeps at the drop of a hat (hurt feelings, Harry and Ron making up, Ron and Harry mad at her over the Crookshanks/Scabbers incident). I'm not trashing Hermione by any means, but if anybody is the big crier in these books, it's her. > And then we have Ginny. Ginny acts like 6-year-old child on the > platform (I'm with Penny on this point). Ginny has undoubtedly seen > her brothers off to Hogwarts many times, yet she goes to pieces on > the Platform. I attribute this to JKR needing to have Ginny do > something other than just stand there -- which is what a typical > bored 10-year-old girl would have done. Why on earth would Ginny be standing there being bored? She's being left behind by the last and closest of her brothers for the first time in her life. I also suspect she doesn't get out in the muggle world much, and that these trips to Kings Cross are a very big deal to her. > Primarily, though, I have to decline membership in any Ginny fan club > because Ginny is very wooden and underdeveloped. Really, if I had to > describe her character in a few words, I couldn't do it. She shines > for a few sentences in GoF, but that's about it. Tragically, her big > turn in the spotlight was in CoS, and the scenes in Dumbledore's > office didn't do much for me, quite frankly. Maybe it was the > stammer, but her lines seemed a little forced. > > Part of the trouble with Ginny is that she doesn't seem to have a > very close relationship with Ron. Oh, sure, he gives a "strangled > cheer" when he learns she is not dead, but that's about it. Sorry to disagree again. Recheck chapter 16 in Cos. RON is the one to suggest action first in what seems like a hopeless effort to save Ginny. He is the one who wants to get Lockhart's help, he goes with Harry down to the Chamber without a moment's hesitation, and if the tunnel hadn't collapsed, would have been in the Chamber with Harry rescuing Ginny. How can you say he doesn't feel close to her? I do agree that thus far, Ginny has been fairly undeveloped personality-wise. I believe that JKR has been purposely holding back on rounding out her character, in order to bring her to greater prominance in the last 3 books. It's her way of pacing the development of the characters, as well as Harry's maturing awareness of what's really going on around him. Jo Surprised to find herself the newest defender of the youngest Weasleys > From rafaellopezjr at yahoo.com Thu Jan 10 04:34:44 2002 From: rafaellopezjr at yahoo.com (rafaellopezjr) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 04:34:44 -0000 Subject: SHIP: Hermione-Krum In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33122 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "snacain" wrote: > I am new to this wonderful forum- so I will probably make dozens of enemies with my first few posts!! > > I am not convinced that at this stage(end of GoF) Hermione has > intense romantic feelings for either Harry or Ron. I think she > likes Krum. And (ducking instinctively) I think that's just fine. While > at the World Cup she says "He was rather brave, wasn't he?" about Krum. > Although he is famous and has groupies swarming him for autographs- > he hangs out in the library hoping for a chance to talk to nice, > bright Hermione. I like that about him. > > I suspect Hermione's crossness with Ron (following the dance) stems > from her recogniton that he never even thought of her as a "date > prospect". He doesn't think of her as a "girl". Ron is clearly > furious that she goes with Viktor -this may be a sign of romantic jealousy- > but it might also be that he is jealous of Hermione. She doesn't > even know what a "wonky font" is and yet she has caught the attention > of his hero. > > I will not deign to predict what will happen in future books--but > thus far I remain unconvinced of any brewing romance amongst our > beloved trio. > > Fire away!!! > Steph That's an interesting thought, Steph. I did notice in GoF that Hermione did show some interest in Krum. I don't know whether she was admiring his skill or his looks. I tend to lean right now toward Hermione and Ron possibly hooking up. This has been developing since I think CoS. The most telling signs were in GoF. The argument after the yule ball was a clue. I think even Harry knew what Hermione meant. Rafael From vencloviene at hotmail.com Thu Jan 10 06:28:39 2002 From: vencloviene at hotmail.com (anavenc) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 06:28:39 -0000 Subject: On Ron's relationship with Ginny Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33123 A couple previous posts speculated on Ron's apparent disinterest in Ginny, seemingly strange for a sibling, only one year older than she is. I would argue that Ron is not close with Ginny for this very reason: that she is just a year younger. One year-olds need as much maternal care as newborns. Meanwhile, it is natural for any mother to transfer most of her attention to the new baby. One year-older siblings get a very bad deal in any family, and Ron's situation is even worse because of the family circumstances: 1) he is just a sixth boy and Ginny is a long-expected girl; 2) Molly with seven children, among them Gred and Forge (every mother's nemesis) can't be anything else but overexhausted. Throughout Ron's childhood this situation IMO doesn't change. Molly has neither time, nor energy (dry sandwitches) nor money (horrible dress robes) for Ron, but I am sure Ginny--the baby of the family--gets enough loving care. I think Ron might be somewhat resentful towards Ginny. Ana. From oppen at cnsinternet.com Thu Jan 10 07:55:55 2002 From: oppen at cnsinternet.com (Eric Oppen) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 01:55:55 -0600 Subject: Shipping thoughts and Ginny Weasley Message-ID: <01ed01c199ac$3cb7fd00$f0c71bce@hppav> No: HPFGUIDX 33124 Firstly, I'm a ship-agnostic; I'm very much "along for the ride" and whatever Herself comes up with is just fine with me. I will be happy to keep on reading no matter who ends up with who...although if Ginny, Hermione and Cho Chang end up as Severus Snape's love-slaves, I will cough behind my hand. (Or say "What's HE got that I haven't got?" :} ) That being said, I can see a problem with Harry/Cho that AFAIR nobody's brought up much: age difference. Back when I was a teenager (when dinosaurs roamed the earth), a girl going out with a guy a year or so older was the norm, but the only girl who would let herself be seen with a younger guy was the sort who didn't mind being characterized by her friends as a total loser in the Game of Girlness. It's partly a status-thing, and partly because girls do mature more quickly than boys do. I imagine that Hermione took the whole Yule Ball more seriously than her two best friends...and at Harry's age, I'd have reacted to McGonagall's ukase about the Ball roughly as follows: "What am I planning to do, Professor McGonagall? Oh, Hermione's been after me to catch up on my reading, so I...Me? A _partner?_ Go to the _Ball?_ Oh, ha, ha, you are humorous! Wait a sec, you aren't laughing...you're _serious?_ And _where_ do you expect me to find such a thing? Oh. Ask one of my classmates? *a beat* Riiiight. Seriously, my chances of finding anybody who would scrape the bottom of the barrel hard enough to be willing to be seen with the likes of me at the Yule Ball, or any other such occasion, are about like those of a tissue-paper dog successfully chasing an asbestos cat through Hell." Detention, here I come! (And eat your heart out, Edmund Blackadder!) Still and all, though, if you can override the age problem, Harry and Cho do have an advantage that either Ron/Hermione or Harry/Hermione lack...the very fact that Cho is _not_ one of the Trio. In a lot of ways, the relationship between Hermione and her two best buds puts me in mind of Modesty Blaise and her right-hand man, Willie Garvin...they don't ever sleep together _because_ what they have is so close and so very special that sleeping together would change it for the worse and probably spoil it altogether. The Trio might feel, even if not consciously, that they're as close as siblings, and feel the same disinclination to get physical that opposite-sex siblings do. They're _already_ together almost all the time...if nothing else, for each of them to take up with someone outside of the Trio would blow some fresh air and some new viewpoints into their deliberations. Ginny Weasley's behavior toward Harry in the first two books is admittedly immature for a girl of about 10, but ISTR that age-regression is not unknown among children faced with stressful situations. Seeing the _last_ of her brothers off to boarding school, even though Ginny's happy for Ron, would also be a sad time for her, since she's probably never been without at least one brother around for her whole life. (Poor girl...to have GredandForge for big brothers! OY!) Under the circs, a little age-regressive behavior is not out of line. Later on, when she has _The FAMOUS *HARRY POTTER*_ living _in her home,_ she's probably shy partly because she _hasn't_ met too many people outside her family and partly because her mum's told her in very certain language that she's _not_ to pester or bother their very famous guest..."and I mean it, Virginia Weasley! I don't want to hear you asking him about You-Know-Who, or his scar, or those horrid Muggles he lives with! You let that boy be!" Harry, himself, has very little experience with younger children and doesn't know how to put her at her ease with him---I probably could, myself, but I'm old enough to easily have been at Hogwarts with James and the Marauders. (Double OY!) Later on, in GoF, she seems to be a lot more at ease with Harry, and he with her. Eric, either a very Ravenclawish Slytherin or a somewhat Slytherinish Ravenclaw, Hogwarts '79 From mmiddleton at nchecr.unsw.edu.au Thu Jan 10 05:44:57 2002 From: mmiddleton at nchecr.unsw.edu.au (jeddy83au) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 05:44:57 -0000 Subject: In defense of Ginny (including a little shipping) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33125 I guess you can put me down as a Ginny defender. Cindysphynx wrote: Part of the trouble with Ginny is that she doesn't seem to have a very close relationship with Ron. Oh, sure, he gives a "strangled cheer" when he learns she is not dead, but that's about it. Ron is rude to her on the train in PoA, and he does not take her into his confidence. Perhaps if he acted like he cared about his kid sister, then maybe I could, too. I think that she is a young 10 but I see no reason why she shouldn't be as the youngest of 7 children and the only girl I can imagine her being fussed over and coddled by her parents (imagine how pleased Molly Weasley must have been to get a girl after 7 boys) and her older brothers. This is probably why she and Ron don't have a particularly close relationship because with Ron's insecurity complex he probably doesn't want to compete with her as well as all those older brothers. Especially not for Harry's attention. I think that those people suggesting that she behaved more like a 6 year old in PS are being a tad harsh. The hand holding is probably more related to affection and Molly Weasley's perception of her, as the "baby" rather than a real fear that she will run off and get lost or hit by a train. Her clamouring to see Harry (a celebrity) is no more abnormal than all those teenagers who hang about outside hotels hoping to get a glimpse of their idol. As for her crying and running after the train well I can imagine that she would be a feeling a little left out and miserable at being the only one left at home. Especially given that her brothers have probably told her lots of exciting stories about Hogwarts. She also probably ran after the train waving her brothers goodbye every year not that I see this as behaviour reserved for 6 year olds or even children necessarily. I do think that she has matured a lot by GoF, for all the reasons that Kimberly mentioned, but I see no evidence (as much as I would wish it otherwise) that Harry pays her any special attention. I can imagine though that if the H/G ship did come about that Ron would be furious with her and upset with Harry because he would no longer have the closest relationship with Harry. Just my thoughts Jeddy From Zorb17 at aol.com Thu Jan 10 07:08:00 2002 From: Zorb17 at aol.com (Zorb17 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 02:08:00 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] On Ron's relationship with Ginny - Ginny as Harry's fate Message-ID: <31.20b6086e.296e97d0@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33126 This topic always gets me up in arms... Cindy said: > Primarily, though, I have to decline membership in any Ginny fan club > because Ginny is very wooden and underdeveloped. Really, if I had to > describe her character in a few words, I couldn't do it. She shines > for a few sentences in GoF, but that's about it. Tragically, her big > turn in the spotlight was in CoS, and the scenes in Dumbledore's > office didn't do much for me, quite frankly. Maybe it was the > stammer, but her lines seemed a little forced. I completely agree. Frankly, I find Ginny a weak and boring character. She doesn't seem to *do* anything besides hang around and play the victim's role. Other HP bit players, Dean and Seamus for example, have more personality than this girl, who played rather an important role in CoS. We *know* things about Dean and Seamus: Dean's a football fan and a talented artist, while Seamus is the half-and-half Irish boy who adores Quidditch. Ginny is...Ron's younger sister who has a crush on Harry. She has nothing personally distinguishing about her. It's all in relation to other people. Hm, maybe we need an acronym for those of us who *dislike* Ginny! Felina said: >There's another reason why Ginny might come to assume a romantic angle for >Harry. She's a Weasley--part of a family that's becoming almost like his >own. > >One tack on that would be to have them eventually evolve into a sibling-like >relationship. Harry has no siblings of his own. Molly seems to have taken >him under her wing; it would stand to reason the family will always be >close, barring some major split with one going to the camp of Voldemort and >the other group not--but I don't think that will happen. > >But, much like Lawrie in Little Women (of all things), I could see a more >mature Harry, having gotten through his crush on Cho, maybe a coming to >terms with Hermione that they would never do as a married couple, finally >coming to feel that he should have always been a part of the Weasley family. >They all love him, it's not like he'd have a problem with in-laws. I'm cringing. This H/G justifications really irks me. As Ebony said before, it's One Big Happy Weasley Family. My question to you is, why can't Harry be part of the Weasley family without marrying into it? As you said, they're already becoming his family, without any sign of reciprocated interest in Ginny on his part. IMHO, Harry is already a Weasley in all but name and hair color. I think JKR, having established with the Dursleys and Sirius that blood ties don't necessarily make a family, will continue this with Harry and the Weasleys. Ana said: >I would argue that Ron is not close with Ginny for this very reason: >that she is just a year younger. And I would agree. I come from a big family (though not Weasley-sized), and two of my sisters are only a year and a half apart in age, and a year apart in school. They are also the two sisters who fight the most, from when they were little to now, when they are in high school. That much closeness creates competition, especially with other siblings around. Zorb (another who would trade Ginny for plenty of other characters) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ffionmiles at hotmail.com Thu Jan 10 11:45:46 2002 From: ffionmiles at hotmail.com (ffimiles) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 11:45:46 -0000 Subject: H/H/G Love Triangle, Vampires, Snape and Ron, Oh My! In-Reply-To: <011101c1995d$0d4f65c0$6c628541@compaq> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33127 In response to Hikaru and bobby's discussion about the H/H/R triangle, and Ron betraying Harry because of bitterness of him and Hermione [akin to the Snape hates James theory], you forget one thing - Snape and james were never friends - never best friends, like brothers. I do agree that Ron may well get lured to the dark side, possibly inadvertantly [he may come udner the imperius curse and not yet have the strength of character to throw it off], ultimately, his and Harry's friendship will be reconciled, because I think JKR likes Ron too much as a character to completely turn the plot on its head and make him, the sidekick hero of esp. the first three books, the ultimate bad one - after all, she based him a lot on her very good friend, Sean Harries [to whom CofS is dedicated]. I know Peter Pettigrew was a close friend-turned-bad, but whilst i can se Ron doing something stupid because of his jealousy/inferiority complex, I really can't see JKR allowing us to finish the books without redeeming him. From catherine at cator-manor.demon.co.uk Thu Jan 10 12:19:58 2002 From: catherine at cator-manor.demon.co.uk (Catherine Coleman) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 12:19:58 +0000 Subject: More on Ginny - very long. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33128 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Penny & Bryce wrote: Penny wrote about Ginny... I completely agree with > Cindy that Ginny is just very ...flat. There's no substance IMO. I too > couldn't possibly come up with a phrase or two describing who Ginny is. > I've no idea who she is other than Ron's younger sister. > > > Exactly. They aren't particularly close from all appearances. And, as > I've said before, for being only one year apart in age, they receive > drastically different characterization. I assume there's a reason besides her > surname that she was sorted into Gryffindor, but darn if I can see what > it might be at this juncture. I remember, way back when, when I first joined this group, getting into a spirited debate about this very topic. Somebody (can't remember who) memorably said that Ginny was probably less use to the overall plot than Buckbeak, and she was variously described as immature, cowardly, whiny...I could go on. Needless to say, I came out strongly in defence of Ginny then, and continue to do so now. I don't find her a "flat" character at all. I take the point that she seems very juvenile in the first Platform and 3/4 scene, but not merely just a young child - I see her as quite chirpy, confident and happy - not the shy, clumsy, withdrawn person we see in CoS. I can forgive her wanting to go and see Harry - after all, it's just what everyone else wanted to do, but had the maturity not to admit to. I also can see things from her perspective. Until now, Ginny has always had another sibling at home with her. She probably realises that at this time, she has quite a lonely year ahead of her, with no older brother to keep her company (I'm not going into all the stuff about home schooling/wizarding primary schools, as it's more conjecture and I can't use it here), and it is pretty clear to me that she knows that she is going to miss her brothers. I also see the fact that she is desperately keen to get to Hogwarts as a sign that she wants to emerge from the shelter of Molly Weasley's apron strings. Moving on to her relationship with Ron, I don't see how anyone could think that they aren't close. Now, I'm using fairly thin examples here, but they do add up to a pretty clear picture of a reasonably good relationship between them. I think that Ron is used to seeing Ginny in very different terms from what we have been allowed to see. He is very surprised how shy and tongue-tired she has become when Harry first visits the Burrow. I can't think of a passage when he doesn't treat her with affection, apart from when he tells her, quite rudely, to go away - and this wasn't because he didn't want her around (she seems often to sit with them in the common room, on the train etc.) but because Harry wanted to speak to him and Hermione in private. He is absolutely devastated when she is taken into the Chamber (doesn't speak for hours as he is in shock) and is affectionate enough to want to hug her after her ordeal. I admit, she has a very small role in PoA, (all I can really remember is her being outraged at the twins' callousness over how Crookshanks ate Scabbers - and that was outrage over Ron's hurt as much anything, I believe) but in GoF, she and Ron do seem to have a good relationship again - look at the fact that it is she who is comforting him when he has made a fool of himself with Fleur. People often site the fact that they find it strange that Ginny doesn't hang around with the threesome more - that she isn't one of the gang. I don't find this strange at all. How many teenagers do want to hang around with their younger siblings when they have their best friends with them? Also, despite being a teenager, Ron isn't averse to giving her a friendly hug (example being in the photo taken in Egypt). On the whole, I see more evidence for the fact that they have a friendly relationship, rather than the opposite. On Ginny belonging in Gryffindor - I agree that there isn't much evidence of her bravery as yet. The only scene I can think of is when she stands up for Harry in Flourish and Blotts, when Draco starts goading him about Lockhart and the publicity. I thought that this was brave - not only because she was standing up to one of Harry's peers - probably appreciating the fact that he would be at Hogwarts, and not caring, and also, because it is the first time Harry actually hears her speak in front of him - her awe of him is temporarily forgotten or overcome because she needs to defend him. I always think Bravo! when I read that scene. However, although there aren't signs of specific bravery, I can easily defend Ginny's apparent cowardice. She is seen as being tearful and whiny in CoS. I think this is understandable. She has finally gone to Hogwarts, after looking forward to it for years and is having a pretty awful time. She thinks she is going mad, because of the periods of time she is losing when doing Tom Riddle's bidding, and is obviously suffering from paranoia because when Percy shows concern for her, she think that "he suspects me" - things are compounded when she realises that Harry has possession of the diary and that not only would he find out about her crush, and all her innermost thoughts generally, which in itself is pretty major (does anyone else remember what it is like to be pre-teen/teenager, and how important trivial things seem, compared to how they do now?), but she also thinks that Tom Riddle is going to reveal that it is she who has opened the Chamber. She is naturally absolutely terrified, she has been manipulated all year by one of the most evil Wizards ever, who has probably subtly encouraged her paranoia and insecurities, and then she is taken to the Chamber itself and nearly dies. On top of that, she thinks that she is going to be expelled, and that she is directly responsible for all those people being petrified. No wonder the poor girl is tearful! I'm surprised she didn't have a full nervous breakdown! Criticisms are made about Ginny "allowing" herself to be manipulated by Riddle, but there is a defence - firstly, she did try to break free from him when she threw the diary away, and secondly, Harry also trusted Riddle from his own experiences with the diary. No one seems to criticise Harry for behaving in the same way as Ginny in this respect. As an addendum to this, it has also been said in the past that another sign of weakness she shows is the effect the Dementors have on her on the train - she is white and shaking, IIRC. Again, not surprising - she went through a hell of a lot in the previous year - and we know from Lupin that having a bad reaction to the Dementors is not a sign of weakness, but a sign that Bad Things have happened to you previously. Finally, a few more words about GoF. I am still of the opinion that by this time, Ginny is a more mature person, and this is shown effectively during the Yule Ball saga. She knows who Hermione's date is and won't tell, she doesn't let Neville down in order to go with Harry, she comforts Ron, but isn't averse to giving him a telling off (like Hermione). I know that the only basis Hermione and Ginny have for a friendship is the fact that they have been thrown together (i.e. sharing rooms at the Burrow, etc.) but I think that there is friendship developing there - after all, Ginny seems more in Hermione's confidence than Parvati and Lavender, and at times, Harry and Ron. All in all, I think that JKR has revealed enough facets of Ginny's character to make me interested in her. There hasn't been a huge amount, I know, but I think that the potential is there for her to be developed in the way I think she is being drawn at the moment. So, I'll be rejoining Kimberly in the Ginny lovers corner. (Anyone thought of a suitable acronym yet...!) Catherine "It's a book for obsessives. It's a book for the kind of people who enjoy every little tiny detail about a world, because I have every little tiny detail about the world." JKR. From sirius_3lack at yahoo.co.uk Thu Jan 10 11:53:38 2002 From: sirius_3lack at yahoo.co.uk (sirius_3lack) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 11:53:38 -0000 Subject: Hi and the question of colors In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33129 I think that maybe you have a point about the significance of colour in the books - but I think it is more complicated than you describe. For example Slytherin = Green = Evil. Harry (and Lily) have trademark intense green eyes. Sweater knitted for Harry by Molly Weasley at Christmas is green isn't it? I think there may be importance in the colour emitted from wands during particular spells but cannot think of any specific examples - although I seem to remember Moody/Crouch's Imperius Curse emitted green in the DATDA lesson. Anybody got any more ideas? (or am I just babbling like a deranged Dobby?) Sirius From cindysphynx at home.com Thu Jan 10 14:17:15 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 14:17:15 -0000 Subject: The Female Students (WAS On Ron's relationship with Ginny - ) In-Reply-To: <31.20b6086e.296e97d0@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33130 Zorb wrote: >Hm, maybe > we need an acronym for those of us who *dislike* Ginny! > > Zorb (another who would trade Ginny for plenty of other characters) Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say I dislike Ginny, as there isn't anything there to like or dislike, really. And that's the problem for me. Ginny has been cheated. She has been robbed of a personality, of interests, of life experience. Does she play an instrument? Is she passionate about politics? Is she desperate to break out of her humble financial circumstances? Does she like animals? Does she like to cook? I have no idea. What bothers me most about Ginny's lack of development is that the other Weasleys are so thoroughly developed. In the case of Charlie and Bill, JKR develops them in just a few paragraphs here and there. By the end of GoF, we know Bill is a loyal rebel banker. Charlie is a rugged dragon-keeper who will help is kid brother out of a tough spot. But Ginny is . . . um . . . a girl with a crush on Harry. Give me something -- anything -- to go on here, and I'd be happy to join a Ginny group. In fact, there are a lot of female students who are cheated out of personalities in the HP books. Other than Hermione, the women students (from memory) are Cho, Fleur, Lavender, Ginny, Pavarti, Angelina, Katy and Alicia. Four play Quidditch, two like Professor Trelawney. Other than that, we know next to nothing about what these young women like to do. I know that JKR can't flesh out every minor character, but I'd like to see a few given more substantial treatment. Cindy From bonnie at niche-associates.com Thu Jan 10 14:44:31 2002 From: bonnie at niche-associates.com (dicentra_spectabilis_alba) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 14:44:31 -0000 Subject: "This is just too easy..." Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33131 After seeing the movie thrice (and reading the book the same number of times) it began to bother me that the spells protecting the sorcerer's stone were so easy to defeat. If you're really trying to keep the stone away from Voldemort, would you set up spells that first-year students can defeat? If this topic has been hashed out before, can someone either point me to the discussion (no idea what term to use for a search) or let me know what the consensus appears to be? Thanks. --Dicentra, who apologizes for using a line from the movie in the subject line From ftah3 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 10 14:58:54 2002 From: ftah3 at yahoo.com (ftah3) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 14:58:54 -0000 Subject: More on Ginny In-Reply-To: <3C3D0BC0.1030106@swbell.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33132 Penny wrote: >Her > development, book by book, is consistently that of a younger child than > just one year younger than Ron. Y'know, I just don't agree. My sister-in-law is 49, acts like a melodramatic, spastic 18 year old...but that doesn't make her a not- realistic human. Annoying, yes; improbable/unrealistic, no. I gather that everyone who has decried Ginny as being written as a 6 year old instead of her actual 10/11/12/etc. has only been around real kids of those ages when they've been acting mature. Well, if all we ever saw of Hermione in book one was an example of her hyper- bossy side and an example of her locking herself in the bathroom to cry because someone said something mean about her...we'd probably label her as immature for an 11-year-old, too. Rather, Hermione is more developed ~ we see more of her character, so that we see both the immature and the mature. On Ginny's behalf, we only get the immature bits. Still, on my part, Ginny strikes me as perfectly recognizable, given any combination of baby of the family/only girl/over-protective parents/smart older brothers. She's reactionary; prone to speak and act without thinking; dealing with both wanting to become her own person as well as the natural fear of 'leaving the nest' so to speak; and in general being a kid. She's no more bumbling than Neville; they both do stupid and embarassing things because they're immature and uncertain. The only difference is that Neville is actually given a chance to redeem himself on occasion, due to his greater part. She's no more emotional than Hermione, to whit: she has schoolgirl crushes, has been mortified by public embarassment, and will cry when something horrid (to her perspective) has happened. The main differences are that she's more expressive of her emotions, and that her first year at Hogwarts she was possessed by an evil spirit and made to kill things, sic large snakes on peers, and deface school property (all of which she recalled to some extent, either via a dream-like sensation or the pure fact of putting 2 and 2 together to get 4), until the point at which the spirit tried to kill her. Shame on her for acting like an abused, agonizingly stressed-out and frightened youngster during her one time in the spot-light. She's also no less unsure of herself than Ron, which is no surprise. They both act like they have really smart big brothers to live up to, except that Ginny also acts like she was the overprotected little sister who has not been put through the school of sibling hard knocks as a little brother would have. In the end, she's marginally important to the overall story with the one exception of her role in CoS, so personally I really don't feel a need to know her better than I already do. On the other hand, I *do* have a solid notion of her as a character, despite her small role, and I just want to throw in my pence as feeling she's normal and not particularly annoying, especially for her age relative to each book. Mahoney From Joanne0012 at aol.com Thu Jan 10 15:00:18 2002 From: Joanne0012 at aol.com (joanne0012) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 15:00:18 -0000 Subject: Music and hobbies (Was The Female Students (WAS On Ron's In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33133 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > Ginny has been cheated. She has been > robbed of a personality, of interests, of life experience. Does she > play an instrument? Is she passionate about politics? Is she > desperate to break out of her humble financial circumstances? Does > she like animals? Does she like to cook? Actually, we don't know much info like this for ANY of the kids. Has there been any mention of any Hogwarts student playing a musical instrument? I find this gap astonishing, especially considering that wizarding children don't have electronic distractions to fill their time. I can't recall any mention of music at Hogwarts except as entertainment for special parties and feasts (Sorting Hat, school song) or related to spells (merpeople, making Fluffy sleep) and Ginny's singing valentine. But on an ordinary daily basis, Hogwarts seems very strangely devoid of music. I would have expected students to play instruments and bring them. I can't recall -- was there music at the Quidditch World Cup (other than singing veelas)? For sports, we've seen very little besides quidditch, and no informal games of that. We've seen chess and a few parlor games (exploding snap) but even though I've read the books a few times, it's hard for me to imagine how the students fill their non-class hours, except for homework and eating (which JKR spends more than enough time on, IMHO). As for cooking, have we seen anyone cook, except moms (Molly and Petunia) and elves? Oh, and Hagrid. From Elizabeth.Dalton at EAST.SUN.COM Thu Jan 10 15:04:45 2002 From: Elizabeth.Dalton at EAST.SUN.COM (Elizabeth Dalton) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 10:04:45 -0500 (EST) Subject: The Female Students Message-ID: <200201101504.KAA10586@gaea.East.Sun.COM> No: HPFGUIDX 33134 Catching up after a couple of day's absence... Cindy wrote: > In fact, there are a lot of female students who are cheated out of > personalities in the HP books. Other than Hermione, the women > students (from memory) are Cho, Fleur, Lavender, Ginny, Pavarti, > Angelina, Katy and Alicia. Four play Quidditch, two like Professor > Trelawney. Other than that, we know next to nothing about what these > young women like to do. I know that JKR can't flesh out every minor > character, but I'd like to see a few given more substantial > treatment. > This is a general problem I have with the books, and given that the author is female, I have to say I'm pretty disappointed about it. Ok, sure, she originally saw Harry as male and it just didn't occur otherwise to her until she was underway writing, and his personality was fixed. But Hermione comes off (in the first book) as the annoying "token brainy female" stereotype. She gets better (lots better), but other female characters don't. McGonnagal is evidently Dumbledore's deputy Head and right hand (Snape gets the left, in my mind, so he can be "sinister"), but gets shortchanged in the personality department. She's generally strict, occasionally she's sentimental, and she gets really agitated about Quidditch. She's nowhere near as interesting as Snape, Dumbledore, or even Filch. Hooch has her little flying lesson and a few referree scenes. Sprout seems well-drawn, but perhaps because she's a Hufflepuff, she's never given any big dramatic scenes. Mme. Pomfrey gets some good tart lines, but is still cardboard. Meanwhile, we have Lockhart, Lupin, Sirius, and Moody/Crouch racking up the interesting characterizations on the male side. Then we have Lavender and Parvati, who are almost caricatures, fawning over Trelawney (who *is* a caricature) and giggling. Ginny *does* come across as six years old in the first book, and while she's ok in the next few, not until we get to GoF does she really seem to have any depth, and then only in one scene. Cho seems interesting from a distance, but we know next to nothing about her. Angelina, Katy, and Alicia, as Cindy points out, play Quidditch, and one dates either Gred or Forge, either of whom is easily more interesting per the book. Even Bill, Charlie, Victor, and Cedric are drawn in with more detail than most of the female characters. Even historically, we've heard far more about James than about Lily. I know Harry is a boy, and his close friends, therefore, tend to be boys. It makes sense that he knows more about Neville and Dean than Lavender and Parvati-- he shares a room with the other boys of his year. But why are all the female teachers so shortchanged? Is it in part that Harry, as a boy, doesn't pay as much attention to his female teachers, so we are seeing them through his filter? Or is my overall impression wrong? Maybe I should make a complete character list and evaluate depth on each side... would that qualify me for a L.O.O.N. nomination? ;) Elizabeth (still enjoying the books, but puzzled by how Rowling has shortchanged her female characters so badly) From ck32976 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 10 15:22:50 2002 From: ck32976 at yahoo.com (ck32976) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 15:22:50 -0000 Subject: Hi and the question of colors In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33135 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "demeranville" wrote: > She also seems to use green for things that are "evil" (for lack of >a better word). Examples would include obviously Slytherin House >colors, the green of the AK curse, and so on. (I would have other >examples but a friend is borrowing books 1 through 3, and so I am >going on memory). I would have to say that I agree almost entirely. The only thing that doesn't seem to go with this theory is Harry's eyes, which are green. Although it is possible that there is some significance to his eyes being the same color as things that are evil. Any thoughts? Carrie From boyblue_mn at yahoo.com Thu Jan 10 16:18:36 2002 From: boyblue_mn at yahoo.com (boyblue_mn) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 16:18:36 -0000 Subject: Yet Another Time Turner Q In-Reply-To: <00a701c19801$c274ac60$7f28fea9@yoonabomber> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33136 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Brian Yoon" wrote: > Continuing the discussion of Time Turners in another level... > > One of the consequences Hermione mentions to Harry is that > you can startle yourself if you are seen by yourself. (Boy, > that was a mouthful.) > > But when Harry sees himself, he is not startled; he is just > reminded of his father, James. . . . EDITED . . . > > So if you know what to look for, why would you be scared by > the Time-Turnered second person? If Hermione saw herself > sitting at a desk, for instance, ... . . . EDITED . . . > > So there can't be too harsh consequences for being seen while > TTed (Harry doesn't seem to come out of it any worse), why do > people who use it worry about it? > > Seiryuu > aka Brian Yoon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The first rule of sci-fi time travel is that you avoid meeting your past or future self. As the book/Hermione pointed out, some people have become so frightened or confused that they actually killed their other self. The temporal repecussion of killing your past self would certainly be extreme. It would be a unresolvable break in the continuity of the time line. The sci-fi theory of the consequences of such an event range from locally disastrous to universally cataclysmic. In Hemione's case, she is repeatedly traveling back an hour in time and has been doing it over the course of many days. So all of her selves know what is going on. But picture your own doorbell ringing, and answering the door and seeing an absolutely perfect likeness of yourself. That would be enough to freak anybody out. Now add magic and dark magic to the mix, add the fact that the darkest force of evil is constantly trying to kill you, and someone like Harry would certainly see it as some sort of dark magic if he saw himself. When Harry saw himself across the lake, he saw a person who looked like him, and his mind resolved what he saw in a logical way. The only person that Harry is aware of that looks like him is his father. So that was the only logical conclusion he could reach. Just some thought on the subject boyblue From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Thu Jan 10 16:27:23 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 16:27:23 -0000 Subject: Impressions Changed by Fandom (SHIP) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33137 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "selah_1977" wrote: > What I am wondering now is whether or not readers' pre- and post- > fandom experiences have influenced their shipper preferences, if they > have them. This is a good question, and not just in regard to shipping matters. After I read GOF, I was H/R and G/H instinctively, b/c they seemed most obvious. But while I've kept to H/R, in entering fandom, I discovered that Ginny isn't widely liked. So, just to be contrary to everyone, I, who had never much appreciated Ginny, went back to the books, and decided I liked her. And then, I realized that she was perfect for Neville. :-) Other things Fandom Experience have changed. 1. Gone from disliking to liking Parvati Patil. 2. Decided that Moody is actually a realistic Crouch Jr. But on the other hand, I got the whole L.O.L.L.I.P.O.P.S. thing by intuition, as soon as I had finished PS/SS. "Oh, I think he must have been in love with Lily." No idea where it came from, but it was one of the main reasons I picked up CoS (I wasn't as taken with PS/SS as the others), just to find out if my hunch was correct. Three books later, and still no idea, but I'm a firm member of that illustrious club just because 1) I firmly believe in following one's intuition, even if I'm not sure intuition exists and 2) I think it's incredible so many other people came up with the idea very seriously (unlike flip jokes about Snape/Trelawney pairings) when there's not anything explicit in the text to support it. Eileen From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Thu Jan 10 16:48:07 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 16:48:07 -0000 Subject: Weasleys as Home-Schoolers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33138 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" wrote: > Home schooling doesn't have to mean total isolation with > parents who ward off visitors with a shotgun and spend their free > time ranting about the IRS. I don't know what it's like in Houston, > but the homeschoolers around here are conscientious about > giving their kids lots of opportunities to socialize: playdates, > Scouts, church, etc. Surely there are wizard equivalents. :-) As the oldest of eight children (1 girl, 7 boys), I've always felt very close to the Weasley family. And, it just happens that there was a period of time when 5 of us were being home-schooled, for purely academic reasons. (People look funnily at me when I say this. "You mean you weren't home-schooled because you were a social problem, or you believed the public schools aren't teaching enough family values, or you oppose evolution, or you're scared of school shootings, or you believe the public school is too regimented in its learning approach?" "Err.. No. I homeschooled because I wanted to study Classical, Medieval, English, and American literature, World History, and do a little Latin, and that wasn't available where I live." Not that the above reasons are problems.) Anyway, you're right. Homeschooling parents can actually be more obsessive about getting their kids involved than parents with kids in the public school. I don't think this is necessarily a good thing, even. I'm thankful my parents didn't try to fill my time with piano lessons, soccer, gymnastics, swimming lessons, basket weaving 24/7. Now, in the wizarding world, where a large portion of the population will be in the same situation as the Weasleys, this phenomenom is probably even more acute. Everyone is trying to make sure their children are socially adjusted! Eileen From lucy at luphen.co.uk Thu Jan 10 16:46:16 2002 From: lucy at luphen.co.uk (Lucy Austin) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 16:46:16 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Emotions, GIANTCUSHION, Ron and sister References: <004d01c1998a$8ddb9880$9c30c2cb@price> Message-ID: <025901c199f6$526156c0$11ae1e3e@stephen> No: HPFGUIDX 33139 >tabouli did her usual excllent job: >G.I.A.N.T.C.U.S.H.I.O.N. (Ginny Isn't A Naive, Trivial Child Unworthy of Securing Harry's Interest: Object Now!) Yes, I'll join up as a member of that one. :-) But I'm still very nervous that she's going to be killed off - someone reassure me please?? I've heard there will be a death involving a fan of Harry, and one that will crucify JKR to write, and that Ginny will get more of a mention in OoP. I keep thinking Harry will notice her, but then she'll die, forcing him to re-examine death etc in the light of the death of his girlfriend. Help!! Lucy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Thu Jan 10 17:07:31 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 17:07:31 -0000 Subject: Emotions, GIANTCUSHION, Ron and sister In-Reply-To: <025901c199f6$526156c0$11ae1e3e@stephen> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33140 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Lucy Austin" wrote: > >tabouli did her usual excllent job: > > >G.I.A.N.T.C.U.S.H.I.O.N. (Ginny Isn't A Naive, Trivial Child Unworthy of Securing Harry's Interest: Object Now!) > Well, I like it, but we don't have to believe that Ginny will secure Harry's interest, or even ultimately want it, to join, do we? Eileen From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jan 10 18:18:47 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 18:18:47 -0000 Subject: Emotions, GIANTCUSHION, Ron and sister In-Reply-To: <025901c199f6$526156c0$11ae1e3e@stephen> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33141 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Lucy Austin" wrote: > >tabouli did her usual excllent job: > > >G.I.A.N.T.C.U.S.H.I.O.N. (Ginny Isn't A Naive, Trivial Child Unworthy of Securing Harry's Interest: Object Now!) Yes! Sign me up too. And thanks for defending me, Tabouli. I don't seriously think that Ginny's appearance on the platform *proves* anything. I do believe JKR writes with an awareness of literary conventions, but whether she means to observe the convention or flout it is anyone's guess. > > But I'm still very nervous that she's going to be killed off - someone reassure me please?? I've heard there will be a death involving a fan of Harry, and one that will crucify JKR to write, and that Ginny will get more of a mention in OoP. I keep thinking Harry will notice her, but then she'll die, forcing him to re-examine death etc in the light of the death of his girlfriend. Help!!<< As was pointed out in the Trelawney thread, the great Shipper question, "Does s/he really like ...?" is one that most of us struggle with in RL at some point. Keeping the characters guessing about that is sure to engage our sympathies, so I expect there will be a lot more mixed signals from JKR between now and the end of book 7. Ginny is obviously a good source of those, which makes another extratextual argument for keeping Ginny alive. Are we sure that the death of Harry's fan and the death that will half-kill JKR are the same one? Pippin From farris5 at swbell.net Thu Jan 10 18:36:28 2002 From: farris5 at swbell.net (Russ & Wanda) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 12:36:28 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Impressions Changed by Fandom (SHIP) References: Message-ID: <003901c19a05$b74d6060$a4777b40@hppav> No: HPFGUIDX 33142 > What I am wondering now is whether or not readers' pre- and post- > fandom experiences have influenced their shipper preferences, if they > have them. Yes, for me they have. I always hated Draco, wanted Ron and Hermione to hook up, and waited patiently for Harry to finally notice Ginny. Now that I have found the wonderful, and sometimes twisted, world of fanfics, I have changed a few things. I am a Draco shipper. >:o) I lean towards D/G, but like to read about D/H and would just love it if somebody wanted to write about D/Wanda. I guess R/H are still okay with me, but I doubt it would last long. I don't see Harry with anybody that we've already been introduced to. Have a great day, Wanda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mdemeran at hotmail.com Thu Jan 10 17:38:21 2002 From: mdemeran at hotmail.com (demeranville) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 17:38:21 -0000 Subject: Hi and the question of colors, Ginny, and girl behavior In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33143 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ck32976" wrote: > I would have to say that I agree almost entirely. The only thing > that doesn't seem to go with this theory is Harry's eyes, which are > green. Although it is possible that there is some significance to > his eyes being the same color as things that are evil. Any thoughts? > > Carrie I know, and I realize that there are places where red is "evil" LV's eyes being one of these instances. But in thinking about it further, there may be a dualistic meaning to the colors. Red can stand for danger but also means "brave and strong, generous and just" in medieval symbolism. Green as well could have the same sort of dualism. As I said earlier, it could be evil, but medieval symbolism creates a meaning of "hope, joy and love". It seems to me that it is when the colors are paired with another color, red and gold, green and grey, that the meanings I was talking about show up. When red or green is taken away from its sister color, the opposite is true. Just a further thought. As far as Ginny goes, I can understand and sympathize with her position. As the only girl (2 brothers) I am frequently put into a babied position, even as the oldest child. Although I have a degree from a very good college, a full time job and will be attending medical school in the fall, my curfew (living at home to save money) is earlier than my youngest brother, who is still in high school. My parents don't allow me the same freedoms that both of my brothers have. I think that is just how parents can be when you have only one daughter. Ginny may be stuck in a position where everyone wants to protect her, no matter what she may want to do. As far as Hermione crying, does anyone else think that maybe she is a typical early teenage girl who is probably going through puberty? Her crying easily may just be her hormones kicking in and causing her to behave in a manner uncharacteristic for her tough exterior. Little slights can hurt a girl's feelings deeply at that stage in their development. Just some thoughts. Meg From sweetusagi76 at yahoo.ca Thu Jan 10 17:18:45 2002 From: sweetusagi76 at yahoo.ca (sweetusagi76) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 17:18:45 -0000 Subject: "This is just too easy..." In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33144 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "dicentra_spectabilis_alba" wrote: >...it began to bother me that the spells protecting the sorcerer's > stone were so easy to defeat. If you're really trying to keep the > stone away from Voldemort, would you set up spells that first-year > students can defeat? Well, there are many takes on this, I'm sure. 1)One way to look at it is that each one of the spells/riddles were playing on a very specific strength. If we assume that the professors assumed that only 1 person would attempt to pass through the spells and riddles (if they got past Fluffy without getting eaten!!), it is highly unlikely that one individual would possess all the strengths necessary to complete all the tasks involved. It just so happened that our 3 favorite 1st years all have various strengths (Hermione, logic; Ron, chess knowledge and strategy as well as courage; and Harry, flying/Quiddich). 2)And even if someone could get past all the riddles/spells (which they did, obviously), they would have to figure out how to use the Mirror of Eirsad(sp?). And as Dumbledore said (paraphrasing here) "Only a person who sought the stone but had no intentions of using it would bee able to find it in the mirror" And I'm sure Dumbledore assumed (correctly, I may add) that if anyone sought the stone, they would seek it out to use it, either for wealth or eternal life. That's why Harry could find it, he didn't think about using the Stone, only of keeping it from LV. 3)We could also take the mundane logic point of view and say that it's that way so our heros could, well, BE the heroes! :) But on a side note, I completely understand your concern about this. I never really thought about it until you brought it up! And sorry for the length of the post! Angela AKA SweetUsagi From Edblanning at aol.com Thu Jan 10 18:48:52 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 13:48:52 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] "This is just too easy..." Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33145 Dicentra asks: After seeing the movie thrice (and reading the book the same number of times) it began to bother me that the spells protecting the sorcerer's stone were so easy to defeat. If you're really trying to keep the stone away from Voldemort, would you set up spells that first-year students can defeat? I expect it has been done to death, but before my time I had the same thought, but of course, we have the benefit of hindsight. 1) The key to pacifying Fluffy clearly is not common knowledge ( I have to say that this lack of Classical knowledge is one of several failings in the curriculum that bothers me. There's enough Latin in the spells, many of the creatures occur in classical myth etc, and the style of education is old- fashioned enough to make me think that a knowledge of Latin and classical myth/ literature would be essential) 2) The Devil's Snare only, as the trio found out, required attention in Herbology. However, it also required a certain presence of mind. Not the best protection, though. I wonder what else Prof Sprout could have used? Good thing for our heroes that she didn't have any mandrakes available that year! 3) The key required Harry's seeker skills . Not common. 4) Likewise, the chess game required a special skill, not magical, but logical. Hermione points out re the potions challenge that this is not always a wizarding strong point. 5) 'not many first years could have taken on a full-grown mountain troll' Well , the troll was in place before the Halloween incident and was bigger, in any case.......and , of course, they didn't take it on, Quirrell did. 6) The potions challenge: see 4 7) The charm on the Mirror of Erised ensured that no-one, adult or child who wanted the stone for their own benefit could retrieve it. ( I don't understand the mirror bit, I confess. I mean where *was* the stone? Two more points. First, I'm sure no-one expected children to try to reach the stone. The challenges were aimed at *adults*. Children can sometimes be better at solving problems than adults, having a different perspective and able to use logic free from adult preconceptions. Secondly, they were a trio. No single one of the three could have solved all the challenges. It was only their particular combination of talents that allowed Harry to reach the stone. Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Thu Jan 10 18:57:28 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 18:57:28 -0000 Subject: Ginny & the Platform Scene (with lit theory and SHIP) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33146 Ebony wrote: > I read your post with interest, Dave. However, I'm not sure that > this can be applied to only the Ginny and the Platform scene > thread. If we apply structural criticism to the Harry Potter canon, > I'd like to see it applied across the board. Yes, I agree. My post was almost a plea to apply *one* approach consistently when discussing any given question. I don't actually plead for that as it would make for mostly a very boring list. So all I'm doing is pointing out that if you mix approaches to try to actually *prove* something (as opposed to just stating your beliefs) you really have to know what you are doing or you will come unstuck. In fact I don't even really want to hold to that point - I just sensed the chalk-and-cheese nature of the original exchange and thought it was interesting. > > A year ago I took a stab at psychoanalytic criticism of the potential > romance subplot of HP. The largest issue I ran into was the fact > that canon isn't closed... it would be like trying to apply Lacan's > theories to only the first half of *Frankenstein*, you know. So I > have the draft of the paper still on my hard drive, waiting for > whenever canon closes. > > While I applaud the thought that went into the analysis and see where > you're coming from, I don't think we can say that Pip is applying a > specific critical theory until we can look "back" from a vantage > point in canon where H/G occurs in some form. I feel I should give some personal information at this point. I have Grade 4 'O' Level (Grade 1 is best, Grade 6 is just pass) Eng Lit. I took this exam at 15 years of age (just as you believe Hermione will!) and effectively ceased all formal study of English then. So I can't really comment on specific critical theories. I liked the Lacan (who he?) post though. I take it structural criticism is what you get when you put the words 'structural' and 'criticism' together, and as such it is a special case of what I called a literary argument. Just for the record: I share with Pippin the sneaky feeling that JKR is intending to go H/G; I think the girl portrayed on platform 9 3/4 acts in a way that is immature for a ten year old but that doesn't spoil the story for me, even if it does go H/G; in the English middle class culture to which Molly belongs it would in my view be unacceptable to leave a 9 or 10 year old alone at home for a large part of the day. David who has not joined any ACRONYM yet From moongirlk at yahoo.com Thu Jan 10 20:05:38 2002 From: moongirlk at yahoo.com (moongirlk) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 20:05:38 -0000 Subject: Sacrifice and HP (non-SHIP, was Re: H/H/R Triangle) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33147 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "selah_1977" wrote: > the more and more fantasy literature that I read, I am > beginning to recognize a pattern: one of the subgeneric conventions > is that of sacrifice. snipped-up portion of Very Interesting Theory: > "Indeed, violence is one means of creating a "self", Violent destruction, however, usually prompts > someone to strike back in revenge. Violence is thus reciprocal, > endlessly so. Only sacrifice--a form of violence--interrupts violence." > I'm not very familiar with fantasy literature, but I found this theory and it's implications fascinating. The theme of sacrifice in HP keeps coming back to me, and making me a little queasy when thinking about the future. For what I came up with, I considered some categories: 1) sacrifice that ends in the death, inprisonment, incapacitation, madness or other form of destruction of the individual, and (2) the sacrificee actually escapes more or less unscathed And, was the sacrifice the intention of: (a)the sacrificee? (b)the sacrificer (-or?)?, or (c)not the intention of anyone, but incidental or circumstantial? HP seems to be replete with instances of what can be considered sacrifices thus far, both Big Picture ones and minor ones not directly related to the greater struggle. I started making a list at one point. Here are the ones I thought of, in somewhat chronological order: Snape: "Sacrificed" by Sirius when he sent him to the shack as a teen, probably very much for the reasons given in the Very Interesting Theory. (2b), although Snape was complicit, as he chose to go through the tunnel. Lupin: In same incident as above. (2c), incidental to the 'sacrifice' of Snape, although an argument could be made for a (d) in which it was Snape's intent that Lupin be destroyed, making it a sacrifice triangle of sorts, but since this incident has very little bearing on any of the rest of the story, I'll move on... James: I think I would categorize this as (1b) It seems that V wanted James dead, and he killed him. James was actively fighting it, and thus his intent was not to allow himself to be killed. I do think he might have fled if his family wasn't also in danger, so I'll toss in a touch of (a) Lily: This one, I think qualifies as a (1a), since we know that V told her to step aside, and said that she need not die. She made the choice to die, knowing full well that V would still try to harm Harry afterward. (I'm not sure if she knew that he would not be successful when he did, but I do believe that result did come directly *from* her choosing to make that sacrifice.) Harry: By V. in Godric's Hollow. Definitely a (2b), although inasmuch as Harry had to go live with the Dursleys, there's a bit of (1) in there too. Sirius: Sacrificed by Pettigrew to escape punishment, (1b) Neville's parents: This would also be a (1b), since they didn't have the information they were being tortured for, and we don't know, if they had had the information, if they would have given it up. Hermione: "sacrificed" incidentally (2c) by Quirrel, who let the Troll in to get to the stone. Neville: Temporarily sacrificed - petrificus totalus - so that H, H & R could get to the stone. While Hermione performed the spell intentionally, I'd say this is a (1/2c) I say (1/2) because the destruction was achieved, but only temporarily, by design, and (c) because she would never have done it under other circumstances, and did not *want* Neville destroyed in any way. Ron: Sacrifices himself in the chess scene. (2a) Ginny: By Riddle to open the chamber, petrify students, and get to Harry. (2b) Ron again: Shreiking Shack, telling them if they wanted to kill Harry they'd have to kill him too. (2b) again. Lupin again: By Snape who told that he was a werewolf, (1b), although he chose to give up the job, so there's an element of (a) there too. Moody: By Crouch Jr. (1b) Cedric: (1b/c) V did it intentionally, but just because Cedric was in the way. Harry again: In the graveyard (2b), although emotionally it's a (1). Crouch Jr.: By Fudge/dementor (1b) Ok, I was going to discuss how these things fit into Ebony's theory and what it all might mean for the future of the series, but I'm exhausted. Anybody care to comment? I'll try to come back to this later, if not. One thing I've just realized is that probably some of the above count more as the revenge scenarios in the theory than as the sacrifices, and some probably overlap both, so if you'd like to fine-tune the list as well, feel free. kimberly wiped out, but feeling the odd satisfaction one sometimes feels after creating a useless list. From blenberry at altavista.com Thu Jan 10 17:14:39 2002 From: blenberry at altavista.com (blenberry) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 17:14:39 -0000 Subject: "This is just too easy..." In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33148 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "dicentra_spectabilis_alba" wrote: > After seeing the movie thrice (and reading the book the same number of > times) it began to bother me that the spells protecting the sorcerer's > stone were so easy to defeat. If you're really trying to keep the > stone away from Voldemort, would you set up spells that first-year > students can defeat? I like this theory, from a past post: --- In HPforGrownups at y..., vencloviene at h... wrote: > McGonagall told him in no uncertain terms that the Stone is IMPOSSIBLE > to steal. Apparently she knew what she was talking about. Harry > just chose not to believe her... and got a chance to meet Voldie in > person as his just desserts. However, IMHO, Dumbledore didn't object > to Harry having some field practice in dealing with Lord V. and > therefore Harry was allowed and even encouraged (say, given the > Invisibility Cloak) to mess around the Stone as much as he wanted or > could take. > > The Mirror alone was completely enough to protect the Stone from > anybody including V. himself, meanwhile, the other teachers' charms > and Fluffy were IMO meant to slow down thieves and make them likelier > to be caught... or just to provide some training in practical magic > for Harry and friends. > > Ana. From christi0469 at hotmail.com Thu Jan 10 18:59:17 2002 From: christi0469 at hotmail.com (christi0469) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 18:59:17 -0000 Subject: The Female Students (WAS On Ron's relationship with Ginny - ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33149 > Cindy wrote- >> > And that's the problem for me. Ginny has been cheated. She has been > robbed of a personality, of interests, of life experience. Does she > play an instrument? Is she passionate about politics? Is she > desperate to break out of her humble financial circumstances? Does > she like animals? Does she like to cook? I have no idea. > > What bothers me most about Ginny's lack of development is that the > other Weasleys are so thoroughly developed. In the case of Charlie > and Bill, JKR develops them in just a few paragraphs here and there. > By the end of GoF, we know Bill is a loyal rebel banker. Charlie is > a rugged dragon-keeper who will help is kid brother out of a tough > spot. But Ginny is . . . um . . . a girl with a crush on Harry. > Give me something -- anything -- to go on here, and I'd be happy to > join a Ginny group. > > In fact, there are a lot of female students who are cheated out of > personalities in the HP books. Other than Hermione, the women > students (from memory) are Cho, Fleur, Lavender, Ginny, Pavarti, > Angelina, Katy and Alicia. Four play Quidditch, two like Professor > Trelawney. Other than that, we know next to nothing about what these > young women like to do. I know that JKR can't flesh out every minor > character, but I'd like to see a few given more substantial > treatment. > I think that female characters(other than Hermione)will start to get a much more substatial treatment as soon as Harry starts to notice them more (and gets the guts up to get to know them better). Since we are limited to Harry's POV we only know people who either interest him or impact him in some other way. If JRK started giving us tidbits about every minor female character we would be tempted to read something more into it. When Harry's hormones kick in and he starts to take a real interest in girls he will try to get to know them better. I think we would know Cho better if Harry had developed a real interest in her, as opposed to a content-to-dream-about-her- from-afar crush. We know so much more about Rons's brothers because they are gregarious (Fred and George), in charge and somewhat imperious (Percy), or cool (Bill and Charlie). We know about Dean Thomas, Neville Longbottom, and Seamus Finnigan because they share a dormitory room with Harry. I could go on in a similar fashion about why we know Harry's teachers, classmates, and enemies. If Harry starts to notice Ginny, then we will know her better as well. I think we would know what instruments people play if Harry was particularly interested in music. Christi From ChibiAiChan at cs.com Thu Jan 10 19:54:24 2002 From: ChibiAiChan at cs.com (ChibiAiChan at cs.com) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 14:54:24 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Emotions, GIANTCUSHION, Ron and sister & Percy! Message-ID: <152.7101400.296f4b70@cs.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33150 In a message dated 1/9/02 7:49:12 PM Pacific Standard Time, tabouli at unite.com.au writes: << Underdeveloped, reasonably, but I think 'wooden' takes it too far... low-key, perhaps. In the background, which is of course where the Trio puts her (e.g. Ron throwing her out unceremoniously when the Trio want to talk). I think Ron's attitude to Ginny is very believable... he, after all, sees her as his annoying kid sister who never shuts up, and the last thing he wants is her childish presence with his friends. This doesn't mean he doesn't care about her when the chips are down and the Chamber is about to swallow her... overwhelming sentimental concern on an everyday basis for his sister in front of Harry would probably come into the same category as crying (embarrassing emotional weakness). >> Well, lets remember in GoF when Harry saves Ron from the swamp (2nd task). Percy comes running over and hugging him and stuff (sorry for terrible description, work soon O.x). Sibling (well, in my case, and what i've seen with my friends) aren't emotional with eachother on a regular basis. But we know they care about eachother ^^ They just don't show it to eachother all the time~ <3 Ai-Chan Sorry for my two kuts worth ^^ *refuses to choose couples yet!!!!! LOL* From christi0469 at hotmail.com Thu Jan 10 20:58:07 2002 From: christi0469 at hotmail.com (christi0469) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 20:58:07 -0000 Subject: Weasleys as Home-Schoolers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33151 Eileen wrote Homeschooling parents can actually be more > obsessive about getting their kids involved than parents with kids in > the public school. I don't think this is necessarily a good thing, > even. I'm thankful my parents didn't try to fill my time with piano > lessons, soccer, gymnastics, swimming lessons, basket weaving 24/7. > > Now, in the wizarding world, where a large portion of the population > will be in the same situation as the Weasleys, this phenomenom is > probably even more acute. Everyone is trying to make sure their > children are socially adjusted! > > We can probably assume that Molly made sure that Ginny(and her brothers) had plenty of opprotunities tho interact with other wizarding children; however, this would not dictate that she would be used to large crowds of people. Since the Weasleys in general seem to be ignorant of Muggle ways, we can assume that their home schooling outings would not have been to the zoo, movie theater, circus, concerts, etc. where large numbers of people congregate. They would have more likely been gatherings of a few families. Even if the kids did go to some sort of wizard grade school it would probably be smaller than the overcrowded schools we have here in America. And if King's Cross Station is anything like an airport it would be likely to be extremely crowded, loud, and busy. Someone from a rural environment, no matter how many friends they have, would be likely to find King's Cross Station overwhelming. And Ginny would probably be very sad to see her brothers leaving for 10 months since the Weasleys do seem to have a very close knit family. She would probably also be upset about being at home with her parents alone, because Molly and Arthur would be even more protective of her as she's the baby of the family. And Ginny will be going to Hogwarts in just one year, which would amplify the babying. I think it Ginny's behavior at the platform very plausible, even though it did make her seem younger than her age. As to why Ginny was introduced at that particular time, it makes sense that she would be there. Why would Molly find someone to watch her? Her brothers are going away for a very long time. I take my three year old daughter to the airport when we drop off or pick up someone close to us, and I have been doing that since she was a baby. I would not bother to find a sitter so I could leave a ten year old at home, even if I was going to a very chaotic train station. But I would make sure that I was keeping very close tabs her, as does Molly. And if I thought the spectacle of a crowded train station was going to be a problem for my child, I would make sure I exposed them to it rather than taking them there for the first time when they go to boarding school for 10 months. I think it would have been odd if Ginny weren't there. Respectfully Submitted, Christi From ck32976 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 10 21:15:45 2002 From: ck32976 at yahoo.com (ck32976) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 21:15:45 -0000 Subject: Why "Lord"? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33152 I was wondering, and forgive me if this has been discussed, why everyone refers to Voldemort as "Lord". Either "The Dark Lord" or "Lord Voldemort". I don't mean his followers. I mean the people who are against him. Even Dumbledore does it. I see Lord as being a term that implies some respect. I know that some people would probably call him that out of fear, but for those who are actively against him I think them refering to him as Lord is the least of their worries. I don't know, maybe I'm nit-picking too much, but I don't think that he deserves to be called that. Plus, don't you think it would really make Voldemort very angry if people referred to him as Tom. No greatness implied, no reverence. It would be a huge shot to his already overinflated ego. It would just be another way of saying that they are not with him. Just something that came to me last night, and I was wondering what others might think about it. Carrie From bricken at tenbit.pl Thu Jan 10 23:35:04 2002 From: bricken at tenbit.pl (Ev vy) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 00:35:04 +0100 Subject: Classical knowledge (was: "This is just too easy...") References: Message-ID: <002401c19a2f$72ed9dc0$c808f1d5@OSLII> No: HPFGUIDX 33153 From: Eloise : I had the same thought, but of course, we have the benefit of hindsight. : : 1) The key to pacifying Fluffy clearly is not common knowledge ( I have to : say that this lack of Classical knowledge is one of several failings in the : curriculum that bothers me. There's enough Latin in the spells, many of the : creatures occur in classical myth etc, and the style of education is old- : fashioned enough to make me think that a knowledge of Latin and classical : myth/ literature would be essential) Such an approach to Classical knowledge seems to me a Muggle approach. What for Muggles is classical myth/literature and Latin (as a separate language), for wizards may be a part of their common knowledge. 'Fabulous beasts' exist in their world, Latin is incorporated into language to be used in naming all the spells, and not necessarily exists as a separate language or in fact a dead language (is it a correct term?). Harry, as brought up by Muggles does not have the knowledge, which a child brought up in a proper wizarding family may have, about all the creatures that could seem mythical to Harry (or the reader) and not very unusual to a child-wizard, who would hear about them quite frequently I guess. E.g. the Weasleys have a ghoul in their attic. They don't seem to think it's unusual (rather annoying), or that the creature itself shouldn't be there or shouldn't exist because it's mythical (that what a Muggle would think). IMHO, Fluffy being a mythical creature for us, for wizards is just a huge three-headed dog. Maybe not the only one around. Moreover, Harry not being very much 'Muggle-educated' (uncle Vernon is known to shut Harry up in his cupboard for a long time periods) probably is not aware of anything like Classical education and for him all the creatures are just incredible, awesome, etc. and not mythological in the very meaning of this word. And he may not even know that Latin _is_ a separate language in the Muggle world. Ev vy *delurking after a very long period of silence and saying 'Hi, again!'* ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ There's nothing level in our cursed natures But direct villainy. William Shakespeare "Timon of Athens" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover, To entertain these fair well-spoken days, I am determined to prove a villain William Shakespeare "Richard III" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cmf_usc at yahoo.com Thu Jan 10 23:10:03 2002 From: cmf_usc at yahoo.com (Caroline Flowers) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 15:10:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: Some red & green theories (with a little alchemy thrown in) (WAS Hi and the question of colors) Message-ID: <20020110231006.76376.qmail@web10403.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33154 Thank you so much for this topic! Maybe I'm nuts, but this is my kind of thing.... After reading heathernmoore's excellent alchemy information (beginning at message 31653), I did a little research of my own, and found LOTS of interesting things about colors. According to my source, the Philosopher's Stone (which, as heathernmoore said, can be a material object OR a living being)is created by the combination of Sulpher and Mercury. Sulpher: is the active, male principle; corresponds to fire; and is associated with the color red. The phoenix is, among other things, an alchemial symbol of red sulpher. Another word for red sulpher is cinnibar. So is the stag. And the lion. (And cinnibar means dragon's blood in Persian!) Mercury: is the female principle; corresponds to water (which is one thing green symbolizes.) The serpent & the unicorn are both symbols of alchemial mercury. Alchemists believed all kinds of things about green light: that the light of the emerald pierces the most closely guarded secrets; that the life force itself is blood in a green vessel ("the blood of the Green Lion, which is not ordinary gold, but Philosopher's Gold"). (Source for all this is the Penguin Dictionary of Symbols, pub. 1994) So-- I agree with heathernmoore, who, IIRC, stated that perhaps Harry is a Living Stone. If you all agree with any of this--what could it mean for the story? --Does Gryffindor = sulpher & Slytherin = mercury? --Is Lily somehow related to Voldie? (I am firmly in the "we don't know 100% that Lily's family is all Muggle" camp) --Was Voldie trying to kill Harry, not to keep him from doing something in future, but to absorb his power? Any thoughts? Caroline (who, as a librarian married to a librarian, has her own copy of the Dictionary of Symbols) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ From tanie_05 at hotmail.com Fri Jan 11 00:13:31 2002 From: tanie_05 at hotmail.com (tanie_05) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 00:13:31 -0000 Subject: Ginny's Character & Sibling Relationships Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33155 Hi guys. I've been reading all the posts about Ginny lately & it sure seems like y'all are really being too hard her. As the youngest child of a middle-sized family, I honestly say that I sympathize with Ginny. I don't see her behavior on Platform 9 3/4 immature at all. All her life she's always had someone at home with her, much like me. Now her last & closest brother Ron is leaving home to got to school away fom her (much like my sister). It's not like he can come home everyday & visit her. When she goes back home from the station, there's going to be no one to talk to. The only ones there are now Mom & Dad. So of couse she would be upset now that Ron's leaving her alone at home. (BTW, I would love to join a Ginny defense group.) But I really think Ginny is going to be a very good person. To others, she may seem boring right now, but that's only because we've only just even met her. I'm convinced we haven't heard the last of her. I'm absolutely positive that we'll meet her personally (or at least more in depth)in the 3 books to come. Until then... Now, my other point, sibling relationships. I can tell you as a fact(and trust me this is so very true)no matter how much they will deny it, all siblings really care about each other. Sure they may argue & fight, but if something would ever happen to one of them, (i.e. Ginny being trapped in the CoS, Percy thinking Ron drowned or something)they'd be really upset &/or want to do something about it. (i.e. Ron & Harry went after Ginny, Percy hugged Ron when he got out the lake.) Well, that's it. What do you think? I'm very open. Try to convince me otherwise. -Kyrstyne (who think there's a side of Ginny we have yet to see) From Ryjedi at aol.com Fri Jan 11 00:39:32 2002 From: Ryjedi at aol.com (rycar007) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 00:39:32 -0000 Subject: H/H/G Love Triangle, Vampires, Snape and Ron, Oh My! In-Reply-To: <011101c1995d$0d4f65c0$6c628541@compaq> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33156 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Hikaru" wrote: I've heard a lot of people use this for the H/H argument, but in my eyes it's the opposite. In my experience, girls at that age will tend to be more physically affectionate to the boys they have a purely platonic interest in. If she truly had feelings for Harry, I doubt she would have made such an overly obvious gesture. If she has feelings for *Ron*, however, this makes sense: the kiss on the cheek was purely a gesture of friendship, a "bye-see-you-next-year-hope-you- don't-have-too-much-damage-from-the-whole-almost-dying-thing", to kiss Ron would have carried too much weight. I doubt she would have kissed Harry so casually if she had been hiding a crush on him. But then again, that's just me. -Rycar From Ryjedi at aol.com Fri Jan 11 01:08:09 2002 From: Ryjedi at aol.com (rycar007) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 01:08:09 -0000 Subject: Introduction and Q: Snape covers for Quirrell in PS/SS? In-Reply-To: <185.1cd96ec.296ce193@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33157 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., CRSunrise at a... wrote: > It's possible that he was trying to lead another person away from LV. > Afterall, he knew first hand what could happen to the weak ones who joined > with LV, and Quirrel was somewhat a weak character. We are, however, given no evidence that Snape has any idea that Quirrel is housing Voldy under that turban. Snape knows Quirrel wants the stone, but doesn't know why (other than the eternal life thing). We don't know if Snape knows that Quirrel is Quirdemort, or that he's working for Voldy at all. --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Roughhouse" wrote: > ..Lord V would know that Snape was loyal to Dumbledore.. Perhaps not. I believe we're told in SS that Quirrel isn't always housing Voldemort within him; in the film (yeah, I know, still...)we see only Voldemort's shade which suggests that Voldemort was able to leave Quirrel's body at certain points. -Rycar From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com Fri Jan 11 02:34:36 2002 From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (littterbox1974) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 02:34:36 -0000 Subject: deaths, Ginny's fate In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33158 Lucy Austin wrote: > > But I'm still very nervous that she's going to be killed off - > someone reassure me please?? I've heard there will be a death > involving a fan of Harry, and one that will crucify JKR to write, and > that Ginny will get more of a mention in OoP. I keep thinking > Harry will notice her, but then she'll die, forcing him to > re-examine death etc in the light of the death of his girlfriend. > Help!!<< pippin_999 wrote: > Are we sure that the death of Harry's fan and the death that will > half-kill JKR are the same one? I write: I don't think that the fan who dies is the same as the death that will be hard to write *unless* the fan is a favorite character. I think the death that will be hard to write will be one of JKR's favorite characters. I did a search for her favorite characters and the characters who show up most are Lupin, Hagrid and the trio. Here are the results of my search listed as Q and A: ------ Q: Who's your favorite character besides Harry Potter? A: It's very hard to choose. It's fun to write about Snape because he's a deeply horrible person. Hagrid is someone I'd love to meet. Q: Ms. Rowling, which character besides Harry is your favorite, and why? A: I think that would have to be Hagrid -- but I love Ron and Hermione too, and I also love writing characters like Gilderoy Lockhart, Snape, the Dursleys... it's such fun doing horrible things to them. Q: Who is your favorite character in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone? A: Harry himself, of course, but also Ron, Hermione and Hagrid...then there's Dumbledore.... I love all of them, to be honest, even Dudley. Q: Will we be seeing Lupin anytime soon? A: Yes, Harry will be seeing Lupin again. He's another of my favourite characters. Q: What is your favorite Harry book so far? A: ...I was looking forward to writing the third book from the start of the first because that's when Professor Lupin appears, and he is one of my favorite characters in all seven books. Q: What is your favorite part of the (Harry Potter) story? A: In (Prisoner of) Azkaban, Professor Remus Lupin was one of my favorite characters. Q: Who is your favorite character? A: I love, Harry, Ron, Hermione, Hagrid, and Professor Lupin. ----- I don't think any of character above could be considered a "fan", with the exception of possibly Hagrid. I see a fan being someone like Colin, Dobby, or Ginny. As for Ginny's fate: I don't know if Ginny is going to live or die. Her death might move the Weasleys into one big badass fighting machine, and I think V (or Fudge for that matter) would be making a grave mistake going after the Weasleys. I wouldn't want to go up against 8 Weasleys! I would be very sad for the Weaselys if they lost any one in the family. I think it is likely that they will lose a member, but I think it might be Percy, not Ginny. I haven't shut the door on her and she has room to grow. I hope she grows on me in the next book, cause I like the Weasleys. She just doesn't trip my trigger at this point, and I feel she's incredibly under-developed. -Katze From viola_1895 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 11 03:09:01 2002 From: viola_1895 at yahoo.com (Julie aka Viola) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 19:09:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: Pulling up my GIANTCUSHION, and some gender-spiked musings (with a side of literary archetypes) Message-ID: <20020111030901.32221.qmail@web12608.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33159 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Tabouli" wrote: > Admittedly I subscribe a little to the "needs a more oomph and maturity to win Harry" arguments, but I agree that she's copping a lot more flack than she deserves. She's a kind, loyal, discreet kid, and hey, she's 13. 13 year old girls *do* have unrequited crushes and *are* young... we can't all be strong and assertive and mature like Hermione <> > G.I.A.N.T.C.U.S.H.I.O.N. (Ginny Isn't A Naive, Trivial Child Unworthy of Securing Harry's Interest: Object Now!) *laughs* Sign me up for GIANTCUSHION. Hell, sign me up for any group that supports the ignored female characters in this series. --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "serenadust" wrote: > Why do so many people seem a bit hostile to Ginny. It doesn't seem to > me that we've seen her do anything distasteful. The only crying she > seems to do is in COS, when she has been taken to the chamber to die. > In contrast, Hermione has cried a fair bit, and has never been in any > real personal danger except in POA (and not really very much even > there), but nobody seems to think that this shows weakness on her > part. Pre-fandom, I had very little feeling about Hermione or Ginny -- one way or the other. I didnt dislike either, didnt love either. (Though I did think Ginny was a character to watch post-CoS.) Now, I still like Hermione in canon, and Im very intrigued by where Ginnys character is going to go. But, I have big problems with the fanon perceptions of both. After spending some time in the fandom, Ive come to the conclusion that the most damning point against Ginny (or Fleur, or Cho, et al) is that she is Not Hermione. People are extremely protective of Hermione because an overwhelmingly large number of fans seem to identify very strongly with her. There isnt anything wrong with that, but I do think it affects the way other female characters are perceived. Hermione is great, but we (women) arent all going to be just like her. I find it really disturbing that almost _all_ the other young female characters in the series are disliked (often vehemently - see also, Cho, Fleur, Lavender, Parvarti, etc.) by fans. Some of the culpability for this belongs at JKRs door, honestly. Her female characters are quite possibly the series weakest point, something that leaves my feminist sensibilities absolutely _howling_. Hermione is herself a literary stereotype. Shes the brainy, socially awkward girl that were supposed to root for. Grab a young adult book targeted at young women off almost any shelf, and youll find Hermione. Though, admittedly, usually without the magic. ^_- But the flip side to this stereotype is the implication that _other_ girls, the ones who arent Hermiones are bad - shallow, silly, weak, insecure and probably plotting to dump pigs blood on someone at the prom. Now I know H/G gets a lot of bad press in the fandom for a variety of reasons I wont touch without a gas mask and a maxim gun, but... in my opinion, the fanon incarnations of Hermione can be as little like her as those of Ginny. In both cases, their flaws are ignored, and their perceived strengths played up, usually toward a romantic end. Hermione _is_ strong and assertive and mature as Tabouli said. ^_^ But shes also obsessive, neurotic and bossy. This stuff gets left out _a lot_. My point here is not to put down Hermione, but to point out that she has her flaws. Just like Ginny does. If I looked at Hermione through the same lens some people seem to look at Ginny through, I could come up with an equally unattractive picture. And Im not saying this because _I_ identify with Ginny. I dont. As a teenager I was nothing like her (what weve seen of her) at all. If I had to pick someone from the Potterverse who best represents my teenage self, its probably Fleur. ^_^; Hey, at least I admit it. The point is that we all grow up and change - whether were Hermione, Ginny or Fleur when were young. (Though I have occasional Fleur!flashbacks. Visiting my family over the holidays, my brother said to me, Uh, Julie? Youre Cordelia-ing again. ^_^;; But anyway...) --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Zorb17 at a... wrote: > I completely agree. Frankly, I find Ginny a weak and boring character. She > doesn't seem to *do* anything besides hang around and play the victim's role. > Other HP bit players, Dean and Seamus for example, have more personality > than this girl, who played rather an important role in CoS. We *know* things > about Dean and Seamus: Dean's a football fan and a talented artist, while > Seamus is the half-and-half Irish boy who adores Quidditch. Ginny is...Ron's > younger sister who has a crush on Harry. She has nothing personally > distinguishing about her. Ive got to point out here - Dean and Seamus are _boys_. Do we know anything more about Lavender or Parvati? Most of the other female Gryffindors dont even have _names_. There had to be girls in Percy and Olivers year, but we certainly didnt hear anything about them. We dont even know what year the Chasers (Katie, Alicia, et al) are supposed to be in or what they look like. We know practically everything to know about James Potter, but next to nothing about Lily Evans. (Actually Fanon!Lily and Fanon!Ginny seem to get squashed into the same characterizations feisty!girl or nuturing!girl quite an awful lot. Hmm.) We know Colin and Dennis Creevey, but have we ever heard anything about the girls in their respective years? (Discounting Ginny, of course.) I do agree, though, that OBHWF gives me the itchies. But its not really an argument against the pairing if done right. The problem with it, to my mind, is in the execution. (I am, btw, a very dedicated non-shipper. So dont mind me playing devils advocate over here. ^_^) And its a very weak argument in favor of the ship theres nothing wrong with the idea, imo, but its not evidence in support, either. -Julie (Who still holds _her_ mums hand occasionally, and bets that Fleur does, too. ^_-) ===== Jack: Hi. I'm a jobless, card-playing drifter who likes to draw naked girls. Would you like to sleep with me? Rose: Are you _kidding_? I'm a rich, socialite virgin who's engaged to be married... Of _course_ I will! -- Switchblade Kittens, "My Heart Will Go On" __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ From vencloviene at hotmail.com Fri Jan 11 03:58:55 2002 From: vencloviene at hotmail.com (anavenc) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 03:58:55 -0000 Subject: deaths, Ginny's fate In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33160 -Katze wrote: > I don't think that the fan who dies is the same as the death that > will be hard to write *unless* the fan is a favorite character. I > think the death that will be hard to write will be one of JKR's > favorite characters. I did a search for her favorite characters and > the characters who show up most are Lupin, Hagrid and the trio. Here > are the results of my search listed as Q and A: > > ------ > > Q: Who's your favorite character besides Harry Potter? > A: It's very hard to choose. It's fun to write about Snape > because he's a deeply horrible person. Hagrid is someone I'd > love to > meet. > > Q: Ms. Rowling, which character besides Harry is your favorite, and > why? > A: I think that would have to be Hagrid -- but I love Ron and > Hermione too, and I also love writing characters like Gilderoy > Lockhart, Snape, the Dursleys... it's such fun doing horrible things > to them. > Well, I've just found the following piece of news on iharrypotter.net: *** Will Snape Push up Daisies? I had an e-mail from one of our readers that states that none other than Snape is the character that dies! Now, until I read the article, I can't be sure this is valid. But news is slow, so here is the e-mail: "Did you hear the news? The main character that dies in the book is Snape. Entertainment Tonight said that he 'died with honor'. I guess he dies saving Harry." *** I still think that this character is likely to stay alive just because it is so easy to imagine him finding the redemption in honorable death. Besides, JKR hates him :). Ana. From babelfisherperson at yahoo.com Fri Jan 11 04:04:38 2002 From: babelfisherperson at yahoo.com (babelfisherperson) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 04:04:38 -0000 Subject: H/H/G Love Triangle, Vampires, Snape and Ron, Oh My! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33161 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "rycar007" wrote: > I doubt she would have kissed Harry so casually if she had been > hiding a crush on him. But then again, that's just me. But it wasn't casual. It's specifically mentioned that as being something she's never done before. The implication is that kissing her friends just isn't something Hermione does, normally. And for all we know, she could've been incredibly embarassed afterward. Since it happened at the very end of the book, we have no way of knowing. From babelfisherperson at yahoo.com Fri Jan 11 04:14:34 2002 From: babelfisherperson at yahoo.com (babelfisherperson) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 04:14:34 -0000 Subject: Why "Lord"? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33162 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ck32976" wrote: > Plus, don't you think it would really make Voldemort very angry if > people referred to him as Tom. No greatness implied, no reverence. > It would be a huge shot to his already overinflated ego. It would > just be another way of saying that they are not with him. > Just something that came to me last night, and I was wondering what > others might think about it. I think that's a great idea. I'd love to see somebody referring to him as Tom. Or better yet, when the inevitable Voldemort-Dumbledore confrontation occurs, to have Dumbledore call him Tom to his face. The question I have, though, is how widely known Voldemort's true name is. If you referred to "Tom Riddle", how many people in the wizarding world would realize you were talking about Voldemort? It can't be a very widely-known fact, otherwise Hermione would've known in CoS that Tom Riddle was Voldemort, from all the history books she reads. Dumbledore obviously knows, and now Harry & Ron do too (and surely told Hermione once her petrification was cured), but who else does? Red XIV From jmmears at prodigy.net Fri Jan 11 04:59:47 2002 From: jmmears at prodigy.net (serenadust) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 04:59:47 -0000 Subject: Pulling up my GIANTCUSHION, and some gender-spiked musings (with a side of literary archetypes) In-Reply-To: <20020111030901.32221.qmail@web12608.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33163 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Julie aka Viola wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Tabouli" > wrote: > > > G.I.A.N.T.C.U.S.H.I.O.N. (Ginny Isn't A Naive, > Trivial Child Unworthy of Securing Harry's Interest: > Object Now!) Thanks Tabouli! This is one of your better efforts. Not only does it get the point across, it sound so comfy/cozy and Weasley-ish. Julie wrote: > > > Pre-fandom, I had very little feeling about Hermione > or Ginny -- one way or the other. I didn't dislike > either, didn't love either. (Though I did think Ginny > was a character to watch post-CoS.) Now, I still like > Hermione in canon, and I'm very intrigued by where > Ginny's character is going to go. But, I have big > problems with the fanon perceptions of both. > After spending some time in the fandom, I've come to > the conclusion that the most damning point "against" > Ginny (or Fleur, or Cho, et al) is that she is Not > Hermione. People are extremely protective of Hermione > because an overwhelmingly large number of fans seem to > identify very strongly with her. There isn't anything > wrong with that, but I do think it affects the way > other female characters are perceived. This is one reason I gave up on fanfic. I suspect the widespread hostility to Ginny/Cho and the other girls is that they are perceived as threatening to the H/H ship. This is the only reason I can see for sticking poor Ginny with Malfoy so often in fanon (a fate worse than Death IMO). > Julie again: > > And I'm not saying this because _I_ identify with > Ginny. I don't. As a teenager I was nothing like her > (what we've seen of her) at all. If I had to pick > someone from the Potterverse who best represents my > teenage self, it's probably Fleur. ^_^; Hey, at least > I admit it. Wow, lucky you, Julie. I was a Hermione who would have loved to have been a Fleur (although I never would have admitted it at the time). Julie again: > Fleur!flashbacks. Visiting my family over the > holidays, my brother said to me, "Uh, Julie? You're > Cordelia-ing again." ^_^;; But anyway...) Sorry, who's Cordelia? > Julie wrote: > > I do agree, though, that OBHWF gives me the itchies. > But it's not really an argument against the pairing if > done right. The problem with it, to my mind, is in the > execution. (I am, btw, a very dedicated non-shipper. I think that JKR is perfectly capable of executing OBHWF in a way that most readers would be fine with (if that's where she wants to go). I think that people like this theory mainly because everyone ends up happy this way. The other theories (FITD and HGG) require that Ron and Ginny end up dead/evil or punished in some way. I still don't get the hostility toward the two of them. Jo > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! > http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ From blenberry at altavista.com Fri Jan 11 02:35:12 2002 From: blenberry at altavista.com (blenberry) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 02:35:12 -0000 Subject: Small flint? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33164 First of all, I have American copies of all the books (unfortunately). In CoS, Moaning Myrtle dives into the toilet and comes to rest "somewhere in the U-bend" (p 157). When we encounter her again in GoF, she is described as "usually to be heard sobbing in the S-bend of a toilet three floors below" (p 461). I don't know too much about plumbing, so which do toilets have? I'm familiar with the U-bend or trap under sinks, but I looked behind my (American) toilet and couldn't find it. blenberry From catlover at netwrx1.com Fri Jan 11 02:30:30 2002 From: catlover at netwrx1.com (Kim Heikkinen) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 20:30:30 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Female Students (WAS On Ron's relationship with Ginny - ) In-Reply-To: References: <31.20b6086e.296e97d0@aol.com> Message-ID: <4.3.0.20020110202908.00d65100@pop.netwrx1.net> No: HPFGUIDX 33165 Re: Ginny >Does she like animals? Well, one thing we do know is she's a "great cat lover" as Ron says in CoS. Kim, another "great cat lover" delurking for a moment ******************************************************************* 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 chenml at ruccs.rutgers.edu Fri Jan 11 04:38:30 2002 From: chenml at ruccs.rutgers.edu (Marian L. Chen) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 23:38:30 -0500 (EST) Subject: Harry gets the stone/Ginny holds hands In-Reply-To: <1010711553.3185.61007.m3@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33166 "dicentra_spectabilis_alba" wrote: >...it began to bother me that the spells protecting the sorcerer's > stone were so easy to defeat. If you're really trying to keep the > stone away from Voldemort, would you set up spells that first-year > students can defeat? One thing that bugged me upon my recent viewing of the movie (and I mentioned it to my sister, who is also on this list): If Harry had failed to get through all the challenges, Quirrell would still be standing looking at the Mirror, never having gotten the Stone. Granted, there goes the denouement, but honestly, they should have saved themselves the trouble. It's only because Harry shows up that Voldemort has a chance of getting the stone. In Ginny's support, my mother still holds my hand when we're in crowded areas, and I'm 23. :) I don't think she considers me a baby, it's just the easiest way not to lose someone (short of one of those child leashes). Marian From buedefixe at netzero.com Fri Jan 11 05:47:05 2002 From: buedefixe at netzero.com (buedefixe at netzero.com) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 22:47:05 -0700 Subject: Origin of Spells References: Message-ID: <001101c19a63$6c83c7a0$a4ff3841@desktop> No: HPFGUIDX 33167 I'm not always able to keep up with all the posts, so if this has already been discussed, please point me to where. I was wondering where spells come from. Is there something intrinsic about the word "Accio" embedded into the magical fabric of the universe that causes things to be brought to the speaker (imagine the poor prehistoric wizard who discovers this as he sneezes, his wand inadvertently pointing at a woolly mammoth). Or perhaps, are the spells created somehow (wizard R&D) and magically assigned a magic word upon their creation. Or something else entirely? Any ideas? Ben Jones ---------------------------------------------------- Sign Up for NetZero Platinum Today Only $9.95 per month! http://my.netzero.net/s/signup?r=platinum&refcd=PT97 From babelfisherperson at yahoo.com Fri Jan 11 06:02:57 2002 From: babelfisherperson at yahoo.com (babelfisherperson) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 06:02:57 -0000 Subject: Ginny (WAS The Female Students) In-Reply-To: <4.3.0.20020110202908.00d65100@pop.netwrx1.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33168 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Kim Heikkinen wrote: > >Does she like animals? > > Well, one thing we do know is she's a "great cat lover" as Ron says > in CoS. I suppose I do have something in common with Ginny, then. If I noticed that when I read the book, obviously I've forgotten it by now. Red XIV From jbryson at richmond.infi.net Fri Jan 11 02:28:50 2002 From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 02:28:50 -0000 Subject: Yet Another Time Turner Q In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33169 Science Fiction has many ways of dealing with time travel. The one JKR seems to have selected is the idea that the time traveler can't change history. In fact, in this solution, the time traveler often causes the events that happen. For example, if Neville breaks something, he can't go back in time and prevent the accident. In many time travel stories of this sort, the time traveler causes the thing he was trying to prevent. Harry saw himself, then went back and conjured the big patronus. His time travel caused the final state of the reality. I suspect Dumbledore's admonition that they not be seen had more to do with witnesses seeing them when they were supposed to be elsewhere, but that's just me. tex23236 From lori_black286 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 11 06:04:00 2002 From: lori_black286 at yahoo.com (lori_black286) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 06:04:00 -0000 Subject: Why "Lord"? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33170 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ck32976" wrote: > I was wondering, and forgive me if this has been discussed, why > everyone refers to Voldemort as "Lord". Either "The Dark Lord" > or "Lord Voldemort". I don't mean his followers. I mean the > people who are against him. Even Dumbledore does it. I see Lord as being > a term that implies some respect. Well, while I see where you're coming from, I have to disagree. After thinking about this myself I came to the conclusion that while they may not like what Voldie-chan does, they have got respect for him. I rest my case partly on the point of Ollivander's little speech as Harry is buying his wand in PS/SS "terrible things, but very great" or something along those lines. He obviously has a respect, albeit a fearful one, for Voldemort. The fact that Dumbledore refuses to use the powers "only a dark wizard would use", I think that perhaps- and I could be wrong- that he has a sort of... not fearful, per-se, but an apprehensive respect for Voldemort even though he is actively against what Voldie supports. I think there *is* respect or at the least awe there from most everyone, be it grudging, fearful, or following. > Plus, don't you think it would really make Voldemort very angry if people > > > referred to him as Tom. No greatness implied, no reverence. It would be a > huge shot to his already overinflated ego. Imagine this: you are Voldemort. You have essentially infinite (okay, exaggerations, but go with me here) dark power and many, many toadies to choose from to do your bidding. Someone- or a lot of people- decide to start calling you Tom. Now, maybe I'm getting a little too into this, but if it were me, I'd want to crush that immediately. It usurp some of the fear that has been instilled in the hearts of the magical community for years, even decades. If you're as nasty and bad as Voldie, you certainly won't want that. Plus, it would give him a viable- from his POV- excuse to crush many in the name of replacing that fear. It might only strengthen him in the long run. I just realized, I haven't introduced myself yet... silly me. ^_^* I'm a fifteen-year-old female who is nearly dangerously in love with the Harry Potter series (hey, I joined an adult discussion list, can you tell I have free time?). I mainly joined because I figured that you lovely Elders could maybe give me some ideas on HP relationship theories and provide some interesting discussion material- I write horribly OOC fanfic and maybe this will be a form of therapy. Plus it's fun to do in the time between books. ^_^ Glad to be among you! ~Sachi From andrew_macian at yahoo.com Fri Jan 11 06:05:16 2002 From: andrew_macian at yahoo.com (Andrew MacIan) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 22:05:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Small flint? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020111060516.73843.qmail@web9505.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33171 Greetings from Andrew! Well, any form beats what we had in Nam.... --- blenberry wrote: > First of all, I have American copies of all the > books (unfortunately). > > In CoS, Moaning Myrtle dives into the toilet and > comes to rest "somewhere in the U-bend" (p 157). > > When we encounter her again in GoF, she is described > as "usually to be heard sobbing in the S-bend of a toilet three > floors below" (p 461). > > I don't know too much about plumbing, so which do > toilets have? I'm familiar with the U-bend or trap under sinks, but I > looked behind my (American) toilet and couldn't find it. > > blenberry There's a S-bend *in* the ceramic part, between the bowl and the external plumbing. It is intended to be a form of anti-sewer gas trap, and also holds the water level, well...level. Hsve a look at _The Way Things Work_ for more details. Cheers, Drieux ..who should have been a plumber; they make *scads* more than I do.... ===== 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 video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ From sfrankel at si.rr.com Fri Jan 11 01:36:28 2002 From: sfrankel at si.rr.com (sheryl) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 20:36:28 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] "This is just too easy..." References: Message-ID: <004d01c19a40$643d2dc0$d2115a18@si.rr.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33172 <> IIRC Dumbledore's spell was to insure that the only one who could get the stone was someone who wouldn't use it. Harry had no use for it and that's why Quirrel/LV couldn't get past the mirror. Sheryl [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From fallenhunter at neo.rr.com Fri Jan 11 06:18:56 2002 From: fallenhunter at neo.rr.com (Fallenhunter) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 01:18:56 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Small flint? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3C3E3D80.28490.11760F5@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 33173 > In CoS, Moaning Myrtle dives into the toilet and comes to > rest "somewhere in the U-bend" (p 157). > > When we encounter her again in GoF, she is described as "usually to be > heard sobbing in the S-bend of a toilet three floors below" (p 461). > > I don't know too much about plumbing, so which do toilets have? I'm > familiar with the U-bend or trap under sinks, but I looked behind my > (American) toilet and couldn't find it. Both, depending, they have an S bend if it's a P trap, a U bend if it's a J trap... (basically a P trap goes from the sink to the back wall, a J trap goes through the floor.) Fallenhunter From faubert at optonline.net Thu Jan 10 22:53:43 2002 From: faubert at optonline.net (george faubert) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 17:53:43 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why "Lord"? References: Message-ID: <012501c19a29$a7b9e8c0$69022f18@oemcomputer> No: HPFGUIDX 33174 > Carrie wrote: > I was wondering why everyone refers to Voldemort as "Lord". I see Lord > as being a term that implies some respect. I know that some people would > probably call him that out of fear, but for those who are actively > against him I think them referring to him as Lord is the least of > their worries. I don't think that he deserves to be called that. Plus, > > don't you think it would really make Voldemort very angry if people referred > to him as Tom. No greatness implied, no reverence. It would be a huge > shot to his already overinflated ego. It would just be another way > of saying that they are not with him. << We don't know what happened during the years he was in power. He could have taken over the minsitry of magic and had himself called Lord. Or he could really be a lord. He is from a muggle family but maybe that family has a title. George From viola_1895 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 11 06:37:28 2002 From: viola_1895 at yahoo.com (viola_1895) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 06:37:28 -0000 Subject: Pulling up my GIANTCUSHION, and some gender-spiked musings (with a side of literary archetypes) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33175 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "serenadust" wrote: > Wow, lucky you, Julie. I was a Hermione who would have loved to have > been a Fleur (although I never would have admitted it at the time). Well, I certainly had a high enough opinion of myself to qualify as a Fleur. ^_^ I don't know about any of the rest. But I like her character -- at the end of the Second Task we see her with her sister, and that really struck a chord with me. I have a younger brother, and no matter how snotty and spoiled I may have been as a teen, if anything had ever threatened him I would have been whacking grindylows left and right to save him, too. ^_^ > Sorry, who's Cordelia? *laughs* Oh! I thought everyone in Potter fandom was required to watch Buffy! Cordelia is the Fleur of the Buffyverse, only with snappier comebacks. > I think that JKR is perfectly capable of executing OBHWF in a way > that most readers would be fine with (if that's where she wants to > go). I think that people like this theory mainly because everyone > ends up happy this way. The other theories (FITD and HGG) require > that Ron and Ginny end up dead/evil or punished in some way. I still > don't get the hostility toward the two of them. I find OBHWF too tidy for my literary taste. But I don't think it will be the end of the world if the series does end on that note. Star Wars essentially ended with One Big Happy Skywalker Family. *shrugs* The criticisms of Ron and Ginny are valid. I just think they sometimes get taken too far. They're characters whose flaws are more uncomfortable to deal with than, say, Harry or Hermione's -- whose flaws often take on the aspect of job-interview 'what's your biggest weakness?'-type shortcomings, i.e. "I work far too hard." or "I'm too loyal for my own good!" In other words, they aren't always perceived as bad things. I, personally, think Hermione's perfectionism is going to be the cause of big problems down the road. Then again, so might Ron's jealousy, or Ginny's prolonged exposure to Tom Riddle. Or Dumbledore's overconfidence, or Snape's shadowy loyalties, etc. > This is one reason I gave up on fanfic. Before you give up totally, check out Jennifer-Oksana's "Footnotes." It's a short fic that deals pretty bluntly with some of Hermione's possible challenges in being Harry's friend through the dark times to come. It's possibly my favorite fanon Hermione portrayal, or at least one of them. And Snape is wonderful in it too. (http://www.imjustsayin.net/jennyo/stories/otherfic/footnotes.txt) -Julie Cordelia: I just don't see why everyone's always picking on Marie Antoinette. I can so relate to her. She worked really hard to look that good, and people just don't appreciate that kind of effort. And I know the peasants were all depressed-- Xander: I think you mean 'oppressed' Cordelia: Whatever. They were cranky. So they're like: 'Let's lose some heads!' Ugh, that's fair. And, eh, Marie Antoinette cared about them. She was going to let them have cake. From oppen at cnsinternet.com Fri Jan 11 07:15:33 2002 From: oppen at cnsinternet.com (Eric Oppen) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 01:15:33 -0600 Subject: Snape/Lily thought... Message-ID: <01c001c19a6f$c31587a0$e8c71bce@hppav> No: HPFGUIDX 33176 You know, I have been wondering: A lot of people on here think that Snape was in love with Lily and resented James (and by extension Harry) because of that, but what if it was just the opposite? We don't know what Lily was like at school other than that she was Head Girl (a St. Trinian's cartoon on this subject pops into my mind, but I shall repress it). Head Girl does _not_ equal "nice," or "kind," or much of anything other than "good at her studies and in good with the faculty." For all we know, Lily might have been extremely cruel to Young Severus, and deliberately humiliated him in front of his peers once, or more than once. Whether with or without James' assistance, a popular, lusted-after girl in a school can easily do this to an unpopular, overlooked boy, as in pretending interest to get his hopes up, only to yank the rug out from under him at the worst possible moment. Snape, as I see him, is a proud person, and in this scenario, he might even have joined the DEs as a way to get back at the popular crowd, and at Lily in particular. Having to be reminded of her and her boyfriend every day would be torture. Comments? Flames? From Wiccagrrl313 at aol.com Fri Jan 11 07:47:12 2002 From: Wiccagrrl313 at aol.com (Wiccagrrl313 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 02:47:12 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why "Lord"? Message-ID: <129.aa9b4dc.296ff280@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33177 In a message dated 1/10/02 10:37:38 PM Pacific Standard Time, faubert at optonline.net writes: << We don't know what happened during the years he was in power. He could have taken over the minsitry of magic and had himself called Lord. Or he could really be a lord. He is from a muggle family but maybe that family has a title. George >> IIRC, isn't Lord Voldemort a pseudonym Tom Riddle came up with himself when he was young? (He was already using it when he made the diary back in his Hogwarts days.) In which case it probably wasn't a legitimate title. My guess is people probably used it out of fear, or because that was how he and his followers referred to him and it stuck. Tracy From ewe2 at can.org.au Fri Jan 11 07:47:29 2002 From: ewe2 at can.org.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 18:47:29 +1100 Subject: Malfoys and Mudbloods Message-ID: <20020111074729.GA9226@can.org.au> No: HPFGUIDX 33178 First post, be gentle with me :) I'd like to explore one of the major themes of the canon, the nature vs. nurture argument, or Wizards vs. Muggles, Purebloods vs. Mudbloods. This theme (like many in the HP books) is based on opposites: Hermione is a wizard born of Muggles, Harry is born of Wizards (but no he isn't, Lily is born of Muggles), and Draco is born of Purebloods (or is he?). The Malfoys pride themselves on being Pureblood and (but the secret is out) Death Eaters. They assume this is the source of their superiority, their born-to-rule rights. Those of you not aware of the British class-system may not realize the force with which JKR utilizes this theme. It goes to the heart of the series: it's not what you are, it's what you make of yourself; Harry personifies this. Now my point is this: such a strong theme requires, as I said, opposites to make it really work. So when will we find Mudbloods among the Malfoys? Think about it for a moment. It makes the greatest literary sense to have Draco suddenly confront a possible Mudblood ancestry that the family has tried to cover up, perhaps for centuries. In the context of the many discussions of Draco Reformation (I submit DR as the acronym), this would make the greatest sense, and tie up the nature vs. nurture and DR themes quite neatly. It may of course not require that Malfoys have Mudblood to fully realize this theme, but they are the perfect candidate. At some point in the series, the Wizards vs. Muggles duality will have to be resolved, most likely through Harry. Harry, of course, can see the relative weakness of the wizard world; Arthur Weasley is certainly aware of it, and the dangers that wizardly arrogance poses for the health of wizard/muggle relations. It would help, of course, if Pureblood families were made forcefully aware of that weakness through a realization that they are not so Pure as they thought. By the Dursley's reactions (and reminders of the 14th century), there is a bit more to fear from muggles than demands to solve their problems by magic. A Malfoy Muggle might be a step in the right direction. In closing, may I state that I am not a shipper. Being teenagers and the tangle that love's path generally is, it will not surprise me if JKR will keep you all guessing for a good while yet :) I personally agree with the Harry=Frodo theory: he is destined to redeem the world, but not for himself. Sean (excited squeaks at finding other obssessives notwithstanding :) -- Sean Dwyer Web: http://www.geocities.com/ewe2_au/ From Littlered32773 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 11 08:13:53 2002 From: Littlered32773 at yahoo.com (oz_widgeon) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 08:13:53 -0000 Subject: GIANTCUSHION and Boggart/Dementor Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33179 First let me say that I'm owling my 2 knuts to join GIANTCUSHION. I am a big Ginny fan and think her detractors are being far to harsh on her. I don't think she's wooden at all, she's just a young girl, and she acts like one. I don't see what the big deal is with her crying and breaking down after being drawn in by dark magic (which we are told has happened to many fully qualified wizards) and then being in the chamber. I'm 28 and I'd probably break down now if I'd gone through all that. She is loyal to her family and friends, she's kind, and understanding, and she is capable of telling someone off when they need it. What's wrong with that? Er....nothing. We just haven't gotten to know her as well as some of the other characters yet. What we have seen isn't bad. I don't think the first train station scene was immature at all. I was 10 when I first went to O'Hare airport in Chicago, and my mom nearly tied me to her! I wanted to go look in all the shops and watch all the terribly interesting people, but my mom kept hold of the back of my coat for fear of me getting lost! I must admit, I'd probably do the same to my child. Okay, enough of all this-please send me my GIANTCUSHION membership card! I hope there's a virtual button to go along with membership, though with my Neville-is- under-a-memory-charm and my Lupin-must-be-touched-by-the-moon to-transform badges, I don't know where I'd put it! :) Now, I followed the whole thread about why the boggart/dementor effects Harry, but the boggart/moon didn't make Lupin transform with great interest. It seems to have died down recently, but I had to throw my 2 knuts in (I'm definitely going to be poor if I don't stop throwing them around!). Actually, these are my husband's 2 knuts, so I'll toss them without fear. Over dinner the other night, I posed the whole boggart question to my husband, and he had an immediate response, that made perfect sense! (Imagine!) He said the readon it effected Harry, is because he WANTED to hear his parents, so in his mind, he WANTED it to act like a real dementor. We even learn this after one of his patronus lessons. He was sitting on the plinth of an old suit of armor finishing his chocolate, and he told himself he had to NOT want to hear his parents voices, if he was going to produce a proper patronus. It's kind of like when a patient receives a placibo from a doctor. Even if it's a sugar pill, if they WANT it to work, it will. Harry WANTED the boggart/dementor to be real because it was the only time he could hear his parents, so in his mind it WAS real. The Malfoy and co. dementor didn't effect him, because in his mind, he KNEW he could fight it off at this point, he was happy and could produced a powerful patronus, so it didn't effect him. Cheers! Slon (who's seriously thinking of buying a robe with bigger lapels to accomodate all those cool badges) From mrgrrrargh at aol.com Fri Jan 11 06:45:50 2002 From: mrgrrrargh at aol.com (mrgrrrargh at aol.com) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 01:45:50 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Cordy of the Harryverse--Fleur or Draco... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33180 > Julie wrote: > *laughs* Oh! I thought everyone in Potter fandom was required to > watch Buffy! Cordelia is the Fleur of the Buffyverse, only with > snappier comebacks. Somehow, I don't see Fleur as the Cordy of the Harryverse. I think that Draco is more like Cordy. Draco has his Cordettes (Crabbe & Goyle = Harmony & Aura). He hates the trio (H/H/R = B/X/W). He's a spoiled brat. But I think he will separate from his father. I saw a good argument about how Draco wants to step out of his father's shadow. Much like Cordy though, the process will be slow... and I doubt if JKR can pull off the transition in the remaining three books. Just my two sickles... (Sorry if that is considered OT... twas my first post) spygamefan From ambiradams at hotmail.com Fri Jan 11 08:23:53 2002 From: ambiradams at hotmail.com (Ambir Adams) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 00:23:53 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Malfoys and Mudbloods Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33181 >Sean wrote: >Now my point is this: such a strong theme requires, as I said, opposites to >make it really work. So when will we find Mudbloods among the Malfoys? >Think about it for a moment. It makes the greatest literary sense to have >Draco suddenly confront a possible Mudblood ancestry that the family has >tried to cover up, perhaps for centuries. In the context of the many >discussions of Draco Reformation (I submit DR as the acronym), this would >make the greatest sense, and tie up the nature vs. nurture and DR themes >quite neatly. This isn't necessarily true, I mean he might not have Mudblood in his family line. I'm not saying that it isn't impossible. Here's the way it could go. Plain and simple, he falls for Hermione and she with him. (no, please no JKR, don't do it.) They are exact opposites, and that could also be a reason for Draco's Reformation. Not that it's already in his blood line, but that it could be in his future heir/heiress's bloodline. Ryoko-- _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com From catlady at wicca.net Fri Jan 11 08:39:51 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 08:39:51 -0000 Subject: Too Many Topics Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33182 1) Someone was asking about how the name Cho Chang was translated into Chinese. I finally found my previous post on the subject: > In message number 21025, Cai Hui (where has she gone?!) wrote: > "OTOH, "Cho" could be a Chinese name as well. It could mean > "autumn" (the chinese translator thought so), which is a plausible > enough name for a Chinese girl. Or it could mean "surpass," which > is kind of boyish, but not so bad either." > In message number 21033, she wrote: > "There're at least two possibilites for the surname "Chang." One > of them came from a place name (snip) The other is even more > interesting. It is formed by two different characters which > combined means "a long bow"." And now my friend has e-mailed me an answer!: http://www.cjvlang.com/Hpotter/names.html 2. Grey Wolf wrote: > Also, there seems to be some remanent from a teenage love between > Hagrid and McGonnagal (SNIP), This SHIP hasn't been considered > before, Actually, it was a very popular ship before GoF came out and we saw that Hagrid is like when smitten. I think the popularity was because of the Christmas party when Hagrid kissed McGonagall on the cheek. But a bunch of people posted about their shock and horror at the size difference... 3. Cindy Sphynx wrote: > (who will offer up Ginny if it will spare the lives of Sirius > or Lupin) I am completely in love with Remus and fond of Sirius, BUT aware that EITHER of them would much prefer to die to save Ginny than to let her die to save himself. Just because she's a young kid and they're heroes. 4. Eric Oppen wrote: > the only girl who would let herself be seen with a younger guy was > the sort who didn't mind being characterized by her friends as a > total loser in the Game of Girlness. It's partly a status-thing, A. I never paid any attention to that when I was that age. B. Cho has enough status that she don't lose it by dating a no-account boy: she is a *good* Quidditch Seeker and she had been going with the much-sought-after Cedric Diggory. C. Harry isn't a no-account boy; he's the Triwizard TOurnament Winner as well as a star Seeker. > Seriously, my chances of finding anybody who would scrape the > bottom of the barrel hard enough to be willing to be seen with the > likes of me at the Yule Ball *I* can say that, and probably you can say that, but HARRY can't. He's had enough girls ask him to partner them to the Ball (and turned them all down in a panic and without any thought of turning people down being rude) that he's figured out that lots of girls want to escort the Hogwarts Champion and dance the opening dance with all eyes upon them. From lake4fam at earthlink.net Fri Jan 11 08:55:06 2002 From: lake4fam at earthlink.net (dittanymorgan) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 08:55:06 -0000 Subject: Is the Head of my House a Hobbit? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33183 Has no one else wondered about the origins of "tiny Professor Flitwick," he who has to stand on a pile of books in order to see over his desk and teach Charms? After all, we never see his feet (shod or un...) Yes, I know his hair is snowy (not brown) and he sports a beard. Who's to say that Hobbits don't go grey and grow beards - even though Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin managed to stay cleanshaven from Bagend to the Falls. No, unless someone can utterly convince me that Flitwick is NOT a Hobbit, I shall enjoy the thought that a touch of Middle Earth lingers yet in Merry Olde England, and that Hobbits, however small, can still make a difference. dittany/custodienne From lake4fam at earthlink.net Fri Jan 11 08:55:06 2002 From: lake4fam at earthlink.net (dittanymorgan) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 08:55:06 -0000 Subject: Is the Head of my House a Hobbit? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33184 Has no one else wondered about the origins of "tiny Professor Flitwick," he who has to stand on a pile of books in order to see over his desk and teach Charms? After all, we never see his feet (shod or un...) Yes, I know his hair is snowy (not brown) and he sports a beard. Who's to say that Hobbits don't go grey and grow beards - even though Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin managed to stay cleanshaven from Bagend to the Falls. No, unless someone can utterly convince me that Flitwick is NOT a Hobbit, I shall enjoy the thought that a touch of Middle Earth lingers yet in Merry Olde England, and that Hobbits, however small, can still make a difference. dittany/custodienne From pigwidgeon37 at yahoo.it Fri Jan 11 08:59:43 2002 From: pigwidgeon37 at yahoo.it (=?iso-8859-1?q?pigwidgeonthirtyseven?=) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 08:59:43 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] About Lily's character (WAS: Snape/Lily thought...) In-Reply-To: <01c001c19a6f$c31587a0$e8c71bce@hppav> Message-ID: <20020111085943.33684.qmail@web14708.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33185 Eric Oppen wrote: >You know, I have been wondering: A lot of people on here think that Snape >was in love with Lily and resented James (and by extension Harry) because of >that, but what if it was just the opposite? We don't know what Lily was >like at school other than that she was Head Girl (a St. Trinian's cartoon on >this subject pops into my mind, but I shall repress it). Head Girl does >_not_ equal "nice," or "kind," or much of anything other than "good at her >studies and in good with the faculty." >For all we know, Lily might have been extremely cruel to Young Severus, and >deliberately humiliated him in front of his peers once, or more than once. >Whether with or without James' assistance, a popular, lusted-after girl in a >school can easily do this to an unpopular, overlooked boy, as in pretending >interest to get his hopes up, only to yank the rug out from under him at the >worst possible moment. Unfortunately, we don't know anything about the school days of Lily, Snape and the Marauders, except for very few things told by (very prejudiced) Sirius and (mildly prejudiced) Lupin. In fact, we don't even know for sure that Snape *was* an outsider. It only serves the purpose of explaining how he could have become the person he is now and it certainly seems very logical. But what does "Hanging out with a gang of Slytherins", as Sirius puts it, really mean? From the Gryffindor and especially from Sirius's POV, even an innocent group of friends would immediately be categorized as "gang", due to the attitude towards the other house. But it's not clear whether they *were* friends, or a group simply sharing certain interests, whether Snape was a part of the group or just tolerated- it's all very vague. Anyway, I've always had the feeling (and it's no more than just some gut-feeling) that Lily was *not* a nice person, at least not in her school days and maybe not even afterwards. Being capable of dying for your own child doesn't automatically make you a nice person. It's a sign of strength and of the ability to love selflessly, but not necessarily of being a nice person (whatever that means, as I suppose each of us has their own idea). Of course, Harry idealizes her, but then he never knew her. So, what else do we have about Lily? Petunia's angry rant of PS/SS, which might contain a grain of truth, biased though she doubtlessly is. And Hagrid's statement that Harry's parents were great wizards, which means power, but nothing else. On the contrary, IMO it is rather significant that he doesn't tell Harry anything along the lines of "She was a powerful witch and one of the kindest persons I ever met", because Hagrid is very sensitive about those positive human qualities in other persons ("Great man, Dumbledore" or what he says about Hermione). I could imagine Lily as an extremely powerful witch and woman, very sure about what she deems to be right and wrong, and ruthlessly determined once somebody dares to cross or contradict her. In a clich?-ed way, she could be described as the classical lioness. Hmmm... somehow I don't really like her. But you're welcome to disagree or send howlers. Susanna/pigwidgeon37 Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT ________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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service. "And how come those portraits seem to be alive?" "What'ya mean? All paintings move." "No, they don't. We have lots of paintings in our villa, among them a real Chagall, and none of them..." "And d'ya expect that something painted by a jackal will move? Now really..." --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Get personalised at My Yahoo!. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ewe2 at can.org.au Fri Jan 11 09:13:28 2002 From: ewe2 at can.org.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 20:13:28 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Malfoys and Mudbloods In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20020111091328.GB9289@can.org.au> No: HPFGUIDX 33186 > >Sean wrote: > >Now my point is this: such a strong theme requires, as I said, opposites to > >make it really work. So when will we find Mudbloods among the Malfoys? > Ambir wrote: > This isn't necessarily true, I mean he might not have Mudblood in his family > line. I'm not saying that it isn't impossible. Nor am I :) I'm just thinking in terms of a _consistency_ of theme. JKR has gone to a lot of trouble to establish such a duality, and the absence (so far) of a corresponding Mudblood is more than a bit suspicious to me. I'm predicting a Malfoy skeleton in the cupboard because it's nice symmetry. > Ambir again: > Here's the way it could go. Plain and simple, he falls for Hermione and she > with him. (no, please no JKR, don't do it.) Theoretically, yes, practically no :) Also to be ruled out are Mudblood revelations from Dumbledore, McGonagall or even Snape. The symmetry lies in how the _children_ deal with such a parallel in the "pecking order". Harry is already teaching how you don't have to necessarily be an adult, Pureblood, or Wizard to be the best you can be. The test for Draco & Co. is to recognise that. I don't necessarily believe that it WILL happen, but then I'm only an armchair critic :) Sean (delighted that someone tried a H/D ship to explain a theme :) -- Sean Dwyer Web: http://www.geocities.com/ewe2_au/ From ewe2 at can.org.au Fri Jan 11 09:23:46 2002 From: ewe2 at can.org.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 20:23:46 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Is the Head of my House a Hobbit? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20020111092346.GC9289@can.org.au> No: HPFGUIDX 33187 On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 08:55:06AM -0000, dittanymorgan wrote: > Has no one else wondered about the origins of "tiny Professor > Flitwick," he who has to stand on a pile of books in order to see > over his desk and teach Charms? It has to be said, so I'll say it: he could be a...half-elf. Albus doesn't mind half-giants, so why not? JKR never said house-elfs couldn't have beards either. An alternative is perhaps a half-fairy. But hobbit, no. JKR said significantly that she'd only read LoTR/Hobbit once. You can have parallels between fantasies, but direct cross-pollination stretches it a bit far for mine :) Sean (who is NOT a half-troll :) -- Sean Dwyer Web: http://www.geocities.com/ewe2_au/ From ffionmiles at hotmail.com Fri Jan 11 10:04:35 2002 From: ffionmiles at hotmail.com (ffimiles) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 10:04:35 -0000 Subject: deaths, Ginny's fate In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33188 I agree with Katze. I think one of the Weasleys will be killed - simply because they're a large family, and many, many good families ahves lost members in the war against evil. I've always thought it could be one of the twins - because tearing one from theother would be particularly indicative of how evil Voldemort's powers can be. but the fan/favourite character thing is hard - and that could well be Lupin, as he'll be out there fighting. But how many deaths can we cope with? Ffi From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Fri Jan 11 10:57:30 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 10:57:30 -0000 Subject: Paschal lamb (was Sacrifice and HP ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33189 Ebony: > Makes me wonder just who--or *what*--the Paschal lamb of the wizarding world will be. > Earlier, Pippin, on COS: > Perhaps someone from a Christian background would like to comment on the fact that Harry's denials are punctuated by the appearances of Hagrid with a rooster. In the series as a whole, it's hard to see any other candidate than Harry, assuming the sacrifice motif is accepted. However, Pippin's observation (good catch - I for one hadn't noticed) above puts Dumbledore in the frame for COS. And, sure enough, Dumbledore *is* sacrificed - by the appropriately named Lucius, who sacks him. This is linked to Pippin's wider theme of faith in the invisible because it is in this scene that Dumbledore makes the remark about only being truly gone when none have faith - ironically, to the invisible Harry and Ron. Dumbledore's 'resurrection' is in turn brought about by the sacrifice of Ginny, who is in turn saved by Harry's faith in Dumbledore. So, unlike (the apostle) Peter, Harry 'repents' *before* Dumbledore returns. Not sure where all this gets us... David From mercia at ireland.com Fri Jan 11 12:18:44 2002 From: mercia at ireland.com (meglet2) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 12:18:44 -0000 Subject: Death as a major theme Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33190 Hi, I'm a new member so this is my first post, which I hope will be OK. I've been browsing through the more recent posts and haven't found this discussed recently so forgive me if I'm going over old ground. I am finding myself more and more intrigued by J K's handling of death. >From Voldemort's name (meaning either theft of death or flight from death in French) to the calling of his disciples 'death eaters' it is clear to me that Voldemort's obsession is not just the standard evil dictator's aim of world domination but to achieve immortality in this world and to pass on that to his selected followers. The spell to conjure the dark mark, mors mordre, is, if my Latin serves, also referring to the death of death. Given that Dumbledore describes death in book one as the 'last great adventure to the well ordered mind', it seems to me that part of Voldemort's evil lies in his refusal to accept death (and presumably what comes beyond death). We are also told not just that there will be more deaths in the subsequent books but also that we will learn more about the nature of death in J K's vision of the world. For example she has said in an interview we will learn why some people become ghosts and some don't. I find this a very interesting theme and wondered if others agreed with my thoughts on Voldemort's aims. As we know names are very significant throughout the canon and I can't imagine she would cal him theft of death without good reason. Mercia From judyshapiro at earthlink.net Fri Jan 11 12:58:47 2002 From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 12:58:47 -0000 Subject: more Snape/Lily thoughts In-Reply-To: <20020111085943.33684.qmail@web14708.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33191 Eric Oppen wrote: > > ...A lot of people on here think that Snape was in love with > > Lily and resented James (and by extension Harry) because of > > that, but what if it was just the opposite? .... For all we > > know, Lily might have been extremely cruel to Young Severus, and > > deliberately humiliated him in front of his peers once, or more > > than once.... Well, it could be that Snape was in love with Lily *and* she was deliberately cruel to him. Unfortunately, being in love (or at least infatuated) and having your love object be cruel to you are not mutually exclusive. However, I don't see Snape as the sort of person who gets picked on, even in his younger days. Afterall, Sirius said that Snape "knew more curses when he arrived than half the kids in seventh year" [GOF, "Padfoot Returns"]. Not the sort of person you want to pick a fight with. pigwidgeonthirtyseven added: >...In fact, we don't even know for sure that Snape *was* an outsider. > It only serves the purpose of explaining how he could have become > the person he is now and it certainly seems very logical. But > what does "Hanging out with a gang of Slytherins", as Sirius puts > it, really mean? From the Gryffindor and especially from Sirius's > POV, even an innocent group of friends would immediately be > categorized as "gang", due to the attitude towards the other house. > But it's not clear whether they *were* friends, or a group simply > sharing certain interests, whether Snape was a part of the group or > just tolerated- it's all very vague. Actually, what Sirius says is that Snape "was part of a gang of Slytherins who nearly all turned out to be Death Eaters." [GOF, "Padfoot Returns" again.] So, yes, Snape was *part* of the "gang", not just tolerated by them. I suspect that if the other Slytherins disliked Snape, Sirius would have been sure to pick up on it. It's not like he's going to cut Snape any slack. I could see a teenage Snape as being fairly popular among the evil, ambitious Slytherins. They would like him for his abilities, and not care about his nasty personality. While we're on the topic of this quote by Sirius, there's a couple of other interesting conclusions I've drawn from it. First, people have asked what proof we have that Snape was in Slytherin as a student. I'd say this quote is proof -- Sirius says the gang was made up of (only) Slytherins; Snape was part of the gang; ergo, Snape is a Slytherin. Second, Sirius is unsure whether *all* of Snape's friends were Death Eaters. In fact, it turns out that they all were -- Avery was the only one Sirius was unsure about, but in the "Death Eaters" chapter of GoF, Avery shows up -- he's the Death Eater who begs for forgiveness and is tortured. Third, Snape's friends seem *exceptionally* committed to Voldy -- Avery in the only one of the five friends who renounces the Dark Side (he pretends he acted under the Imperiatus Curse); the other four all die fighting, or end up in Azkaban because they continued to work for Voldy after he lost power. By the way, I think this is the reason why Snape seems like such an outsider. All his friends are dead or in Azkaban, or at the very least can't show their faces at Hogwarts. Surprisingly, he and Lupin have this in common (not like that makes Snape like Lupin any better.) pigwidgeonthirtyseven also said: > Anyway, I've always had the feeling (and it's no more than just some > gut-feeling) that Lily was *not* a nice person, at least not in her > school days and maybe not even afterwards. Being capable of dying > for your own child doesn't automatically make you a nice person. Well, I've never gotten the feeling that Lily was mean. But, we really know very little about her. I agree, the fact that she gave her life for Harry tells us nothing about how she treated other people; I know women who are devoted to their children but quite cruel to others. (I imagine Narcissa Malfoy as being this way, and Petunia Dursley appears to be, too.) From Joanne0012 at aol.com Fri Jan 11 13:25:21 2002 From: Joanne0012 at aol.com (joanne0012) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 13:25:21 -0000 Subject: Why "Lord"? In-Reply-To: <129.aa9b4dc.296ff280@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33192 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Wiccagrrl313 at a... wrote: > IIRC, isn't Lord Voldemort a pseudonym Tom Riddle came up with himself when > he was young? (He was already using it when he made the diary back in his > Hogwarts days.) In which case it probably wasn't a legitimate title. My guess > is people probably used it out of fear, or because that was how he and his > followers referred to him and it stuck. Yes, exactly. IIRC, young Tom Marvolo Riddle messed around with anagrams of his full name and came up with "I am Lord Voldemort." So "Lord" is just part of his adopted name, not an actual title by any stretch of the imagination. Though apparently the wizarding world isn't aware of this yet (why not?). Sort of like The-artist-formerly-known-as-Prince-who is-now-known-as-Prince-once-again isn't really a Prince, even though that's the name his parents bestowed upon him. Did you know that Madonna is actually Madonna's original given name? Here are some other anagram results that Tom might have come up with: Immortal Dove Lord (Or Immortal Lord Dove) -- Care to discuss the symbolism of this one?! I am Lord Overt Mold I am Lord More Old TV From Ali at zymurgy.org Fri Jan 11 13:22:32 2002 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 13:22:32 -0000 Subject: Will Harry be punished for the train jinxes (was: hello and a few thoughts) In-Reply-To: <002601c19979$538c9820$d2115a18@si.rr.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33193 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "sheryl" wrote: > Does anyone think that Draco, Crabbe and Goyle (sp?, I listened to the tapes) will return to Hogwarts? I think it would be very difficult for them there now that their fathers are known to be Deatheaters. Would Dumbledore allow them back or would he let them in just so he could keep an eye on them.? > Going off at a slight tangent. Don't you think that Harry et al might > get in trouble for the condition in which they left Draco, Crabbe and > Goyle on the train. Whilst Dumbledore might understand why they did > it, there could be cause for conflict here: > > If Harry etc aren't punished then the parents of Draco etc could > complain to Fudge that Dumbledore is being too soft on rule breakers. Fudge is still refusing to believe that V is back, and doesn't want to believe that Malfoy was a DE. As the incident took place on the train, I think that the incident should come under Hogwarts rules as this is the last place they are allowed to use magic). The wizarding world in general might demand some kind of punishment for Harry at least, as he seems to be increasingly distrusted because of Rita Skeeter's article. Yet,If Dumbledore does punish them, it would seem to lack all understanding for Harry, especially as Harry is still clearly traumatised. > I guess the only way that this incident can be ignored is if Malfoy's family etc believe that as they have been "outted" as DE by Harry, that they need to lie low, and would not want to admit to being caught off guard by Mudbloods and Muggle-Lovers. > > Any thoughts here, or am I trying to read too much into this incident? From pennylin at swbell.net Fri Jan 11 14:25:55 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny & Bryce) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 08:25:55 -0600 Subject: More on Ginny -- Gender in the Potterverse -- FITD (SHIP at the end) References: Message-ID: <3C3EF5F3.2090501@swbell.net> No: HPFGUIDX 33194 Hi all -- Well, we certainly have gotten into some Ginny discussions. See! Sometimes it's all in the timing. My post on Molly-Ginny dynamics last summer garnered exactly one response IIRC. We've had a whole 2 days of meaningful Ginny debate by contrast. I am not a Ginny fan; however, I agree with Cindy. It's not that I dislike her specifically, because frankly there's just nothing there to like or dislike so much IMO. She *is*, IMO, a very flat & undeveloped character. I do feel I have a much better sense of all the other individual Weasleys other than Ginny. I remain open to liking Ginny in the later books...but frankly I am skeptical This leads me to several wonderings -- 1. Because she is so undeveloped & flat, I do find it hard to believe that JKR could be using this convention that Pippin first cited of having her be Harry's fated true love since she was the first eligible girl he saw in the wizarding world. I think if JKR was really going to have Ginny serve as Harry's eventual love interest, she would have (*should* have???) given her a *little* more development, more screen time ... a more gradual development of reader interest. As it is, if she is to be Harry's love interest, JKR will have to move fast, relatively speaking. As a reader, I would prefer to have a more gradual build-up in something like this. Ron's burgeoning interest in Hermione is a perfect example of subtle, gradual & effective build-up. I know JKR is talented at taking a mere mention in one book & making him/her into a fully fleshed-out & beloved character in a later one (Sirius Black!) but ... with someone like Ginny who *has* been around in full since CoS, I would have expected more build-up. That's just me perhaps. But, that's the main reason I can't accept that Ginny is fated to be Harry's love interest. If JKR was headed there all along, she hasn't laid the foundation too well IMHO. On a related point, could Pippin (or anyone for that matter) give me some examples of novels where this convention (first girl boy sees is the one he is fated to be with) is used? I *honestly* can't think of any, which is another stumbling block to my perception of the theory in general. :--) 2. I'd like to point out that I don't recall being critical of Ginny's crying. Maybe someone else was & I just didn't notice this ...but I'm a bit baffled by the Ginny defenders who are offended because someone was critical of Ginny crying. She's certainly justified in CoS. Now, her running after the train laughing & crying in the Platform scene -- it's not the crying that bugs me. This leads to ... 3. I'm really more bothered by the *depiction/characterization* of Ginny by JKR than I am by her actual character if that makes any sense. I think JKR is drawing her as a younger character than she actually is chronologically speaking. When I first read SS, I would *never* have pegged her to be 9/10. If you'd asked me, I would have said 6. All the language is slanted towards painting her as a "little girl." Harry thinks of her as the "little girl." Her mother is holding her hand. When Ginny tries to say, "Can I go..," her mother *hushes* her & says "You're too young." It has the flavor of a conversation they've had several times before, hence Molly's impatience with it all. And, IMO, a 9/10 yr old girl would be capable of understanding that she would be going to Hogwarts in another year's time but that she wasn't yet old enough to go. A 6/7 yr old, OTOH, might have trouble making this distinction. Then, there's the "ooh, can I go gawk at HP?" business, which is definitely groupie-like, though not necessarily limited to that of a 6/7 yr old. But, on the whole, I just find her painted as being much younger than she's supposed to be. I still think too that if you contrast how Ginny is depicted in each book with how Ron is depicted in the previous book, there are some glaring differences. She is, IMHO, depicted much, much younger than just one year off from Ron. OR, is it that she's a *girl*? Is Ron treated differently by his mother because he's a boy? Is he treated differently by JKR because he's a boy? Which leads to... 4. Excellent observations on gender in the Potterverse by Elizabeth & Julie. I still think the salon.com article on this topic is way off-base because the author doesn't give JKR any credit for creating Hermione, who *is* a strong positive portrayal of a female character. And, I certainly give McGonagall a better grade for strong positive portrayal than Elizabeth does (I've written some longish posts on McGonagall in the past). But, I do think some valid points are being raised about female characterization. I hope JKR will correct some of this in the latter 3 volumes, and she's certainly got time & talent to do so. She has in interviews been fairly defensive of her female characters though, so I'm not sure she's taking it too seriously. She of course always cites Hermione, which is valid, esp. since the salon.com article did not interpret Hermione very positively, which was unfair & wrongheaded IMO. Serenadust said: > This is one reason I gave up on fanfic. I suspect the widespread > hostility to Ginny/Cho and the other girls is that they are perceived > as threatening to the H/H ship. This is the only reason I can see > for sticking poor Ginny with Malfoy so often in fanon (a fate worse > than Death IMO). Widespread hostility to Ginny in the fanfic fandom? Huh? I certainly agree with Julie's point that the fanon world is hostile to the minor female characters, including Cho, but Ginny? My perception is that it is the H/H shippers who are in the minority, although probably not terribly far in the minority (perhaps 60/40 as far as inter-Trio ships go). Maybe everyone perceives themselves to be in the minority as far as ships are concerned though. Serenadust again: > I think that JKR is perfectly capable of executing OBHWF in a way > that most readers would be fine with (if that's where she wants to > go). I think that people like this theory mainly because everyone > ends up happy this way. The other theories (FITD and HGG) require > that Ron and Ginny end up dead/evil or punished in some way. I still > don't get the hostility toward the two of them. FITD does not require that Ron and Ginny end up dead or evil! It just simply posits that at this point in canon, it is possible/likely that none of the romantic interests are two-sided. It does not mean that Ron must betray Harry over Hermione, only that it's possible. It does not mean that Ron must die. It doesn't even really address Ginny per se. In fact, since FITD posits that Harry is interested in someone *other than* Hermione (or no one), it is very possible for H/G to fit into the FITD theorem. What FITD *does* stand for is the proposition that R/H is not a foregone conclusion, because it appears that Hermione is, at a minimum, ambiguous or conflicted in her romantic interest *at this time*! She is not, in other words, head over heels in love with Ron & they are not fated to be a couple, remain a couple, get married & produce loads of kids with bushy red hair & large front teeth. FITD does *not* stand for the proposition that Ron and Ginny will end up dead or evil (or that they should be). It does not even mean no //R/H *ever* for that matter. As for my personal feelings, I do think Ron is potentially a death, and I do think that if it comes about, it will be because of his jealousies in one form or another. But, I by no means think that he must die or that his death is a definite thing. It's hard to make definite predictions in the Potterverse! :--) Must end this here for now, but I may come back & add some more thoughts on the gender issues in the Potterverse. Baby is screaming to go on a walk though so ... Penny From margdean at erols.com Fri Jan 11 15:31:17 2002 From: margdean at erols.com (Margaret Dean) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 10:31:17 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Is the Head of my House a Hobbit? References: Message-ID: <3C3F0545.344EA576@erols.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33195 dittanymorgan wrote: > > Has no one else wondered about the origins of "tiny Professor > Flitwick," he who has to stand on a pile of books in order to see > over his desk and teach Charms? After all, we never see his feet > (shod or un...) Yes, I know his hair is snowy (not brown) and he > sports a beard. Who's to say that Hobbits don't go grey and grow > beards - even though Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin managed to stay > cleanshaven from Bagend to the Falls. Well, he'd have to be a Stoor (the only group of hobbits with any facial hair at all) -- or maybe it's a false beard! :) --Margaret Dean From judyshapiro at earthlink.net Fri Jan 11 13:54:45 2002 From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 13:54:45 -0000 Subject: Yet Another Time Turner Q In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33196 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "tex23236" wrote: > Science Fiction has many ways of dealing with time travel. The one > JKR seems to have selected is the idea that the time traveler can't > change history. In fact, in this solution, the time traveler often > causes the events that happen. For example, if Neville breaks > something, he can't go back in time and prevent the accident. In > many time travel stories of this sort, the time traveler causes the > thing he was trying to prevent. Harry saw himself, then went back > and conjured the big patronus. His time travel caused the final > state of the reality. I suspect Dumbledore's admonition that they > not be seen had more to do with witnesses seeing them when they > were supposed to be elsewhere, but that's just me. I agree completely -- in the Potterverse, it seems that time travelers don't change the past; any effects of time travelers are right there in history, all along. In fact, this view of time travel has often been proposed in serious scientific discussion of the topic. The idea is that anything that happened in the past has, by definition, already happened. So, suppose a person wants to go back in time and save Abraham Lincoln from assassination. We *know* that they will fail. How do we know that? Well, because if they had suceeded, Lincoln would not have been assassinated, and our current history books wouldn't say that he was assasinated. After all, whatever happened to Lincoln, happened over a century ago. From the point of view of the time traveler, it might *seem* like it hasn't happened yet ("Tomorrow, I'll get in my time machine and go back to 1865"), but this is an illusion. (There is another serious view of time travel, that time travelers in fact arrive in a parallel universe that just seems like our own universe. But, JKR doesn't seem to have any interest in parallel universes.) Is there anything in canon that suggests time travelers can change history? Well, Hermione talks about the problem of killing one's "past self." This implies a change in history; if the time traveler had died in the past, he'd be in a grave, not getting into a time machine. But, maybe Hermione was misinformed; she heard about this second-hand from McGonagall. What about Dumbledore's statement "You must not be seen?" Well, this could be interpreted as a warning to stay out of trouble with the Ministry of Magic. But, there's another interpretation. It could tell Harry and Hermione what they will be *capable* of doing, thus giving them guidance about what they should try to do. The idea here is, if history doesn't tell us what happened, then maybe time travelers were involved, and we just don't know about. There's no point trying to save Lincoln, because we know he was assasinated. But, what about saving Amelia Earhart? Well, no one knows what happened to her. So, if we have a time machine, we might as well go back in time and try to rescue her. Who knows, maybe we succeeded and just don't know it yet. No one saw two Harrys or two Hermiones wandering around. So, Dumbledore knows they weren't seen, and is telling them they shouldn't try anything that requires being seen; he knows it will fail. By the way, this rule (no point going back and trying to do something if we already know we didn't succeed) explains why Hermione doesn't try going back to the Charms class that she missed. Harry and Ron told her she was absent, so she knows that her absence has already happened and can't be changed. When Dumbledore says "You know the law", he could in fact be referring to *natural* law, the laws of physics. Hermione doesn't seem to take it this way, but then, a 13 year old would find time travel confusing, even if she were very bright. Of course, maybe it's JKR who hasn't thought time travel through. But, I'd like to find a way to make the story consistent. From jbryson at richmond.infi.net Fri Jan 11 15:21:38 2002 From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 15:21:38 -0000 Subject: Origin of Spells In-Reply-To: <001101c19a63$6c83c7a0$a4ff3841@desktop> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33197 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., wrote: >I was wondering where spells come > from. Is there something intrinsic about the word "Accio" embedded into the > magical fabric of the universe that causes things to be brought to the > speaker Somewhere I read that the wand is a focusing mechanism. Then there would be a question as to what it focuses. JKR's magic seems to be a kind of mental kenetics, so an incantation may also be a method to focus the energy. In CoS, dobbey does magic using neither wand nor incantaion. In instruction, the student is often told to think about something, like happy thoughts for the patronum or to think up something funny for the bogarts. My guess is that JKR's magic is about a mental image becoming reality. As for the Latin, my own experience is that you think about something harder when you are dealing with a foreign language. "Come here" might also work, if you can focus. Main thing is that the mind has to do it. I would guess that there is a lot of R&D going on, mostly charms and spells for products. Snape's potion for Lupis is said in PoA to be a recent discovery. From ewe2 at can.org.au Fri Jan 11 15:47:20 2002 From: ewe2 at can.org.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 02:47:20 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Death as a major theme In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20020111154720.GA12108@can.org.au> No: HPFGUIDX 33198 On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 12:18:44PM -0000, meglet2 wrote: > Given that Dumbledore describes death in book one as the 'last great > adventure to the well ordered mind', it seems to me that part of Voldemort's > evil lies in his refusal to accept death (and presumably what comes beyond > death). According to the Predictions FAQ, Book 5 (Order of the Phoenix) is precisely about the development of these issues. That is, that Voldemort is chasing immortality, that Harry is central to V's success/failure, and that Dumbledore's "old gang" was formed to deal with it. Recall that Albus is already well-versed in the alchemical arts dealing with immortality (PS/SS), and (which I find most interesting) has already defeated one dark wizard, though we don't know what threat Grindewald represented. We have also seen that Dumbledore has orchestrated much of Harry's direction, and monitors him quite closely. I also think there is the matter of 'progress' involved. Progress for Muggles is to conquer Nature (and by extension, death). Voldemort & Co. appear to think immortality is also the pinnacle of progress for Wizards. Dumbledore and friends appear to be saying this is an unnatural idea, and although that hasn't exactly been spelt out yet, I believe it will be. Sean (throwing a philosophical Knut or two into the fountain) -- Sean Dwyer Web: http://www.geocities.com/ewe2_au/ From ChaserChick at hotmail.com Fri Jan 11 16:44:18 2002 From: ChaserChick at hotmail.com (Liz Sager) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 10:44:18 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Female Students Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33199 >Cindy wrote: > > > In fact, there are a lot of female students who are cheated out of > > personalities in the HP books. Other than Hermione, the women > > students (from memory) are Cho, Fleur, Lavender, Ginny, Pavarti, > > Angelina, Katy and Alicia. Four play Quidditch, two like Professor > > Trelawney. Other than that, we know next to nothing about what these > > young women like to do. I know that JKR can't flesh out every minor > > character, but I'd like to see a few given more substantial > > treatment. > > And then Elizabeth Dalton replied: >This is a general problem I have with the books, and given that the author >is >female, I have to say I'm pretty disappointed about it. Ok, sure, she >originally >saw Harry as male and it just didn't occur otherwise to her until she was >underway writing, and his personality was fixed. I think part of the reason we don't hear much development from female characters (other than Hermione) is that when we read the books, we see things through Harry's eyes. We see what Harry sees, feel what Harry feels. And since he hasn't really discovered girls in "that way" yet, much character development is left to be desired. I realize that he's not going to notice his teachers in 'that way', but he might wonder in class who would. (I have the odd habit of sitting in class of my worst teachers and thinking "Who would marry them?" No offense meant, of course :D) Liz _________________________________________________________________ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Fri Jan 11 17:48:21 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (dfrankiswork at netscape.net) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 12:48:21 -0500 Subject: Hermione's ability to trust Message-ID: <4EA9866E.7B9AEDF7.6E93A4F5@netscape.net> No: HPFGUIDX 33200 I have a question about Hermione. In POA, when it first emerges that Harry does not have his uncle's permission to go to Hogsmeade, he and Ron decide that it's worth asking McGonagall anyway. Hermione opposes this. I have always been a bit puzzled by this, because I imagined logical Hermione could work out that if it really is dangerous for Harry to go, then McGonagall wouldn't permit it anyway. If in fact it's all right with McGonagall, what basis does Hermione have for objecting? In GOF, when they visit the kitchen, Dobby makes it clear that Dumbledore's basic attitude to House-Elves is similar to Hermione's own: indeed he offers more pay and holiday than Dobby is prepared to accept. Although the SPEW theme fades a little after that, the impression I get is that Hermione doesn't grasp that she has a potential ally in Dumbledore, or wonder whether he can teach her anything about how to go about such things. My question is, what does this tell us about Hermione? Harry and Ron have the typical schoolchild's instinct to keep everything from the adults - but Hermione's attitude is usually different - e.g. the Firebolt, the Marauder's Map. Any thoughts? 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 babelfisherperson at yahoo.com Fri Jan 11 18:10:21 2002 From: babelfisherperson at yahoo.com (babelfisherperson) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 18:10:21 -0000 Subject: Impressions Changed by Fandom (SHIP) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33201 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lucky_kari" wrote: > After I read GOF, I was H/R and G/H instinctively, b/c they seemed > most obvious. Eh? Ok, R/H I can understand. I can't agree with it, but I can understand it. But how is H/G "obvious" in any way at all? Sure, Ginny has a crush on Harry, but Harry barely acknowledges that she exists. And in GoF, it's not even entirely clear that Ginny is still infatuated with Harry (after all, she went on a date with Neville without even pursuing a potential opportunity to go with Harry). So it's very possible that H/G has gone IN CANON from being one-sided to being no-sided. I know that you said you're not an H/G shipper anymore, but I just can't see how you ever got the idea that it was "obvious" in any way. Red XIV From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jan 11 18:19:38 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 18:19:38 -0000 Subject: More on Ginny In-Reply-To: <3C3EF5F3.2090501@swbell.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33202 I am going to respond to Penny's points out of order... Penny wrote: >>On a related point, could Pippin (or anyone for that matter) give me some examples of novels where this convention (first girl boy sees is the one he is fated to be with) is used? I *honestly* can't think of any, which is another stumbling block to my perception of the theory in general.<< It's even older than novels--it dates all the way back to some of the oldest popular literature recorded in English: the chivalric romance. Lee C. Ramsey's "Chivalric Romances--Popular Literature in Medieval England" describes a subgenre called the child exile. His description of the hero's predicament has an eerie familiarity. "... a prince who, as a young boy, is alienated from home and inheritance, is sent into enforced exile in a land where he is unknown or where he has no social position, and must therefore reestablish his personal identity and win back his kingdom by means of natural strength and virtue. These are stories about growing up--growing up in a personal, military, social, and political sense--but growth for the heroes does not mean change as much as it means regaining something lost." About the resolution of the story and the role of the heroine, he says: "The resolution of the story comes about when the hero regains the family lost at the beginning ... The heroine is essential to the re-creation of the old family...in all the romances the hero's lady is the first eligible woman with whom he comes in contact" Here's Tennyson's telling of Sir Lancelot and Guinevere in Idylls of the King: Then Arthur charged his warrior whom he loved and honour'd most, Sir Lancelot, to ride forth And bring the Queen;--and watch'd him from the gates: The Coming of Arthur Sir Lancelot went ambassador, at first, To fetch her, and she watch'd him from the walls. A rumour runs she took him for the King. So fixt her fancy on him. Merlin and Vivien And lest you think this is all too remote from HP, just remember where all the medieval trappings of modern fantasy came from. All the unicorns, swords, dragons, castles, enchanters, "Lord" So-and-so, etc. belong to the chivalric romance. Cervantes wrote Don Quixote to ridicule them, inventing the novel in the process. It has been a struggle to get anyone to take them seriously in a work of prose ever since. :-) Penny wrote: >>Because she is so undeveloped & flatI can't accept that Ginny is fated to be Harry's love interest.<< Funny, ain't it? In Sunday chat our single listies say they'd kill to meet an honest person with a good personality and a sense of humor, but for our beloved characters no such dullness will do. Pity poor Ron, compared to Harry and fanon!Draco: no charisma, no mystery, no exotic appearance. Poor Ginny, who hasn't even got green eyes, so hopelessly just like anyone else, the way most people are till you get to know them. This compulsion to make the love interest INTERESTING is the bane of many fanfic writers: hello, Mary Sue, goodbye art. A good writer on the other hand, develops the interest in a love story from the interactions between the characters. JKR's already set up a situation there: how will Harry feel about being attracted (if he ever is) to a girl who was once possessed by his worst enemy? How will Ginny feel about her crush if she finds out he's got a bit of Voldy tucked away inside him? Pippin From mdemeran at hotmail.com Fri Jan 11 18:22:05 2002 From: mdemeran at hotmail.com (demeranville) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 18:22:05 -0000 Subject: Hermione's ability to trust In-Reply-To: <4EA9866E.7B9AEDF7.6E93A4F5@netscape.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33203 > My question is, what does this tell us about Hermione? Harry and Ron have the typical schoolchild's instinct to keep everything from the adults - but Hermione's attitude is usually different - e.g. the Firebolt, the Marauder's Map. In many ways, I can empathize with Hermione and see where she is coming from. Her personality is one ruled by logic and rules. She sets rules for herself and follows them. She sees adults not as the enemy as most kids her age do, but instead as those to trust and rely in. I think probably she is the only child or is substantially older than any other siblings she might have (can't remember which is true). Her parents probably have always treated her as an adult. (I say this because this is how I was brought up) This would make her behavior more adult like. I think she admires McGonagall and views Harry and Ron asking her as pestering her, which is completely abhorant to her as well as breaking the established rules, another huge sin to her. I think that she has yet to fully trust Dumbledore in the same manner as she does McGonagall, which is why she is hesitant to see the ally she has in him. The fact that the S.P.E.W. theme fades after this point, IMO, means that she recognizes that he is an ally for her and lets the subject drop. I think the whole point of S.P.E.W. is to show her developing social conscious. She wants to seek out those who know most about the things in life that she needs information on. She seems to be obsessive about getting every bit of information possible and sees adults as the means to her ends. She is more comfortable around adults and so, tries everything to stay in their good graces. Just my two knuts. Meg From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Fri Jan 11 19:49:17 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 19:49:17 -0000 Subject: First Glances Re: Ginny and Harry (SHIP) In-Reply-To: <3C3EF5F3.2090501@swbell.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33204 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Penny & Bryce wrote: > On a related point, could Pippin (or anyone for that matter) give me > some examples of novels where this convention (first girl boy sees is > the one he is fated to be with) is used? I *honestly* can't think of > any, which is another stumbling block to my perception of the theory in > general. :--) It works with both the sexes, of course. It doesn't necessarily have to be the exactly first person you see. But there is a tradition of a person whom you see the near the beginning, note in a non-romantic way and, after a long period in which you are looking in completely different directions, you end up with. Anne of Green Gables: The first boy to come to her attention is Gilbert, and after looking around everywhere, who does she end up with? War and Peace: Pierre sees Natasha briefly at the party near the beginning, when she's still just a silly kid (and if you think Ginny is silly, look at Natasha Rostova!), duly notes it, and then they go off, mess their lives up with incredibly ill-conducted romances and poorly-planned career moves, but, despite everything, end up together. David Copperfield: IIRC, Agnes Wickfield is one of the first girls to come into David's life. He barely thinks of her, except as a friend, until after his wife Dora dies, and then realizes he has loved her all the time, and they marry. Others could probably find more examples. It occured to me that most of the books I read now have not that type of storyline, while most of the books I read as a young teenager did (though I won't plague you with the titles of all that rubbish). The main attraction, I think, of the storyline is the idea that everything you spent your life looking for was right at home, and can be found in many non-romantic contexts, most famously, the Wizard of Oz. The idea was probably even more popular in the past. I don't know how many of you are familiar with Stephen Leacock, one of the greatest humourists, imho, of the 20th century. But he wrote an absolutely hilarious parody of this sort of story in which the young boy says goodbye to the young girl in the garden next door, goes overseas, has adventures, comes home, and asks himself, "Is that beautiful, young woman with the exquisite manners and the aristocratic bearing, his sunburned playmate of olden days?" At which Leacock adds something like, "You can bet it is!" IIRC, that particular romance didn't end well, and he went back to the desert to swear to his adopted Bedouin father that he would be a second Harry to him (the Bedouin's son whom he had killed in a duel) as the sun went down over the desert. It was quite complicated. But that brings us to another theme, the girl or boy from the beginning as a problem. I remember a F. Scott Fitzgerald story along these lines, where this guy ruins his entire life obsessed with this girl, who walked into his life as a boy. Of course, it can be otherwise. "My Antonia" by Willa Cather is about Jim's relationship with Antonia Shimerda. The two never have any romantic relationship, but ever since she walked into his life when they were children, she becomes the most important person in his life, even though he doesn't know it. He's involved with Lena, he marries some anonymous character, but in the end he comes back to Antonia, but not in any romantic fashion. Instead, he ends up playing with her sons, and making plans to see more of her sons and husband. I think I'm off track, since I can't see any of that plot line working with Harry and Ginny. The point is that this storyline does exist, but it is not a given, and even when it exists, it can be twisted in interesting ways. Interestingly enough, when it does happen, an important part of it is that at least one of the persons involved gives their affections to other people without success for a long time. In that respect, Harry's crush on Cho Chang might be seen as leading up to the final realization. And I'm reminded of an old fairy tale. "Seven long years I served for thee, The glassy hill I clamb for thee, Thy bloody shirt I wrang for thee; And wilt thou not waken and turn to me?" He heard, and turned to her. Eileen From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Fri Jan 11 19:58:33 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 19:58:33 -0000 Subject: Impressions Changed by Fandom (SHIP) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33205 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "babelfisherperson" > But how is H/G "obvious" in any way at all? Sure, > Ginny has a crush on Harry, but Harry barely acknowledges that she > exists. Because in most simple children's books, when one nice character has a crush on another nice character.... you get the picture. :-) But looking back, Ginny strikes me rather like Laurie in Little Women! >And in GoF, it's not even entirely clear that Ginny is still > infatuated with Harry (after all, she went on a date with Neville > without even pursuing a potential opportunity to go with Harry). So > it's very possible that H/G has gone IN CANON from being one-sided to > being no-sided. I think you should go back and read the text. Ginny does not pursue the opportunity to go with Harry because she is not interested, but because she has promised Neville. In fact, she nearly breaks down when she discovers she could have gone with Harry. I think there's no doubt that her crush on Harry is still thriving. Eileen From judyshapiro at earthlink.net Fri Jan 11 20:36:25 2002 From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 20:36:25 -0000 Subject: The Female Students (and other female charcters) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33206 > >Cindy wrote: > > > In fact, there are a lot of female students who are cheated out > > > of personalities in the HP books.... > > And then Elizabeth Dalton replied: > >This is a general problem I have with the books, and given that the > > author is female, > > I have to say I'm pretty disappointed about it... "Liz Sager" replied: > I think part of the reason we don't hear much development from > female characters (other than Hermione) is that when we read the > books, we see things through Harry's eyes. We see what Harry sees, > feel what Harry feels. > And since he hasn't really discovered girls in "that way" yet, much > character development is left to be desired. I realize that he's not > going to notice his teachers in 'that way', but he might wonder in > class who would... I agree with Cindy and Elizabeth Dalton. I love the Potter books, but the lack of good female characters is a *major* disapointment to me. Not only is JKR female herself, but her only child is female. Couldn't she have come up with some decent female characters? I do see Hermione as a positive character, but she's very much a stereotype, and she's the *only* female character who does much of anything, in the whole series. The treatment of women in the Potterverse smacks of tokenism. Sure, they can be on the faculty, but they prune flowers (Sprout) or fix sniffles (Pomfrey, who is called a nurse and not a doctor) or fuss about smudges on library books (Madam Pince) while the males save the universe. And, all the female teachers seem to fit the "fussy, uptight" stereotype, as does Hermione. Females can be students, but other than Hermione, they are just victims (Ginny, Myrtle) or frivalous (Lavender, Parvati.) Fleur's being the only girl in the Triwizard Tournament, and then being so incompetent, is another example of this tokenism. Plus, we haven't seen any women working at the Ministry of Magic, except for gossipy, stupid Bertha, who got herself killed before ever getting into the story. It's true that Harry, being male, would have fewer female friends. Still, there are ways of putting female characters in the books. We've seen Percy take a leadership role in many crises, but where is the Head Girl, whoever she is? And, there's no reason why the female teachers can't be more active. Clearly, a teacher can have an important role in the story even if Harry doesn't like that teacher (think of Snape and Lockhart.) I have to say, I was bothered by the comment here that JKR could work female teachers into the story by having Harry wonder about their love lives. Why does there need to be a romantic connection in order to put a woman in the story? There are plenty of male teachers who play major roles, and it has nothing to do with their love lives. Gee, I wish that instead of George and Fred Weasley, we had madcap, funny Georgina and Freida Weasley. I'd even settle for *Cornelia* Fudge. From mdemeran at hotmail.com Fri Jan 11 20:46:59 2002 From: mdemeran at hotmail.com (demeranville) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 20:46:59 -0000 Subject: More on Ginny In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33207 Just a thought, but who says that Ginny is neccessarily the first girl in the WW that Harry sees. He did go to Diagon Alley before he went to the train station. Are we to believe that he did not see one girl there? Maybe he was wearing blinders of some sort (only have eyes for you blinders, now that's a temptation) but I doubt this is the case. Could it be that we just don't know yet who the first girl he saw was? Just a thought Meg (sign me up for those blinders if anyone sees any) From absinthe at mad.scientist.com Fri Jan 11 20:54:14 2002 From: absinthe at mad.scientist.com (milztoday) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 20:54:14 -0000 Subject: First Glances Re: Ginny and Harry (SHIP) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33208 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lucky_kari" wrote: > The idea was probably even more popular in the past. I don't know how > many of you are familiar with Stephen Leacock, one of the greatest > humourists, imho, of the 20th century. But he wrote an absolutely > hilarious parody of this sort of story in which the young boy says > goodbye to the young girl in the garden next door, goes overseas, has > adventures, comes home, and asks himself, "Is that beautiful, young > woman with the exquisite manners and the aristocratic bearing, his > sunburned playmate of olden days?" At which Leacock adds something > like, "You can bet it is!" IIRC, that particular romance didn't end > well, and he went back to the desert to swear to his adopted Bedouin > father that he would be a second Harry to him (the Bedouin's son whom > he had killed in a duel) as the sun went down over the desert. It was > quite complicated. But that brings us to another theme, the girl or > boy from the beginning as a problem. I remember a F. Scott Fitzgerald > story along these lines, where this guy ruins his entire life obsessed > with this girl, who walked into his life as a boy. > That reminds me of something I read in the "Aristocrats" by Stella Tillyard. It's a biography and study of the daughters of the Duke of Richmond and Lennox. Anyhow, their father (who was at that time known as the Earl of March) was married to their mother when he was in his late teens and when she was about 13. It was a way of settling a debt that his father incurred from her father. He was terrified/horrifed and immediately left to travel the known world. About eight years later in Paris, he is attending the opera and sees a beautiful charming lady sitting in the next balcony. He leans over to one of his friends and asks who the lady is. It was his wife, who had grown up in the years he had been away. A more recent example is this literary subgenre is "Gigi" based on a story by Collette. Gaston is older than Gigi and thinks of her more as a little sister than anything else. Eventually, he realizes that she's grown up into a lovely young woman and falls in love with her. Another example is Amy and Laurie in "Little Women". Laurie spends most of the book pining after Jo and only realizes later that Amy isn't a little girl anymore. Milz From pigwidgeon37 at yahoo.it Fri Jan 11 21:15:31 2002 From: pigwidgeon37 at yahoo.it (=?iso-8859-1?q?pigwidgeonthirtyseven?=) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 21:15:31 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hermione's ability to trust In-Reply-To: <4EA9866E.7B9AEDF7.6E93A4F5@netscape.net> Message-ID: <20020111211531.44381.qmail@web14702.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33209 dfrankiswork at netscape.net wrote: >>I have a question about Hermione. In POA, when it first emerges that Harry does not have his uncle's permission to go to Hogsmeade, he and Ron decide that it's worth asking McGonagall anyway. Hermione opposes this. I have always been a bit puzzled by this, because I imagined logical Hermione could work out that if it really is dangerous for Harry to go, then McGonagall wouldn't permit it anyway. If in fact it's all right with McGonagall, what basis does Hermione have for objecting?<< The only satisfactory explanation I'm able to come up with is this: Hermione has witnessed several times that not only Dumbledore, but also McGonagall definitely have a soft spot for Harry. The examples coming to my mind immediately are: 1) PS/SS, Flying lesson: Harry who until some days before this event didn't even know that wizards existed nor that they flew around on broomsticks, had just put himself in grave danger by his reckless breakneck manoeuvre to catch Neville's Remembrall, but McGonagall not only doesn't expel him, but neither does she give him one single reprimand. 2) CoS: after the petrification of Mrs. Norris, it is quite obvious to the teachers present (well, not Lockhart, but he doesn't count anyway) that Harry is holding back some information that might mean potential danger for himself. When Snape suggests to use disciplinary measures to get it out of the boy, she contradicts him. I'm sure that there is something else, but I think those two examples should be sufficient to prove my point: Hermione could simply be afraid that McGonagall, because of her somewhat softer attitude towards Harry, might think "Well, Hogsmeade is controlled by Dementors anyway and there's such a crowd of students there, why should I deny Harry this little bit of fun?" and simply give him permission to go, thus putting him in danger. Not very convincing, I know, but the only explanation I can think of. >>In GOF, when they visit the kitchen, Dobby makes it clear that Dumbledore's basic attitude to House-Elves is similar to Hermione's own: indeed he offers more pay and holiday than Dobby is prepared to accept. Although the SPEW theme fades a little after that, the impression I get is that Hermione doesn't grasp that she has a potential ally in Dumbledore, or wonder whether he can teach her anything about how to go about such things.<< First, Hermione might see Dobby's situation as the exception from the rule: After all, Dobby is the only House Elf who actually *gets* payment, even if it seems that all the rest are being treated decently. If she has read "Quo Vadis" (heeheehee-wild guess, but possible), she might see Dumbledore like the enlightened Petronius who keeps a lot of slaves, treats them well, has one freedman (is this the correct English term??), but has never yet wasted as much as one single thought on freeing *all* his slaves. And then, Hermione really strikes me as a person who wants to do things on her own. She's not the type for second hand experience. She's started S.P.E.W., she goes through with it, without bothering to ask herself whether somebody else might have the same ideas and therefore eventually be able to give her advice. BTW, what do you folks think of Harry's and Ron's loyalty to Hermione when it comes to S.P.E.W.? Frankly, I don't liek their attitude very much- it seems that they are ashamed of having such a stupidly idealistic friend and don't stick to her- they don't wear their badges, having bought them only to silence her. >>My question is, what does this tell us about Hermione? Harry and Ron have the typical schoolchild's instinct to keep everything from the adults - but Hermione's attitude is usually different - e.g. the Firebolt, the Marauder's Map.<< That pretty much proves (at least I think so) what I said before: When McGonagall denies Harry the permission to go to Hogwarts, Hermione recognizes that she *is* reasonable when it comes to Harry putting himself in danger. Therefore, she isn't afraid any more that her Head of House might simply say:"Oh, Miss Granger, please don't fuss around, let the boy keep his broom, for God's sake, he's been through enough to deserve a little fun!" Susanna/pigwidgeon37 __________________________________________________________________ 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/ Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT ________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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service. "And how come those portraits seem to be alive?" "What'ya mean? All paintings move." "No, they don't. We have lots of paintings in our villa, among them a real Chagall, and none of them..." "And d'ya expect that something painted by a jackal will move? Now really..." --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Get personalised at My Yahoo!. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cindysphynx at home.com Fri Jan 11 21:19:30 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 21:19:30 -0000 Subject: The Female Students (and other female charcters) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33210 Judy wrote: >I love the Potter books, > but the lack of good female characters is a *major* disapointment to > me. > The treatment of women in the Potterverse smacks of tokenism. Sure, > they can be on the faculty, but they prune flowers (Sprout) or fix > sniffles (Pomfrey, who is called a nurse and not a doctor) or > fuss about smudges on library books (Madam Pince) while the > males save the universe. Hmmm. While I would welcome more and better female characters, I think we do have to acknowledge JKR's limited successes in incorporating women into the books so far. The list of successes is a short list, but it is a list nonetheless: 1. Rita Skeeter. She is a brilliant characterization IMHO, as JKR really has her ooze insincerity. She is very important, and she is an example of a character who could easily have been male but is female. 2. Mrs. Lestrange. Again, it appears that Mrs. Lestrange rather than Mr. Lestrange wears the pants in the family. It could have easily gone the other way. 3. Madam Maxime. Again, she is a character who could have been a man. She will probably be important in future books. 4. Winky. She could have easily been a male. 5. Trelawney. Like her or not, believe in her or not, you have to admit that she gets plenty of attention in two books and is reasonably well-developed. I also think we have to be careful about denigrating what the female teachers do. If we complain that Sprout "prunes flowers," we have to make the same complaint that Snape "just cooks." Also, I don't recall anyone having sniffles fixed by Madam Pomfrey. Instead, I recall her re-growing bones that a male teacher had accidently removed, in addition to fixing all manner of signficant injuries. On balance, I think the books are definitely improving in their attempt to work in meaningful female characters. Most of the better female characters are in GoF, IMHO. There is still a ways to go, but we do have four major female characters (Rita, Hermione, McGonagall and Trelawney) who get a fair amount of attention and development from JKR, and we are almost certain to see more. >And, all the female teachers seem to fit the > "fussy, uptight" stereotype, as does Hermione. I think it overstates the case a bit to say that "all" of the female teachers fit the fussy, uptight stereootype. I don't see Trelawney as fussy and uptight. I also don't see Hooch or McGonagall as fussy or uptight -- McGonagall is strict (as she should be), but she bent the rules to get Harry a broomstick in PS/SS. If McGonagall's strictness makes her uptight, then I'd say Snape is equally uptight because he is especially strict with Harry. As I've said, I'd like to see JKR do more with the female characters, and there is room for improvement. It's awfully hard to argue that women have been given a whole heck of a lot to do. And when they have been given a bit of limelight, they are sometimes wooden or obnoxious. (Ginny, Fleur). But things could have been much, much worse than they are, and I expect they will get better in OoP and thereafter. Cindy (thinking the pressure is on to have Mrs. Figg be even better than Lupin, Black and Moody put together) From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jan 11 21:26:33 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 21:26:33 -0000 Subject: Sacrifice and HP (non-SHIP, was Re: H/H/R Triangle) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33211 Ebony wrote: >>Anthropologist Rene Girard posits a theory<< French anthropology? cough*Levi-Strauss*cough. I gave up after reading a longwinded explanation of why, in all primitive societies, roast meat has more cachet than stewed. Said author went on and on about "the raw and the cooked" but never noted that roasting stuff on a spit which has to be turned (a hot, sweaty, monotonous job) is a lot more labor intensive than putting something in the pot to boil. As for this interesting theory, Tabouli's taught me to be alert for West-o-centric individualism-is-the-law-of-the-universe thinking. >> "Indeed, violence is one means of creating a "self", a process that usually begins by creating an "other"--someone or something different that can be destroyed to identify the self. "<< Most of the world thinks in terms of "Us" and "Them"...always has. According Professor Dipak Gupta of the Fred J. Hansen Institute for World Peace at San Diego State University, this mindset stems from a group response to predators. Once "They" are identified, all of Them may become the target of a killing frenzy he calls "collective madness." And any of Us could be the killer. >>" Violent destruction, however, usually prompts someone to strike back in revenge. Violence is thus reciprocal, endlessly so. "In order to interrupt temporarily this reciprocal violence--and preserve the species--revenger and perpetrator will occasionally find a scapegoat to sacrifice, a more or less neutral party to kill, thus satisfying our violent natures without setting off another revenge cycle. Only sacrifice--a form of violence--interrupts violence."<< IMO--this is my thinking derived from my own limited studies--the cycle of violence goes on till one of the sides has run out of resources to carry on the fight and is subdued or eliminated. If a culture in defeat is to escape assimilation it must possess or develop a mythology which comforts the humbled...Christianity emphasizes willing sacrifice, but other cultures call on a philosophy of submission to a protective Power, the hope of redemption, or the transcendence of earthly desire. Ebony: >>The final aspect of sacrifice--and this I am getting from my admittedly limited knowledge of comparative religion, coupled with my own religion--is that you cannot sacrifice just any old thing. Somehow, I doubt that this is exclusive to Christianity. Many of the characters who are proposed as (I quote) "cannon fodder" do not have the same emotional value as others who we assume are protected.<< In other cultures the act of sacrifice ennobles the individual, not the other way around. The "cannon fodder" become glorious martyrs. Voldemort expects this from his Death Eaters, but the same effect transforms Cedric in the readers' eyes. The Quest is renunciatory, yes, but not necessarily sacrificial. Pre-LOTR, many a fantasy hero(ine) returned home all the better for the adventure: Carroll, Barrie, and Cabell generally end things more or less where they began. Even The Hobbit has this kind of ending. The Paschal lamb of the Potterverse could be a lowly or degraded person who gains redemption for *himself* by his sacrifice -- in which case it could be Peter Pettigrew. Pippin From virtualworldofhp at yahoo.com Fri Jan 11 21:29:15 2002 From: virtualworldofhp at yahoo.com (virtualworldofhp) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 21:29:15 -0000 Subject: Impressions Changed by Fandom (SHIP) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33212 Personally, I can say fandom has introduced more theories than I would have thought up on my own, but not necessarily subscribe to. I used to think H/H was ludicrous, but after reading thest fabulous posts and essays about the H/H ship, it has grown to be something I respect and recognize as having potential, even though I don't *personally* subscribe to the prediction. I also used to not generally have an opinion on Ginny whatsoever, but now I think I am more positively inclined towards her character since reading fandom and HPfGU. I think I have gone from disliking Fleur to feeling more apathetic than anything. I'm still not a liker of Cho, and I don't think anything in fandom could change that. I've learned to like Ron and recognize the deeper aspects of his character. Fandom has made me explore my own feelings and delve into a deeper level thinking than I would have if I had stuck strictly to canon-reading. I've heard countless Petunia-Squib theories, Snape/Lily, Snape-is-a-vampire, Mrs. Norris-is-an-Animagus, etc etc. While I don't agree with them in particular, I can see small shades of sense in each one, and their subscribers have fleshed out the theories so that they are very believeable to those inclined to favor them. Etc, etc. I think I'm rambling, and I think you get my point. ;-) -Megan From pigwidgeon37 at yahoo.it Fri Jan 11 22:02:11 2002 From: pigwidgeon37 at yahoo.it (pigwidgeon37) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 22:02:11 -0000 Subject: On "Little Women", strength and maturity Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33213 Penny wrote: >>On a related point, could Pippin (or anyone for that matter) give me some examples of novels where this convention (first girl boy sees is the one he is fated to be with) is used? I *honestly* can't think of any, which is another stumbling block to my perception of the theory in general.<< Uh, the only example I could offer, though not from literature, would be Konrad Lorenz' grey geese and their mechanism of imprinting: They stubbornly follow the first moving object they set eyes on after hatching- whether it is their mother, a human or a wooden horse dragged by a child. Not very poetic, but it leaves the possibility that Harry will become a grey goose animagus. Still Penny: >>I'm really more bothered by the *depiction/characterization* of Ginny by JKR than I am by her actual character if that makes any sense. I think JKR is drawing her as a younger character than she actually is chronologically speaking. When I first read SS, I would *never* have pegged her to be 9/10. If you'd asked me, I would have said 6. All the language is slanted towards painting her as a "little girl." Harry thinks of her as the "little girl." Her mother is holding her hand. When Ginny tries to say, "Can I go..," her mother *hushes* her & says "You're too young." It has the flavor of a conversation they've had several times before, hence Molly's impatience with it all. And, IMO, a 9/10 yr old girl would be capable of understanding that she would be going to Hogwarts in another year's time but that she wasn't yet old enough to go. A 6/7 yr old, OTOH, might have trouble making this distinction. Then, there's the "ooh, can I go gawk at HP?" business, which is definitely groupie-like, though not necessarily limited to that of a 6/7 yr old. But, on the whole, I just find her painted as being much younger than she's supposed to be.<< Yes, you're right, she seems younger than she actually is. But then she is the youngest of seven children and might be very well aware that "playing baby" with her mum is a winning strategy, because it meets her mother's desires: For years on end, Molly Weasley has seen her children leave the house, first for school, then for work, and at the beginning of PS/SS she has exactly one year left with her "baby girl" before she will have to spend her days in an empty house for the greater part of the year. Therefore, the "baby" illusion is created by both of them, by Molly because it gives her something to hold on to and to protect, and by Ginny because the baby is definitely treated with more indulgence than her older siblings. Her first year at Hogwarts will shatter her illusions thoroughly and I think that by GoF (having been left out in PoA) she has grown up a lot: Take for example the short scene with Ron and Harry in the Common Room, after Ron asked Fleur to be his date for the Yule Ball: No giggling, no fussing around, she tries to talk her brother out of his embarrassment. When I read the scene, I had the distinct impression that there is a very sound brother-sister relationship between Ginny and Ron. When Harry asks her about Hermione's date, she reacts in a very mature way for a 13 YO: If she really was the immature little girl, she'd blurt it all out to the boys, to make herself more important, but she doesn't, instead she tells them to go and ask their friend if they want to know. Cindy wrote: >>While I would welcome more and better female characters, I think we do have to acknowledge JKR's limited successes in incorporating women into the books so far. The list of successes is a short list, but it is a list nonetheless: 1. Rita Skeeter. She is a brilliant characterization IMHO, as JKR really has her ooze insincerity. She is very important, and she is an example of a character who could easily have been male but is female. 2. Mrs. Lestrange. Again, it appears that Mrs. Lestrange rather than Mr. Lestrange wears the pants in the family. It could have easily gone the other way. 3. Madam Maxime. Again, she is a character who could have been a man. She will probably be important in future books. 4. Winky. She could have easily been a male. 5. Trelawney. Like her or not, believe in her or not, you have to admit that she gets plenty of attention in two books and is reasonably well-developed.>> Of course the women on your list are strong females, but all of them are either downright bad or at least flawed: Skeeter- well, I don't think I've got to elaborate Lestrange- Death Eater, nuff said Maxime- not even strong enough to stand up for her own identity Winky- loyal, but not strong, drowns her sorrows in Butterbeer Trelawney- probably an old fraud Frankly, I'd rather prefer a complete absence of strong women to an unspoken, yet inherent equation "strong women = bad women". And as for the rest of them: McGonagall seems to be a strong woman and a powerful witch, but is given the looks of an old spinster. Fleur Delacour is beautiful, but commits major errors in every Triwizard task- so does Krum, but he is a first-class seeker, whereas Fleur doesn't have any other outstanding quality. So it all seems to come down to either "strong and intelligent, but bad/plain", or "beautiful, but shallow and not top level" which is a bit clich?- ed. I would gratefully let myself convince of the contrary, though, so I'd like to see your arguments. Susanna/pigwidgeon37 From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Fri Jan 11 23:15:15 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 23:15:15 -0000 Subject: Ginny's crush (was Impressions Changed by Fandom)(SHIP) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33214 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lucky_kari" wrote: > Ginny does not pursue the opportunity to go with Harry because she is not interested, but because she has promised Neville. In fact, she nearly breaks down when she discovers she could have gone with Harry. I think there's no doubt that her crush on Harry is still thriving. > > Eileen Not only so, but when she hears that Harry asked Cho, and sees his strength of feeling about it, it wipes away her laughter at Harry and Ron. The see-sawing emotions of these characters and Hermione, and what they betray about what they think of each other and Neville, is one of the high points of the book for me. On the subject of Ginny's 'crush', I always cringe a bit when this term is used. In COS, she hardly knows him - fair enough. By GOF, is it fair to call it that, after more than two years? Although their on-screen time together is pretty small, hasn't she had a fair opportunity to get to know Harry? I would use crush to refer to a situation where the 'crushee' is more a fantasy than the real person - though put like that I suddenly realise I am among experts. :-) David From marybear82 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 11 23:21:04 2002 From: marybear82 at yahoo.com (Mary Shearer) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 15:21:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] On "Little Women", strength and maturity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020111232104.74616.qmail@web14008.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33215 --- pigwidgeon37 wrote: > > Frankly, I'd rather prefer a complete absence of > strong women to an > unspoken, yet inherent equation "strong women = bad > women". And as > for the rest of them: McGonagall seems to be a > strong woman and a > powerful witch, but is given the looks of an old > spinster. Fleur > Delacour is beautiful, but commits major errors in > every Triwizard > task- so does Krum, but he is a first-class seeker, > whereas Fleur > doesn't have any other outstanding quality. So it > all seems to come > down to either "strong and intelligent, but > bad/plain", > or "beautiful, but shallow and not top level" which > is a bit clich- > ed. > > I would gratefully let myself convince of the > contrary, though, so > I'd like to see your arguments. O.K. What about Hermione? She is becoming a beauty, even as her skills increase. Her relationship with Harry and Ron grows in depth and complexity, even as she gets in touch with her feminine side. Lest we think her Cinderella appearance at the ball is her undoing, we see her right back at the books the next day. She may be all-consumed by her quest for academic distinction, but cares enough about her appearance to cry over her crooked teeth. My point (and I do have one, folks) is that Hermione's appearance and her character have little to do with each other. Like every real-life woman I know, she has her good and bad moments inside and out. Also Harry's mother (who seems reasonably attractive, according to description) was a powerful witch, who enjoyed much success at Hogwarts, and possessed the depth of spirit to sacrifice herself for Harry. How I long to know more about her! Do you suppose JKR will give us even a little back story? C'mon, Jo - throw us a bone! Admittedly, we don't get to know the Quidditch chasers very well - but they, too, are attractive, self-confident and successful. Fred and Angelina's brief interaction is great - and denotes self-assurance in Angelina, who is described as tall and slender. (Certainly coveted physical attributes in today's society.) Molly Weasley is no great beauty, but no troll either, and has been given a very touching role as Harry's surrogate mother. (No, she's not out vaporizing evil wizards, but she sure has her hands full nonetheless.) At the end of GoF, we glimpse her true strength of character, and I expect more from her as Harry's attachment to her grows, and the Weasleys' role in the upcoming crisis becomes clear. I too, would like to see more of the H.P. women - but I don't think we need to look any further than the ones we have. It wouldn't take much to make these characters stronger - just a little time in the spotlight, and a few lines of meaningful dialogue would do. Look at Molly - not only do I feel I know her better after GoF - I like and respect her immensely, even though she doesn't have pages of text devoted to her. McGonagall may not be much to look at - she may be strict and intimidating. But she also has a deep affection for her students, and a true affinity with Dumbledore, who embodies the notions of tolerance and compassion. She weeps quietly for baby Harry's plight and the death of his parents at the beginning of SS/PS, and reacts to the dementor death of young Crouch with unbridled fury. As for her physical appearance "plain/bad?" I don't think so entirely. Her looks are severe, but more age-related than anything else. JKR often refers to her face softening, the hint of a smile, or a voice that spoke kindly. The kids may not relate to her because of her age, but she is no blisteringly ugly hag, either. Well - enough brain droppings littering the floor for now! Hope we see more of the H.P. women we already have in future books, as Harry looks around him more. -Mary, who looks a lot like Molly Weasley, and doesn't think she's a troll, either. > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ From mdemeran at hotmail.com Fri Jan 11 18:34:02 2002 From: mdemeran at hotmail.com (demeranville) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 18:34:02 -0000 Subject: More on Ginny In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33216 Just a curiosity but who says that Ginny was the "first girl in the WW that Harry saw" He went to Diagon Alley before the train station. Are there absolutely no girls there? Who says that he saw no girls that entire day. What kind of blinders what he wearing (I have a guy I would love to put those on)? Just because there is no girl is mentioned, yet, does not mean that he didn't see anyone. Just a thought. Meg (who is really wondering about those blinders) From ck32976 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 11 19:04:01 2002 From: ck32976 at yahoo.com (ck32976) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 19:04:01 -0000 Subject: Why "Lord"? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33217 > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Wiccagrrl313 at a... wrote: In which case it probably wasn't a legitimate title. My guess is people probably used it out of fear, or because that was how he and his followers referred to him and it stuck. --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "joanne0012" wrote: > Yes, exactly. IIRC, young Tom Marvolo Riddle messed around with anagrams of his full name and came up with "I am Lord Voldemort." So "Lord" is just part of his adopted name, not an actual title by any stretch of the imagination. Though apparently the wizarding world isn't aware of this yet (why not?). I guess that is kind of what I was getting at. If it a self- proclaimed Lord, he doesn't deserve to be called that by others. I know that not everyone knows his given name, and I understand entirely that his followers would refer to him as Lord, even if it is a title he gave to himself. But for those who are against him I would think that they'd just call him Voldemort. I definitely think that everyone, including Dumbledore, has some form of respect for him. I think Dumbledore and others that are not followers respect that he is a powerful wizard, but I don't think they look up to him or hold him in high regard. I don't know if I'm making much sense. I just think that other than the Death Eaters, people should not call him Lord, because ,IMHO, it conveys a level of veneration that he doesn't deserve. I know it is a semantic argument, but I really don't like the guy (shocker!!) The Tom thing was sort of a joke. I know that it would be highly unlikely, albeit vey funny, that anyone would call him Tom (even if his common name was well known throughout the wizarding world. He would deserve to be called by his name, butI for one wouldn't be brave enough to do it! ; ) I also realize from reading through my original message that it might be misconstrued that my motivation for this question was of a religious nature, but it isn't. Thanks to all for your insight on this, I really appreciate it. Carrie From ck32976 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 11 18:37:52 2002 From: ck32976 at yahoo.com (ck32976) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 18:37:52 -0000 Subject: Hi and the question of colors, Ginny, and girl behavior In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33218 Meg wrote: "I know, and I realize that there are places where red is "evil" LV's eyes being one of these instances. But in thinking about it further, there may be a dualistic meaning to the colors. Red can stand for danger but also means "brave and strong, generous and just" in medieval symbolism. Green as well could have the same sort of dualism. As I said earlier, it could be evil, but medieval symbolism creates a meaning of "hope, joy and love". It seems to me that it is when the colors are paired with another color, red and gold, green and grey, that the meanings I was talking about show up. When red or green is taken away from its sister color, the opposite is true. Just a further thought." I see what you are saying. I had honestly never though about color combinations. But the idea of colors in combination meaning one thing, and the same colors alone meaning the opposite is really quite intriguing. Carrie From pbeider at yahoo.com Fri Jan 11 19:10:45 2002 From: pbeider at yahoo.com (pbeider) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 19:10:45 -0000 Subject: How did Crabb and Goyle get to be Death Eaters? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33219 This is the second of two questions I (a newbie) did not find addressed in the "Mysteries and Inconsistencies FAQ": Near the end of Book 4, Crabb and Goyle are among the Death Eaters Voldemort talks to individually; he says something about them doing better "next time." But if they're close to Harry's age, they couldn't have done any work for Voldemort before his disappearance. Is it plausible that they would have had enough knowledge of Voldemort's revival to have signed on as Death Eaters since then?? From cstump at kirkwood.cc.ia.us Fri Jan 11 19:51:16 2002 From: cstump at kirkwood.cc.ia.us (grandisiowa) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 19:51:16 -0000 Subject: Snape and Lily In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33220 Here's a thought...what if Snape and Lily were only cursorily connected via James? Lily is James' girlfriend, and Snape particularly disliked James. They probably had some interaction.But attraction? No. I think evidence so far discourages Snape's attraction to Lily. Snape was a Slytherin. Snape was a Deatheater and a follower of Voldemort. Lily has Muggle parents. This makes her,according to the Deatheater Nazi regime, a Mudblood. Not likely, given Snapes's connections, that he's going to be attracted to a Mudblood. I don't find a lot of credence in any Snape/Lily theory. If anything, Snape is likely to dislike Lily. Now, how about Lily. Unrequited love for Snape? Nope. Nothing indicates that she was unhappy with James. As a matter of fact, there is the feeling in the book that suggests James and Lily were happy.I find this unlikely.How did she feel about Snape in general? Snape really hated the man she really liked. So, depending on Snape's level of hostility, she probably gauged her reactions accordingly. I think the Snape and Lily coupling is speculation without real foundation. I could be entirely wrong, but nothing in the book leads in that direction, and the prejudices that have been revealed in the book so far make the possibility unlikely. Catherine From christi0469 at hotmail.com Fri Jan 11 22:12:34 2002 From: christi0469 at hotmail.com (christi0469) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 22:12:34 -0000 Subject: The Female Students (and other female charcters) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33221 > > The treatment of women in the Potterverse smacks of tokenism. Sure, > they can be on the faculty, but they prune flowers (Sprout) or fix > sniffles (Pomfrey, who is called a nurse and not a doctor) or > fuss about smudges on library books (Madam Pince) while the > males save the universe. And, all the female teachers seem to fit the > "fussy, uptight" stereotype, as does Hermione. Females can be > students, but other than Hermione, they are just victims (Ginny, > Myrtle) or frivalous (Lavender, Parvati.) Fleur's being the only girl > in the Triwizard Tournament, and then being so incompetent, is another > example of this tokenism. Plus, we haven't seen any women working at > the Ministry of Magic, except for gossipy, stupid Bertha, who got > herself killed before ever getting into the story. > > It's true that Harry, being male, would have fewer female friends. > Still, there are ways of putting female characters in the books. We've > seen Percy take a leadership role in many crises, but where is the > Head Girl, whoever she is? And, there's no reason why the female > teachers can't be more active. Clearly, a teacher can have an > important role in the story even if Harry doesn't like that teacher > (think of Snape and Lockhart.) I have to say, I was bothered by the > comment here that JKR could work female teachers into the story by > having Harry wonder about their love lives. Why does there need to be > a romantic connection in order to put a woman in the story? There are > plenty of male teachers who play major roles, and it has nothing to do > with their love lives. > > Gee, I wish that instead of George and Fred Weasley, we had madcap, > funny Georgina and Freida Weasley. I'd even settle for *Cornelia* > Fudge. While I agree that there are not many female characters that could be considered strong in the HP books, I disagree with the characterization of the entire female faculty of Hogwarts as fussy and uptight. Prof. Trelawny seems laughable, but I certainly do not see her as fussy and uptight. Prof. McGonagall is strict and very much in command, but she also has a compassionate side. She gives the outward appearance of being uptight but relaxes and has fun at the Christmas feast. She is also the deputy headmistress. Prof. Sprout may do pruning, but not of what I would term flowers. She bandages the whomping willow and deals with the potentially fatal mandrakes. Without her there would be no hope for the petrified students(and cat). Mme Pomfrey does much more than tend to sniffles, she heals broken bones and burns and petrified students(with the help of Sprout and probably Snape). She seems to have a good command of the infirmary, and has the guts to ask Dumbledore to leave. She may only be a nurse, but with nurses like that who needs doctors? And I have never met a school doctor, even in college. And Mme Pince is extremely stereotypical of a librarian. Prof. Hooch is a Quidditch referee as well as teaching flying. We only see one flying lesson, but I imagine Harry may just have been exempted from flying lessons for obvious reasons. Prof. Hooch points out that Malfoy has been "doing it wring for years". I also object to the characterization of Fleur as incompetent. When she faces the dragon she does a very good job of entrancing it. Her robes catch fire only because the dragon snorts in its sleep, and she immediatly put the flames out with a jet of water from her wand (Cedric also gets burned, Harry gets injured by the dragons tail, and Krum breaks a lot of eggs). She starts out competently enough at the second task, only to be caught by grindylows. IMHO, this is just so that Harry can save the only hostage that does not matter to him personally. She might have had a decent chance at the third task if she had not been stunned by Crouch. The fact that the goblet of fire chose her at all suggests that she is brave and competent. It is true that JRK could have switched the genders of some of the characters. But Cornelius Fudge at the end of GoF is not exactly a steller figure, even if he is the MOM. Dumbledore could have been a women, but it would take away from his resemblence to Merlin (IMHO, of course) and may have made Harry less comfortable with him. If Fred and George had been girls Harry might not have developed a good relationship with them. I also suspect that Ron may have so many brothers to set him up as a seventh son (Molly and Arthur would have only have had to lose one child, and it would explain the "mortal peril" clock). And Molly Weasley seems like a stronger character than Arthur Weasley. IIRC, we are supposed to find out more about Lily in the next book, which could give us another strong female character. Harry's POV definately colors which characters we meet and how we perceive them, and I think that he may perceive more strength in female characters as he becomes more interested in them. Christi From ChaserChick at hotmail.com Fri Jan 11 22:19:33 2002 From: ChaserChick at hotmail.com (Liz Sager) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 16:19:33 -0600 Subject: Reassurance for Ginny fans (was: Emotions, GIANTCUSHION, etc) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33222 <<>> I don't think it's anything to fear over. :) I don't believe that the aforementioned fan of Harry's that will die will be Ginny. Ginny is too obvious of a choice, and J.K. is notable in that she usually does exactly the opposite of what we expect. And besides, if she died, it would be just a reminiscent of CoS. Liz _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. From blenberry at altavista.com Fri Jan 11 22:19:28 2002 From: blenberry at altavista.com (blenberry) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 22:19:28 -0000 Subject: Small flint? In-Reply-To: <3C3E3D80.28490.11760F5@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33223 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Fallenhunter" wrote: > > In CoS, Moaning Myrtle dives into the toilet and comes to > > rest "somewhere in the U-bend" (p 157). > > > > When we encounter her again in GoF, she is described as "usually to be > > heard sobbing in the S-bend of a toilet three floors below" (p 461). > > > > so which do toilets have? > > Both, depending, they have an S bend if it's a P trap, a U bend if it's > a J trap... (basically a P trap goes from the sink to the back wall, > a J trap goes through the floor.) > > Fallenhunter Aha... so Myrtle's toilet would have one or the other, but not both, correct? So this *is* a minor flint? I checked the British/American part of the lexicon and there's no mention of this, so I'm guessing the inconsistency is in the British editions as well. BB From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Fri Jan 11 23:58:39 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 23:58:39 -0000 Subject: Draco's redemption - reprise Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33224 I inadvertently mentioned this topic offlist and was ordered to post here. We elves always does what we is told by great moderator persons, preciousss. The question is, how can it be satisfying? If Draco is redeemed, it seems like a literary cliche. He has been set up as the bully who has nuisance value, the foil for Harry who so far manages to be absent whenever adventure really gets going. On the other hand, if he slides into Death Eaterism, then that's a triumph for destiny (whether by birth, or Sorting Hat, or just fate) over choice. One way out is the Gollum scenario, where Draco teeters on the brink of redemption for a while before JKR heartlessly tosses him to the Dementors. Any others? David From judyshapiro at earthlink.net Fri Jan 11 23:00:32 2002 From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 23:00:32 -0000 Subject: The Female Students (and other female charcters) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33225 I said: > > The treatment of women in the Potterverse smacks of tokenism. > > Sure, they can be on the faculty, but they prune flowers (Sprout) > > or fix sniffles (Pomfrey, who is called a nurse and not a doctor) > > or fuss about smudges on library books (Madam Pince) while the > > males save the universe. and "cindysphynx" replied: > Hmmm. While I would welcome more and better female characters, I > think we do have to acknowledge JKR's limited successes in > incorporating women into the books so far. The list of successes is > a short list, but it is a list nonetheless: > 1. Rita Skeeter.... > 2. Mrs. Lestrange... > 3. Madam Maxime... > 4. Winky... > 5. Trelawney... > ...I also think we have to be careful about denigrating what the > female > teachers do. If we complain that Sprout "prunes flowers," we have > to make the same complaint that Snape "just cooks." Also, I don't > recall anyone having sniffles fixed by Madam Pomfrey. Instead, I > recall her re-growing bones that a male teacher had accidently > removed, in addition to fixing all manner of signficant injuries. >.... I think it overstates the case a bit to say that "all" of the > female > teachers fit the fussy, uptight stereootype. I don't see Trelawney > as fussy and uptight. I also don't see Hooch or McGonagall as fussy > or uptight -- McGonagall is strict (as she should be), but she bent > the rules to get Harry a broomstick in PS/SS. If McGonagall's > strictness makes her uptight, then I'd say Snape is equally uptight > because he is especially strict with Harry.... Cindy, you are right about Rita Skeeter; I overlooked her. She is a fairly major female character. Not a pleasant one, to be sure, but then many of the males aren't pleasant, either. Winky I don't count because she isn't human. The house-elves act so differently from real people that I have a hard time seeing them as examples of human females *or* human males. Mrs. Lestrange seems very interesting. But, she has been in exactly one scene so far. We don't even know her own name (given or maiden.) And, her presence at the trial is balanced by the apparent lack of females in the Death Eater circle summoned by Voldy. Madam Maxine is also an interesting character, although we've seen only a modest amount of her so far. Trelawney does have a decent amount of lines, although she is is quite frivalous. I do see her as fussy and neurotic, always expecting people to die, afraid to sit at a table with 12 people, etc. I see McGonagall as fussy, too. McGonagall is the stereotypical prim and proper spinster, hair in a bun, spectacles, and all. And *she* didn't bend the rule about no first years with brooms -- she went to Dumbledore and asked for permission. Snape is not strict about rules in the same way that McGonagall is. He is much more machiavellian (and more interesting), he enforces rules only when it suits his purposes. Hooch came across as really cool in the movie. In the book, though, she just seems flustered and unprepared for Neville's accident. About my deingrating what the female professors do -- I may have overstated my case, but I was trying to make a point about how JKR presents the female faculty. In other words, *I'm* not trying to denigrate the female faculty, but I think to some extent canon does denigrate them. If what Madame Pomfrey does is so important, why isn't she Dr. Pomfrey? The title of school nurse *implies* someone who just fixes sniffles, even though she in fact does much more. And by saying that Sprout just "prunes flowers", I mean that she's not shown using any real powers of her own. When have we ever seen Sprout do anything magical? Given what she is shown as doing, she might as well be a muggle or a squib working with magical items, like Filch is. (Putting scarves on the mandrakes apparently took some skill, but not necessarily magical skill.) I can't remember a single spell she has done. Snape is presented as a very powerful wizard: in addition to (expertly) cooking potions, he apparates, does all sorts of spells, knew tons of curses even as a child, and managed to spy on Voldy and live to tell about it. Sprout is presented as basically, a gardener. I'm willing to grant that there are a few more female charcters than I acknowledged in my previous post. But remember, this is a few females in a story than runs (in the US edition) over 1800 pages. Among the important charcters, the proportion of females is very low; maybe we can both agree on that. From bethz1 at rcn.com Fri Jan 11 23:34:05 2002 From: bethz1 at rcn.com (Ms. Found in A Bottle) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 18:34:05 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry - genetics vs environment (WAS: Harry being afraid to cry) References: Message-ID: <001601c19af8$9540bfa0$7d3bfea9@cable.rcn.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33226 ----- Original Message ----- From: "southernscotland" > I know that this is the way J.K. wants him to be, but I still think > it's extremely odd that he has turned out so well. > > Do you think maybe Dumbledore put some sort of spell on him so that > he wouldn't be so tramatized, and that was why he felt ultimately > comfortable with placing Harry with those wretched people? I never really thought about this until after I saw the movie, but right after viewing it for the first time, I thought "why is Harry so polite?". I'm no psych major, but I would just think that someone who has been treated the way he has by his 'family' would not be so well mannered. But I'm glad I'm not the only one feels that way. Beth From babelfisherperson at yahoo.com Sat Jan 12 00:03:16 2002 From: babelfisherperson at yahoo.com (babelfisherperson) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 00:03:16 -0000 Subject: Why "Lord"? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33227 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ck32976" wrote: > The Tom thing was sort of a joke. I know that it would be highly > unlikely, albeit vey funny, that anyone would call him Tom (even if > his common name was well known throughout the wizarding world. He > would deserve to be called by his name, butI for one wouldn't be > brave enough to do it! ; ) Well, I still think it would be cool for Dumbledore to call Voldemort "Tom" when they meet face to face (as will surely happen at some point in the next 3 books). And it wouldn't be too far-fetched either. Dumbledore knew Voldemort back when he was still calling himself Tom Riddle, and being Voldemort's oldest & most powerful enemy, he's got no reason to be afraid of Voldemort becoming even MORE inclined to kill him. And taunting your opponent before a fight is a very legitimate battle strategy; a foe who's enraged is more likely to make mistakes. Red XIV From babelfisherperson at yahoo.com Sat Jan 12 00:08:13 2002 From: babelfisherperson at yahoo.com (babelfisherperson) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 00:08:13 -0000 Subject: How did Crabb and Goyle get to be Death Eaters? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33228 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pbeider" wrote: > This is the second of two questions I (a newbie) did not find > addressed in the "Mysteries and Inconsistencies FAQ": > > Near the end of Book 4, Crabb and Goyle are among the Death Eaters > Voldemort talks to individually; he says something about them doing > better "next time." But if they're close to Harry's age, they > couldn't have done any work for Voldemort before his disappearance. > Is it plausible that they would have had enough knowledge of > Voldemort's revival to have signed on as Death Eaters since then?? That's simple enough. The Death Eaters Crabbe & Goyle are the fathers of Malfoy's goons. Vincent Crabbe & Gregory Goyle were still at Hogwarts, being their usual stupid selves & presumably doing whatever Malfoy told them to do, while their fathers were at the Death Eater convention getting called out for their incompetence (perhaps stupidity runs in the families). Red XIV From babelfisherperson at yahoo.com Sat Jan 12 00:10:54 2002 From: babelfisherperson at yahoo.com (babelfisherperson) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 00:10:54 -0000 Subject: Ginny's crush (was Impressions Changed by Fandom)(SHIP) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33229 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "davewitley" wrote: > On the subject of Ginny's 'crush', I always cringe a bit when this > term is used. In COS, she hardly knows him - fair enough. > > By GOF, is it fair to call it that, after more than two years? > Although their on-screen time together is pretty small, hasn't she > had a fair opportunity to get to know Harry? I would use crush to > refer to a situation where the 'crushee' is more a fantasy than the > real person - though put like that I suddenly realise I am among > experts. :-) But a "crush" is still all it is. After 2 years, while she & Harry have indeed had ample opportunity to get to know each other better, there's absolutely no indication that they HAVE gotten to know each other better. Harry never mentions or even thinks about Ginny, so I doubt he's any closer to her in GoF than in CoS. Red XIV From babelfisherperson at yahoo.com Sat Jan 12 00:24:33 2002 From: babelfisherperson at yahoo.com (babelfisherperson) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 00:24:33 -0000 Subject: Impressions Changed by Fandom (SHIP) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33230 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lucky_kari" wrote: > Because in most simple children's books, when one nice character > has a crush on another nice character.... you get the picture. :-) That can't work in Harry Potter, though, because by that rule Harry would have to end up with Ginny AND Cho. :P Red XIV From vencloviene at hotmail.com Sat Jan 12 00:29:16 2002 From: vencloviene at hotmail.com (anavenc) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 00:29:16 -0000 Subject: Question: Lupin's appearance Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33231 Thinking about Lupin: We don't know how he looks, apart from weariness, old robes and prematurely graying hair. He is the only main character about whose, say, facial features JKR writes nothing. We know a lot about appearance of others, especially Dumbledore and Snape, whose looks are described to the smallest detail. Why not Lupin? Yes, I've consulted Lexicon. Any thoughts? Ana. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jan 12 00:33:27 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 00:33:27 -0000 Subject: The Female Students (and other female charcters) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33232 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "judyserenity" wrote: > I said: The treatment of women in the Potterverse smacks of tokenism. Sure, they can be on the faculty, but they prune flowers (Sprout) or fix sniffles (Pomfrey, who is called a nurse and not a doctor) or fuss about smudges on library books (Madam Pince) while the males save the universe. << JKR, as I've said over on Snapefans, likes to play games with our heads. She does things like underplay the performance of the Irish Chasers, so if you aren't reading carefully, you'll never realize that at least two of them are female, and they *win the game*. In the British editions, Madame Pomfrey's title is Matron, which is a female in charge of the domestic arrangements in an institution. It doesn't involve doctoring. So, has JKR elevated the female profession of matron, or downgraded the largely male profession of doctoring? We don't know how powerful Professor Sprout is as a witch, but she is the only professor at Hogwarts who can get a decent performance out of Neville...that probably makes her the best teacher in the school, bar none. Madame Rosmerta is introduced as the pretty woman serving drinks at the Three Broomsticks. Eye candy, right? Wrong...but it's not till three pages later that we learn she owns the Inn and isn't afraid to confront Fudge about the Dementors. Fleur...we haven't really seen what she can do. She's been terribly unlucky so far. What do you want to bet Dark Arts teacher and baddy Crouch/Moody misled her about the grindylows? JKR makes a point of telling us they aren't found anywhere but Britain. The concerned parent who, as far as we know, stays home except for charity work, and gets involved in educational issues is...Lucius Malfoy. Pippin From babelfisherperson at yahoo.com Sat Jan 12 00:33:47 2002 From: babelfisherperson at yahoo.com (babelfisherperson) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 00:33:47 -0000 Subject: More on Ginny In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33233 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" wrote: > Funny, ain't it? In Sunday chat our single listies say they'd kill > to meet an honest person with a good personality and a sense of > humor, but for our beloved characters no such dullness will do. Honestly. Is there ANY indication that Ginny has "a good personality and a sense of humor"? So far, she's shown little signs of having a personality AT ALL. Just because she's Ron's little sister doesn't mean she has his personality & sense of humor. Ginny is practically a non-character. So no, I have no reason to think she's good enough for Harry. It's not that she's "too dull for him", it's that we have no idea whether she's dull or not. We know next to nothing about her, and as such I can't imagine why ANYBODY would want her to be paired with Harry, or why anybody would assume she will be. Red XIV From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Sat Jan 12 01:20:58 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 01:20:58 -0000 Subject: Lily (was gender-spiked musings); structure In-Reply-To: <20020111030901.32221.qmail@web12608.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33234 Julie aka Viola wrote: > We know practically everything to know about James Potter, but next to nothing about Lily Evans. I believe that this shows that Lily is a *more* important character than James. We can see the books like this: PS: about Harry; COS: about Voldemort; POA: about James (& friends); after POA I was unimaginative enough to assume the next book would be about Lily. GOF: about the Wizarding World. Each of these is associated with a period of wizard history, which is partly revealed in the book. PS: Godric's Hollow; COS early 1940s; POA mid 70s; GOF early 80s (the Crouch years). In each book a different device is used to bring the past into the present: PS it just happens at the beginning and Dumbledore remembers at the end; COS the diary; POA Harry's own memories/inner self, both via the Dementors and in the Patronus (also Lupin, Sirius & Pettigrew); GOF the Pensieve. After the 28 December interview I'm prepared to hazard a rare prediction: OOP will be about Lily, since she is the biggest question we might have expected Harry to ask. The period of history will be the same as POA (the animagi period) or a little later, but before Harry was born. Of the other two books, the last will be about Harry, and will return with full revelation to Godric's Hollow plus his first year. No 6, possibly about Voldemort's early rise to power, perhaps involving Grindelwald. In which case it would also be Dumbledore's revelation. Or perhaps it will be Snape's book, paralleling POA. No, I think Snape will only really appear as he is in Book 7 - that would fit nicely with Harry's first year. Oh, and the Dursleys' true importance will be revealed then. (Why do people focus on Petunia-as- squib when the interesting backstory is Vernon's? Where did *he* learn to fear magic?) But I digress. Lily is being saved up *because* she is important, and her appearance will to some extent restore the gender balance. It would be nice if her old girl friends, corresponding to Sirius and Lupin, were to pop up, but that seems too easy - note that the 'old crowd' characters named were men except for the (apparently) much older Mrs Figg. I suspect this question is linked to the way that the past will be revealed this time around. I love the way the grand climax of the whole series will be, not a big showdown with Voldemort (though that may happen), but the retelling of an event which occurred a few hours before the first line of the first chapter of the first book. David From Zarleycat at aol.com Sat Jan 12 02:18:58 2002 From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 02:18:58 -0000 Subject: Snape/Lily thought... In-Reply-To: <01c001c19a6f$c31587a0$e8c71bce@hppav> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33235 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Eric Oppen" wrote: > You know, I have been wondering: A lot of people on here think that Snape > was in love with Lily and resented James (and by extension Harry) because of > that, but what if it was just the opposite? We don't know what Lily was > like at school other than that she was Head Girl. Head Girl does > _not_ equal "nice," or "kind," or much of anything other than "good at her > studies and in good with the faculty." > > For all we know, Lily might have been extremely cruel to Young Severus, and > deliberately humiliated him in front of his peers once, or more than once. > Whether with or without James' assistance, a popular, lusted-after girl in a > school can easily do this to an unpopular, overlooked boy, as in pretending > interest to get his hopes up, only to yank the rug out from under him at the > worst possible moment. > > Snape, as I see him, is a proud person, and in this scenario, he might even > have joined the DEs as a way to get back at the popular crowd, and at Lily > in particular. Having to be reminded of her and her boyfriend every day > would be torture. > Of course, this scenario of Lily-the-evil-heartbreaker assumes that Snape is lonely, friendless, unpopular, put-upon, etc. We have no canon evidence that this is so. We do have evidence that Snape was part of a group of Slytherins, admittedly from the biased Sirius, but even so, this seems to indicate that Snape did not go through his Hogwarts days as a loner. There does seem to be a certain view of Snape that a possible reason for him being the disagreeable, nasty, snide adult that he seems to be is that he was picked on as a student by all those nasty Gryffindors. Yes, I believe that there was definite enmity between Severus and Sirius. I can't buy that the Marauders plus Lily devoted all their pranks towards showing Snape up. For that matter, we have no evidence in canon that links Lily to any of the Marauders' actions. We don't even know if she knew about the Animagus transformation. Sure, it's possible that Lily was an ice queen who was cruel to Snape. However, she might have been a shy, bright, quiet, late- bloomer who was a target of unwanted attentions by Snape. In this scenario James comes to her defence, Lily falls in love with him, and Snape goes through the next decade or so twisted by his thwarted desires and joins the DEs because he can get revenge on those he thinks have slighted him. Or perhaps he hopes to get Lily as a reward for his contributions to Voldemort's efforts. There's no canon evidence for this scenario, either. I think we really need more information from JKR to figure out the dynamics of the relationships of the Snape/MWPP+L era, and I will be really disappointed if we don't get more clues in the next book!! Marianne From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jan 12 02:31:37 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 02:31:37 -0000 Subject: More on Ginny In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33236 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "babelfisherperson" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" wrote: > > Funny, ain't it? In Sunday chat our single listies say they'd kill > > to meet an honest person with a good personality and a sense of > > humor, but for our beloved characters no such dullness will do. > > Honestly. Is there ANY indication that Ginny has "a good personality and a sense of humor"? His eyes are as green as a fresh pickled toad. His hair is as dark as a blackboard. I wish he was mine. He's really divine. The hero who conquered the Dark Lord. I can't *prove* she sent it...but she didn't deny it,did she? You gotta have a sense of humor to send your crush a Valentine like that, not to mention the singing get well card she sent in PoA. And others have pointed out that she's loyal and kind. Pippin From southernscotland at yahoo.com Sat Jan 12 01:14:26 2002 From: southernscotland at yahoo.com (southernscotland) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 01:14:26 -0000 Subject: Draco's redemption - reprise In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33237 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "davewitley" wrote: > I inadvertently mentioned this topic offlist and was ordered to post > here. We elves always does what we is told by great moderator > persons, preciousss. > > The question is, how can it be satisfying? If Draco is redeemed, it > seems like a literary cliche. He has been set up as the bully who > has nuisance value, the foil for Harry who so far manages to be > absent whenever adventure really gets going. > > On the other hand, if he slides into Death Eaterism, then that's a > triumph for destiny (whether by birth, or Sorting Hat, or just fate) That's a very interesting, good point - and he is one of the more intriguing characters, too. It would be a shame for him to become a cliche. If he were to see his father trying to kill Harry, would he help dear old dad or a fellow Hogwarts classmate? How could he possibly "stay on the fence" like Snape? His father would force him to choose a side eventually, like you say. Maybe he is the "fan" of Harry's who dies, if used in a sarcastic way. By the way, I think it also would be interesting to think about what Harry would have turned out like if he had, indeed, been put into Slytherin, with Draco. If Ron hadn't been around to tell him, he wouldn't have known any better. What would Draco have done with Harry as a (potential) friend? Back to the topic, I do not know just how to handle poor Draco (or effectively answer your excellent question!) - but I am glad that he is there. Just wondering, lilahp From Ryjedi at aol.com Sat Jan 12 01:19:59 2002 From: Ryjedi at aol.com (rycar007) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 01:19:59 -0000 Subject: Why "Lord"? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33238 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "babelfisherperson" wrote: Well, judging from the fact that a theme in the book is choices over birth...Dumbledore just wouldn't see Voldemort as being Tom Riddle anymore. Tom Riddle is dead, and Voldemort rose from the ashes. Thus to call him Tom, well...he'd be calling him by the name of a dead man. Same reason, perhaps, that Wormtail is no longer called Peter. -Rycar From jmmears at prodigy.net Sat Jan 12 02:37:15 2002 From: jmmears at prodigy.net (serenadust) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 02:37:15 -0000 Subject: Friendship requirements (Was Hermione's ability to trust) In-Reply-To: <20020111211531.44381.qmail@web14702.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33239 -- In HPforGrownups at y..., pigwidgeonthirtyseven wrote: > BTW, what do you folks think of Harry's and Ron's loyalty to Hermione when it comes to S.P.E.W.? Frankly, I don't liek their attitude very much- it seems that they are ashamed of having such a stupidly idealistic friend and don't stick to her- they don't wear their badges, having bought them only to silence her. > > I don't think that Harry and Ron are being disloyal to Hermione simply because they refuse to fully embrace the S.P.E.W manifesto. It does not seem reasonable to me to require people to agree with your every passionate cause, just to prove their friendship. In fact, a true friend will be the one to tell you that they think you may be "off base" when you get so crazed about any one issue, that you refuse to consider any other views but your own. She should have been grateful that they bought the badges at all. Jo > > > > > > --------------------------------- > Do You Yahoo!? > Get personalised at My Yahoo!. > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Zarleycat at aol.com Sat Jan 12 02:38:14 2002 From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 02:38:14 -0000 Subject: Question: Lupin's appearance In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33240 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "anavenc" wrote: > Thinking about Lupin: > > We don't know how he looks, apart from weariness, old robes and > prematurely graying hair. He is the only main character about whose, > say, facial features JKR writes nothing. > We know a lot about appearance of others, especially Dumbledore and > Snape, whose looks are described to the smallest detail. > Why not Lupin? > > Yes, I've consulted Lexicon. We are given a more complete physical description of Peter Pettigrew in the Shrieking Shack scene than any description we receive of Remus, although we're told in PoA that Lupin has light brown hair. And, no, he's not the only person who's features are not described. We are not given any physical description of Sirius in PoA, other than that he's tall, gaunt, with long, matted hair and yellow teeth. That's it, at least in the US version of the book. The only other assumptions we can make about his appearance are if we assume that the Animagus transformation keeps some aspect of the human's looks. So, since his animal form is a large, black dog with pale eyes, we might be able to assume that Sirius has black hair with gray, blue, green, hazel or some other eye color that is not brown or black. It's not until the "Hungarian Horntail" chapter in GoF that JKR tells us straight out that he has black hair. I've always found this rather interesting, as I pictured Sirius as having very dark hair throughout PoA. Plus, when I've asked any of my friends who have read that book to describe Sirius, they have all immediately started by saying, "Tall, thin, black hair" and can't believe that they didn't read that somewhere in the book. I think JKR makes us get the right mental picture of Sirius because of a number of factors: - the description of his Animagus form. - the assertion by the teachers that he and James were like brothers, and we know James has black hair, so we might assume that there was some physical resemblence between the two. - the name Black. - Harry musing that the picture of Black in the newspaper reminded him of a vampire, and, Anne Rice aside, we may tend think of vampires as dark-haired. - the illustration of the Prisoner in the beginning of the book. So, Lupin is not the only one with a vague description. Marianne From christi0469 at hotmail.com Sat Jan 12 01:26:36 2002 From: christi0469 at hotmail.com (christi0469) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 01:26:36 -0000 Subject: On "Little Women", strength and maturity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33241 > Of course the women on your list are strong females, but all of them > are either downright bad or at least flawed: > Skeeter- well, I don't think I've got to elaborate > Lestrange- Death Eater, nuff said > Maxime- not even strong enough to stand up for her own identity > Winky- loyal, but not strong, drowns her sorrows in Butterbeer > Trelawney- probably an old fraud > > Frankly, I'd rather prefer a complete absence of strong women to an > unspoken, yet inherent equation "strong women = bad women". And as > for the rest of them: McGonagall seems to be a strong woman and a > powerful witch, but is given the looks of an old spinster. Fleur > Delacour is beautiful, but commits major errors in every Triwizard > task- so does Krum, but he is a first-class seeker, whereas Fleur > doesn't have any other outstanding quality. So it all seems to come > down to either "strong and intelligent, but bad/plain", > or "beautiful, but shallow and not top level" which is a bit clich?- > ed. > > I would gratefully let myself convince of the contrary, though, so > I'd like to see your arguments. > > Susanna/pigwidgeon37 I think Madame Maxime deserves a closer look. Given the effect that Hagrid's "outing" had on him and the opinion that wizards seem to have of giants, its really not surprising that she was in no hurry to admit to being half giant. Her reaction to Hagrid's (surely correct) assumption that she is half giant is really unfortunate, but lets try to look at it from her probable point of view. She is an shockingly large woman who has a prestigious job and seems very confident. Not many men are attracted to women who intimidate them and are twice their size, so I doubt she's had many chances for a relationship. Then she meets someone with whom she can relate(size wise), is strong enough to handle her precious horses, and likes her to boot. She has probably been wary of discrimination should someone find out what she is, and would have been badly hurt if her giant parent abandonded her the way Hagrid's mom did. Things seem to be going very well with Hagrid, until he asks her a question which brings up unpleasant issues and she loses it. She gets extremely angry and tells off the man, possibly the only man so far, whom she's allowed herself to get close to. She tries to make amends, but he had his feelings hurt too and has convinced himself that she was just trying to use him all along. Finally, after the tournament is over and cannot be accused of trying to use him, she has tea(or something) with him and it apparently went well, as they are on a first name basis. I think she can be forgiven for being a strong but flawed female character. In fact I think the incident humanized her, which could make her better as a strong female character. Fleur has issues that are fairly opposite of Madame Maxime (IMHO, of course). She is incredibly beautiful and part veela, so men are swarming around her. Sounds great, doesn't it. But if men/boys can't get passed her good looks how is she ever goint to be appreciated for her intellegence or true character? When men ask her out it because of the way she looks, not for the person she is. Women/girls don't seem in any hurry to get to know her either, mostly they seem resentfull (Hermione doesn't seem to like her at all). I can see how she might build a wall around herself. Men seem like jokes to her, so she learns to play them along. She also developes an imperious attitude, so by the time we meet her she is fairly hard to like as a character. But at the end of the 2nd task we see the normal person in her. She loves her sister and is panic strickened at the thought that she could not save her. She says she does not believe that she deserved the 25 points she got, and she is completely grateful to Harry and Ron for saving Gabrielle. She claps enthusiastically for Harry getting more points than she does(and beating her in the task) snd is nice to Harry and Ron for the rest of the book. And she's not stupid, IMO she does very well in the first task. We do have strong bad female character. Mrs. Lestrange is an evil DE, but she is the only one in the courtroom scene to be loyal to her master. Rita Skeeter is a blood sucking pest(mosquito), but is ambitious and accomplishes her goals. The battle between good and evil is a key part of the HP series, and to have no evil female characters would be patronizing to women in its own way. And is characters (male and female) were not flawed thay would not be realistic. As the HP series progresses the female characters have been more interesting, and if the trend continues may may have an equal balance of male/female characters of all sorts. Christi From jbryson at richmond.infi.net Sat Jan 12 01:34:23 2002 From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 01:34:23 -0000 Subject: Veela (was Chatterly Saga (was McGonagall's Age In-Reply-To: <8o840n+kru7@eGroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33242 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Rita Winston" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at e..., "Sister Mary Lunatic" wrote: > > > Say, now that Fleur might get a job at Hogwarts, maybe she'll be > > the one to teach... (snip) "Wizard Family Planning - Charms That > > Never Fail" for the upperclassmen. > > I imagine that the Head of each House has many responsibilities to > that House's inmates, not just enforcing discipline, and I have > imagined Snape uncomfortably but dutifully carrying out some of his > responsibilities: > > "May I please see you in my office, Miss Parkinson?" > having been given this punishment assignment, but when she sighs > and pulls out quill and parchment to copy the text, she sees that > the title is "Easy Contraceptive Charms". Which brings up something I've been wondering about since I read a movie review which said "sexual content: None." Hagwarts covers the part of a person's life when the hormones really start boiling, but none of it seems to be going on in the first three books. Yet very little chaparoning seems to go on; just Filch, Peeves, and Mrs. Norris. I do know Hagwarts is protected by various charms and spells. Is there a Virgo Intactus curse, or is it something the house elves sneak into the food? Extra credit: If it's the food, which food is it? Tapioca pudding has not been mentioned. From judyshapiro at earthlink.net Sat Jan 12 01:38:11 2002 From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 01:38:11 -0000 Subject: The Female Students (and other female charcters) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33243 "christi0469" wrote: > While I agree that there are not many female characters that could > be considered strong in the HP books, I disagree with the > characterization of the entire female faculty of Hogwarts as fussy > and uptight.... > ...Mme Pomfrey does much more than tend to sniffles, > she heals broken bones and burns and petrified students(with the > help of Sprout and probably Snape). She seems to have a good command > of the infirmary, and has the guts to ask Dumbledore to leave. She > may only be a nurse, but with nurses like that who needs doctors? > And I have never met a school doctor, even in college... And Mme > Pince is extremely stereotypical of a librarian. I think our posts "crossed in cyberspace", so I've already clarified my remarks about Sprout, Trelawney, and McGonagall. About Pomfrey, you're right that she tells Dumbledore to leave (although he mostly just seems to ignore her and stay anyway.) Every college I've been at has lots of doctors in their infirmary, though. I'm not familiar with boarding schools, but since no one ever seems to get sent elsewhere for treatment, I'd expect Hogwarts' infirmary to have a doctor. And Mme Pince as the stereotypical librarian saying "shsssh" all the time is exactly what I dislike about that character. She's nothing like the real librarians in my family. and "christi0469" also wrote: > I also object to the characterization of Fleur as incompetent. > When she faces the dragon she does a very good job of entrancing it. > ... She starts out competently > enough at the second task, only to be caught by grindylows.... > The fact that the goblet of fire chose her at all suggests that she is brave and competent. Well, Fleur came in either 3rd or 4th out of 4 in the dragon task. As for the second task, she failed to deal with grindylows even though she was in her 7th year, when the Hogwarts students had no trouble with them in their 3rd year. (And Snape said in PoA "I'd expect first years to be able to handle grindylows.") We just don't know how she'd do in the 3rd task; JKR didn't give her a chance. As for her being picked as Beauxbatons' champion, I had assumed it was because she was partly Veela and therefore more magical than the other Beaubatons students, who were presumably all-human. "pippin_999" wrote: > JKR, as I've said over on Snapefans, likes to play games with > our heads. She does things like underplay the performance of > the Irish Chasers, so if you aren't reading carefully, you'll never > realize that at least two of them are female, and they *win the > game*. This is the exact sort of tokenism that bothers me. Ok, she puts two women on a winning Quidditch team, but they don't *do* anything important. All the attention is on their male counterpart (Krum.) Sure, there are women around in the story, but they aren't the ones who make things happen. I really wish Hogwarts was an all-male school; then we'd have an excuse *why* there are no women there doing anything important. Instead, the message seems to be that even when women have equal opportunity, they just don't stand out. They don't even stand out if they helped found Hogwarts -- I'd like it so much better if Hufflepuff had been a man, and Gryffindor or Slytherin had been a woman! and "pippin_999" also wrote: > The concerned parent who, as far as we know, stays home > except for charity work, and gets involved in educational issues > is...Lucius Malfoy. Well, Narcissa also stays at home, as far as we know. And, she also cares about education, at least Draco's education. And heck, Lucius doesn't *just* stay home! He's "always ready to take the lead in a spot of muggle torture." That's an important job! (If you're really, really evil.) I agree that JKR may have her reasons for any one particular character being male, or any one particular female charcters being stereotypical or failing at a task. But, it still adds up to a pattern of very weak female characters. JKR's quite creative, she could have fixed this problem if she wanted to. I'm surprised that so many people here object to my negative descriptions of the female characters in the "Potterverse." If you're defending these characters in order to show that women really aren't so fussy, weak, etc., remember that the women in the Potterverse are fictional. I don't see them as anything like the real women that I know. If you are defending these characters because you like them, I am surprised. I really like many of the male characters in the stories, but practically none of the female charcters in the Potterverse appeal to me much. From southernscotland at yahoo.com Sat Jan 12 01:42:12 2002 From: southernscotland at yahoo.com (southernscotland) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 01:42:12 -0000 Subject: Pulling up my GIANTCUSHION, and some gender-spiked musings (with a side of literary archetypes) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33244 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "viola_1895" wrote: I, personally, think Hermione's perfectionism is going > to be the cause of big problems down the road...(snip)...check out Jennifer-Oksana's "Footnotes." > It's a short fic that deals pretty bluntly with some of Hermione's > possible challenges in being Harry's friend through the dark times to > come. It's possibly my favorite fanon Hermione portrayal, or at least > one of them. And Snape is wonderful in it too. > (http://www.imjustsayin.net/jennyo/stories/otherfic/footnotes.txt) I read that fiction and it gave me chills (It deals pretty bluntly with Hermione's ambition). What an intriguing concept you have brought up! I must admit, I never thought of Hermione - or her ambition - in a bad way. Some have said that the author never does the obvious thing. Maybe Hermione (instead of Ron) will be the one to go to the "dark side" due to jealousy, since she would have been the class star if it weren't for Harry. It would certainly be a twist that no one is expecting. So far, I don't think we've seen any evidence of that, but there are three more books to come... I still have the cold chills...brrrr... Just wondering (and now cold), lilahp From cindysphynx at home.com Sat Jan 12 02:47:53 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 02:47:53 -0000 Subject: The Female Students (and other female charcters) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33245 Pippin wrote: > JKR, as I've said over on Snapefans, likes to play games with > our heads. More examples of this: Lockhart, vain and pretty, and his portraits wear curlers. Hagrid, who crys frequently. Cindy From babelfisherperson at yahoo.com Sat Jan 12 03:37:05 2002 From: babelfisherperson at yahoo.com (babelfisherperson) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 03:37:05 -0000 Subject: The Female Students (and other female charcters) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33246 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "judyserenity" wrote: > Instead, the message seems to be that even when women have equal > opportunity, they just don't stand out. I suppose that's why Hermione does better at everything except Quidditch than any 2 male students combined. Red XIV From babelfisherperson at yahoo.com Sat Jan 12 03:43:58 2002 From: babelfisherperson at yahoo.com (babelfisherperson) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 03:43:58 -0000 Subject: Hermione's ability to trust In-Reply-To: <20020111211531.44381.qmail@web14702.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33247 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., pigwidgeonthirtyseven wrote: > BTW, what do you folks think of Harry's and Ron's loyalty to > Hermione when it comes to S.P.E.W.? Frankly, I don't liek their > attitude very much- it seems that they are ashamed of having such a > stupidly idealistic friend and don't stick to her- they don't wear > their badges, having bought them only to silence her. Ron certainly seemed that way; he was openly disdainful of S.P.E.W. Harry, on the other hand, seemed to have no problem with it; he didn't share Hermione's passion for house-elf rights, but he wasn't against her on the subject either. And really, when you get down to it, Harry's the one who really started the movement, when he tricked Lucius Malfoy into freeing Dobby. :D Red XIV From aromano at indiana.edu Sat Jan 12 04:07:00 2002 From: aromano at indiana.edu (Aja) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 23:07:00 -0500 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Draco's redemption - reprise In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33248 On Sat, 12 Jan 2002, southernscotland wrote: > he is one of the more intriguing characters, too. It would be a shame > for him to become a cliche. I personally believe that right now Draco is a cliche, period. The rich little snob who constantly thwarts our hero and his group for no other reason than that his birthright makes him the villain? It's so cardboard to me, and were he to *continue* to make flat choices to be "evil" just because his father has taught him to, he would become even less appealing to me. Even if he were to reform (much like the end of Return of the Jedi), as Draco's character is written at this point--intelligent, witty, but uni-dimensional--I'd still feel cheated out of real character development in favor of a cliche "bad guy turned good guy" ending. The one thing that gives me hope that JKR has much more satisfying things up her sleeve for our favorite silver-haired Slytherin is the fact that she has taken such pains to shroud Snape in mystery. She's set up certain parallels between Snape and Draco, and I believe more will be revealed as the books progress. I don't know if this means she's planning a Draco redemption, but I'm hopeful that it means we'll at least come to see him as a real boy, and not just a close-minded Daddy's boy/anti-hero. > Maybe he is the "fan" of Harry's who dies, if used in a sarcastic way. I could actually see this happening in later books, but I think if it does then JKR would definitely have him martyred on the side of good--yet another cliche. > What would Draco have done with Harry as a (potential) friend? I think Draco would have learned much quicker with Harry around how to and *why* he should stand up to his father. Since the main obstacle to their friendship (other than Harry's own character and natural dislike of Malfoy) would not have existed--i.e. Voldemort would be presumed dead and out of the way at the time of their first getting to know one another-- I believe Harry's influence would have helped Draco mature much faster. After all, Harry's basically a pureblood, like Draco--he also has a sizeable inheritance, like Draco--and in terms of wizarding skills he at least is Draco's equal if not his superior (we know in terms of natural ability he's superior to most wizards and witches, but he seems to be less eager at applying himself academically). With someone like Harry around to challenge his assumptions, Draco's Slytherin ambition would probably have been channeled into developing his talents (which as I see them are intellect, resourcefulness, cunning, and recklessness--not unlike Harry himself) into positive strengths instead of using them to intimidate, bully, and gain power. Of course, if we are to ask that question, we can't be fair unless we also ask how Harry might have been changed for the worse from knowing Draco.... Aja *who can never seem to resist a diatribe on her favorite character--the slimy git* From christi0469 at hotmail.com Sat Jan 12 04:20:07 2002 From: christi0469 at hotmail.com (christi0469) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 04:20:07 -0000 Subject: The Female Students (and other female charcters) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33249 If the female characters in Potterverse have not eveolved by the end of the 7th book JKR will have failed to give a gender-balanced perspective to the series: however, I do see a lot of potential in the female characters we already have (and we will probably get more as the books progess). As Harry matures his understanding of the females around him will hopefully mature as well, giving greater us greater insight into their personality. I do admit that the in the books we have so far the female characters have not been given enough dimension, but I can accept the arguement that it is due to Harry's limited POV. --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "judyserenity" wrote: > "christi0469" wrote: > About Pomfrey, you're right that she tells Dumbledore to leave > (although he mostly just seems to ignore her and stay anyway.) Every > college I've been at has lots of doctors in their infirmary, though. > I'm not familiar with boarding schools, but since no one ever seems to > get sent elsewhere for treatment, I'd expect Hogwarts' infirmary to > have a doctor. I went to a small private university that didn't have an on staff doctor, but it may have had a visiting doctor that I just didn't know about. My high school had over 2000 students and we were lucky to have a school nurse on campus a few days a week. If you needed medical attention on the days she was at another school the secretaries would do the best they could and call for EMTs if it was necessary (the nurse would have called EMTs if it was a serious situation as well). A professor would probably be able to get a doctor as quickly as we muggles could get an ambulance by flying off school grounds, apparating to the doctor, apparating back with the doctor, and flying back in. With my experience an on campus full- time doctor for a thousand students would be unrealistic. And Madame Pomfrey seems to be able to handle serious situations, so perhaps the wizarding world requires fewer doctors per capita. And Mme Pince as the stereotypical librarian saying > "shsssh" all the time is exactly what I dislike about that character. > She's nothing like the real librarians in my family.> I have to agree that Madame Pince is disappointingly stereotypical, but it is a librarian stereotype, not a female in general stereotype. My secret wish would be to find out she's really a wild woman, and that her stereotypical demeaner is just a ruse. > >> Well, Fleur came in either 3rd or 4th out of 4 in the dragon task. As > for the second task, she failed to deal with grindylows even though > she was in her 7th year, when the Hogwarts students had no trouble > with them in their 3rd year. (And Snape said in PoA "I'd expect first > years to be able to handle grindylows.") We just don't know how she'd > do in the 3rd task; JKR didn't give her a chance. As for her being > picked as Beauxbatons' champion, I had assumed it was because she was > partly Veela and therefore more magical than the other Beaubatons > students, who were presumably all-human. > I maintain that someone had to fail at the second task for Harry to be a hero, and Fleur was sacrificed because Cedric chose Cho and Krum chose Hermione. It was dissappointing that the only female champion had to fail, and it was also dissappointing that only 1 of 4 champions was a female; however, I don't see an easy way for JKR to adjust this. The other Hogwarts champion had to be male for Harry to compete with him over Cho as well as the championship. Krum was introduced for the Hermione/Ron conflict, and I think that any other champion from Durmstrang would have been unrealistic. Giving Harry a chance to compete against a very competent and famous seeker was also important. This leaves only one spot for a female champion. And Fleur had to be sacrificed for Harry to prove his moral fiber. I think the first task was probably scored very closely between the 4 champions, as I thought Fleur's performance would have been close to the other three (and we know that Karkaroff scores unfairly). > > I'm surprised that so many people here object to my negative > descriptions of the female characters in the "Potterverse." If you're > defending these characters in order to show that women really aren't > so fussy, weak, etc., remember that the women in the Potterverse are > fictional. I don't see them as anything like the real women that I > know. If you are defending these characters because you like them, I > am surprised. I really like many of the male characters in the > stories, but practically none of the female charcters in the > Potterverse appeal to me much. I do like some of the female characters, especially McGonagall. She reminds me lot of me high school english teacher, who looked every bit as spinsterish but was exceedingly cool (for the lack of a better word). Being in the accelerated class, I had the priveledge to see her at her best. She was strict but allowed us to have fun, and shocked us by entering the classroom in a nightgown with her hair down to do the lady MacBeth "out damned spot" monologue. She was also married. I truly believe that there is a lot of depth to McGonagall that has yet to be explored. Prof. Trelawny remainds me of a professor I had in college who was just far to impressed with her own accomplishments. I hope Madame Maxime gets more fully developed, as I would love to see Hagrid have a chance at a relationship. Fleur could aslo turn out to be a very complex character, and I will be very surprised if Ginny doesn't turn into an important and potentially strong character. And we should learn more about Lily before the end of the series. It would not take much to make the existing female characters as complex and interesting as some of the male ones, but we just don't know enough about them yet. Christi From zoehooch at yahoo.com Sat Jan 12 03:56:14 2002 From: zoehooch at yahoo.com (zoehooch) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 03:56:14 -0000 Subject: More on Ginny In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33250 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "babelfisherperson" wrote: > Honestly. Is there ANY indication that Ginny has "a good > personality and a sense of humor"? So far, she's shown little signs > of having a personality AT ALL. Just because she's Ron's little > sister doesn't mean she has his personality & sense of humor. Ginny > is practically a non-character. So no, I have no reason to think > she's good enough for Harry. It's not that she's "too dull for him", > it's that we have no idea whether she's dull or not. We know next to > nothing about her, and as such I can't imagine why ANYBODY would want > her to be paired with Harry, or why anybody would assume she will be. I suspect that Ginny is going blossom in either book 5 or 6, and Harry may very well find himself attracted to her. There's much to be said for the pairing, if for no other reason that it brings him even closer into the Weasley family, the family that has loved and nurtured him even since they met. Zoe Hooch From jbryson at richmond.infi.net Sat Jan 12 02:36:14 2002 From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 02:36:14 -0000 Subject: Veela (was Chatterly Saga (was McGonagall's Age In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33251 > ...refer to wizard contraception. I'm thinking a talisman would be a good > thing, something that either person would wear around their neck or wrist > or something. A talisman might work; if held tightly between the witch's knees...];=)> I really wonder if JKR will be doing a lot of sex as the trio gets older. It doesn't drive the plot, or at least it hardly needs to. Goodness knows she has enough plot tangles already. OTOH, It has to get in the way. These are "normal" kids as far as we can tell, so JKR may have to say something about it. But I wouldn't mind if the kids were prudes. There's a lot of tradition about magic powers and virginity. And, there's plenty of literature already with enough sex in it to satisfy almost anybody. From christi0469 at hotmail.com Sat Jan 12 02:57:51 2002 From: christi0469 at hotmail.com (christi0469) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 02:57:51 -0000 Subject: Veela (was Chatterly Saga (was McGonagall's Age In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33252 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "tex23236" wrote: >> Which brings up something I've been wondering about since I read a > movie review which said "sexual content: None." Hagwarts covers the > part of a person's life when the hormones really start boiling, but > none of it seems to be going on in the first three books. Yet very little > chaparoning seems to go on; just Filch, Peeves, and Mrs. Norris. I > do know Hagwarts is protected by various charms and spells. Is > there a Virgo Intactus curse, or is it something the house elves sneak > into the food? > > Extra credit: If it's the food, which food is it? Tapioca pudding has > not been mentioned. We do see Snape "..blasting rose bushes apart, his expression most ill-natured. Squeals issued from many of the bushes, and dark shapes emerged from them" outside the Yule Ball. He takes points from the houses of the students he catches(probably not Slytherin though). There are probaly several known make-out spots throughout the school that Harry has no reason to know about yet. I can imagine Snape taking it upon himself to wander the halls of the school, looking for students in search for an amorous time. It seems like the kind of thing he would enjoy, especially if it meant he could take points from the other houses, and it would explain his nocturnal wanderings. Christi From sunsailor22 at aol.com Sat Jan 12 03:22:34 2002 From: sunsailor22 at aol.com (sunsailor22 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 22:22:34 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Is the Head of my House a Hobbit? Message-ID: <14.20b89bbd.297105fa@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33253 > Who's to say that Hobbits don't go grey and grow > beards - even though Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin managed to stay > cleanshaven from Bagend to the Falls. > It says in the Hobbit that the way to distinguish hobbits from dwarves was that dwarves have beards; hobbits do not. Professor Flitwick couldn't be a hobbit. He might be a half house elf, though i doubt it. Maybe a dwarf? Liv [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rachelrenee1 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 12 05:26:27 2002 From: rachelrenee1 at yahoo.com (rachelrenee1) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 05:26:27 -0000 Subject: The Female Students (and other female charcters) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33254 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "christi0469" wrote: > If the female characters in Potterverse have not eveolved by the > end of the 7th book JKR will have failed to give a gender-balanced > perspective to the series: however, I do see a lot of potential in > the female characters we already have (and we will probably get more > as the books progess). As Harry matures his understanding of the > females around him will hopefully mature as well, giving greater us > greater insight into their personality. I do admit that the in the > books we have so far the female characters have not been given > enough dimension, but I can accept the arguement that it is due to > Harry's limited POV. Christi wrote: > I do like some of the female characters, especially McGonagall. She > reminds me lot of me high school english teacher, who looked every > bit as spinsterish but was exceedingly cool (for the lack of a > better word). Being in the accelerated class, I had the priveledge > to see her at her best. She was strict but allowed us to have fun, > and shocked us by entering the classroom in a nightgown with her > hair down to do the lady MacBeth "out damned spot" monologue. She > was also married. I truly believe that there is a lot of depth to > McGonagall that has yet to be explored. Prof. Trelawny remainds me > of a professor I had in college who was just far to impressed with > her own accomplishments. I hope Madame Maxime gets more fully > developed, as I would love to see Hagrid have a chance at a > relationship. Fleur could aslo turn out to be a very complex > character, and I will be very surprised if Ginny doesn't turn into > an important and potentially strong character. And we should learn > more about Lily before the end of the series. It would not take much > to make the existing female characters as complex and interesting as > some of the male ones, but we just don't know enough about them yet. I think one really strong female character is missing here, in this discussion. Molly Weasley is a pretty cool female character. Yes, she is a stay-at-home mom, by all apearances, but that does not make her weak in any way. (I am one, and trust me, it takes a lot of guts to deal with the raised eyebrows alone.) She not only nurtures her large brood, but she can strike fear into their hearts when they misbehave, should she so choose. (Even Arthur!) She is one of the first that Dumbledore initiates into the New Crowd of fighters of Voldemort. She and Snape are the two that Dumbledore chooses to reveal Sirius to. Snape, the Death-Eater-turned-spy-at-great- personal-cost, was right on the same level as Molly in Dumbledore's estimation. She is a wonderfully generous person, despite the little that she posesses. She and Arthur stand up for their convictions, although it does cost them some comfort. They choose to stick with doing the right thing and doing what they *like* even though it causes people like Lucius Malfoy to sneer at them. She deals very gracefully with the sneers and insinuations against her and her family, but she also comes out as a fighter for her family. I think that she is a wonderful example of all that is good and strong. --Rachel From pigwidgeon37 at yahoo.it Sat Jan 12 06:53:03 2002 From: pigwidgeon37 at yahoo.it (pigwidgeon37) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 06:53:03 -0000 Subject: What if book 5 is not about Harry? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33255 Hi all, I have to admit that this crazy idea has been inspired by one of David's last posts, where he wrote that Book 1 is about Harry, 2 about Voldemort, 3 about James and 4 about the wizarding world. And he ventured the prediction that Book 5 might be about Lily. Which gave me this idea that, at least half an hour after waking up, seems interesting: What if Book 5 is not about Harry, but, at least for the larger part, situated in the past, between 1975 and 1981? It would solve the problem of how to continue the series in a credible manner after the incredible finale of GoF, it would be the ideal means of telling the reader more about the past without having to resort to endless monologue, JKR would even be able to break the school year- pattern which for once might be quite interesting etc.etc. And none of JKR's statements I can think of right now would contradict this possibility: A "darker book"? Yes, of course, as most probably the years of V's first reign of Terror were very dark times, more of Arabella figg? Yes, because she seems to have played an important role back in the 1970s, Romance? Of course, after all we'll see at least James & Lily... So, what do you think? Am I crazy or is it a possibility? Susanna/pigwidgeon37 From babelfisherperson at yahoo.com Sat Jan 12 06:56:11 2002 From: babelfisherperson at yahoo.com (babelfisherperson) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 06:56:11 -0000 Subject: More on Ginny In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33256 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "zoehooch" wrote: > I suspect that Ginny is going blossom in either book 5 or 6, and > Harry may very well find himself attracted to her. There's much to > be said for the pairing, if for no other reason that it brings him > even closer into the Weasley family, the family that has loved and > nurtured him even since they met. If there's "much to be said for the pairing", by all means, say it. I just don't see the attraction of it. I'm sure it's a great pairing for fanfic writers who don't want Harry to be with Hermione, since Ginny's lack of development gives the writer a great deal of freedom to make her into whatever they want to, but these Ginny Sues are no more relevant to canon that the plethora of fanon-Dracos. We have no idea how Ginny will end up being developed. Thus, we have no reason to assume that she is or will be even remotely suitable as a match for Harry. I'll grant that any ship that hasn't happened in canon is based on speculation, but at least with ships between developed characters we have something more than just personal assumptions & fanfic portrayals to base our assumptions on. And as somebody else (Eb, I think) already said, Harry is already a Weasley in all but name & hair color. Why does he need to pair up with Ginny to be "closer" to the family? He's plenty close as it is. Red XIV From babelfisherperson at yahoo.com Sat Jan 12 07:03:47 2002 From: babelfisherperson at yahoo.com (babelfisherperson) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 07:03:47 -0000 Subject: What if book 5 is not about Harry? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33257 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pigwidgeon37" wrote: > So, what do you think? Am I crazy or is it a possibility? You're crazy. :P Seriously, I don't see it happening. The school-year pattern is there because that's how JKR designed the series. 1 book for each of Harry's 7 years at Hogwarts. And the series is called "Harry Potter" not just because he's the hero of the story, but also because the story is told from his perspective. With the exception of the first chapter of PS, we see & hear only what Harry does. And as for it being "darker", remember. Voldemort has risen again. According to Trelawney's 2nd prophesy, he should be stronger & "more terrible" than he was before. We needn't venture back in time to his original reign of terror for a "dark" book, when his new reign of terror is apparently going to be even worse. Red XIV From tabouli at unite.com.au Sat Jan 12 08:49:46 2002 From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 19:49:46 +1100 Subject: Survivor Snape, LOLLIPOPS sails again Message-ID: <00a701c19b46$2bb3bc60$7b31c2cb@price> No: HPFGUIDX 33258 Ana: > Will Snape Push up Daisies? You mean in OoP? In a word, no. Not a chance, IMO. Like him, loathe him or lust after him, Snape is without question one of the most if not *the* most intriguing character in the whole series, he has light years of mileage left in him, he has that mysterious side-swapping spying history about which we know so little, he undoubtedly holds a lot of the keys to Harry's past... JKR wouldn't be so wasteful as to kill him off in Book 5. Book 7, now, quite possibly. (Tabouli, having duly noted David's protests, is sticking to the literary arguments on this one. Yes, in RL Snape would have targets on every side of his body, and would be a likely casualty. In fiction, however, he's just too good to lose. Similarly, the law of gender ratios convinces me that Ginny and Molly will be alive and kicking at the end of Book 7. I think if a Weasley falls, it will be a brother or Arthur. I'm inclined to agree with the "JKR's world has a shortage of worthwhile, significant female characters" line, but I won't go into that now). Did JKR say she hated Snape? I thought she once said she loves all her characters, even Dudley, and I approved wholeheartedly. Nasty characters with mystique are great to write! If *I'd* created a character like Snape, I would be grinning all over my face every time he entered the spotlight! I wonder if Snape's a Mudblood whose parents disowned him when they found out? Now *that* would account for a lot of that bitterness and cruelty, especially after being sorted into Slytherin... However, as captain of LOLLIPOPS, I have to respond to this sudden resurgence of Snape/Lily theory. OK... judyserenity: > Well, it could be that Snape was in love with Lily *and* she was deliberately cruel to him. Cruel, manipulative, spoilt, Snape-torturing Lily? Weeeell, not impossible. In fact, as someone who once hopefully suggested that Lily was a Slytherin (she's not) and gets impatient with JKR's housism and simplistic Good/Bad divide, I wouldn't mind a little straying from the path of All Gryffindors Are Kind Heroic Good Guys. The nasty yet probably good Snape spices things up considerably; Lily being horrible as well would be a great twist. All the same, I doubt it. It relates to my "HP is children's lit" arguments... IMO JKR is housist, she's writing about things in a child-digestible format, and she already has a lot of horrors lined up for Harry in other areas. Let him idealise his dead mother in peace as sweet and loving and caring. The evidence that Lily was nice is minimal, but adds up... she's our nice-despite-the-Dursleys'-torturing hero Harry's mother, she was in Gryffindor, she was, to the best of our knowledge, emphatically on the Good Side, she seemed all happy and smily in the Mirror of Erised and the photo album, she died protecting Harry and still protects him with her posthumous love, she was Head Girl, Hagrid describes her as once of the nicest people you could want to meet, Dumbledore and McGonagall seem to have been particularly fond of her, and so on. Marianne: > Of course, this scenario of Lily-the-evil-heartbreaker assumes that Snape is lonely, friendless, unpopular, put-upon, etc.< Why? I don't see this. You don't have to be lonely, friendless and all the rest to have an unrequited crush on someone. Nor would Lily have to have been evil not to have reciprocated his feelings (as JKR said, what woman would want Snape in love with her?). I suspect a boy who arrived at school knowing more Curses than anyone else is most likely a boy with some serious grudges against the world (at 11! Poor Severus) due to mistreatment somewhere, but this wouldn't make him automatically popular in itself. He had friends in Slytherin: Lupin and Sirius admit as much. In fact, from all I can see, Snape would have been an articulate, intelligent boy with considerable magical talent combined with a chip on his shoulder and a vengeful streak. Not a good person to get on the wrong side of. But also, in the bruised sanctum of his mistreated heart, a boy likely to be susceptible to a monster obsession with a smart, pretty Gryffindor girl who is strong enough to be kind to him, unlike his own friends (who partly hang around with him out of fear) and his taunting rivals James and Sirius who have the good looks and success and confidence he lacks. (for further theorising on this topic, may I shamelessly direct you to my "Unauthorised Biography of Severus Snape" in the archives?) Catherine: > I think the Snape and Lily coupling is speculation without real foundation. I could be entirely wrong, but nothing in the book leads in that direction, and the prejudices that have been revealed in the book so far make the possibility unlikely.< (Ta-Bull-i snorts, paws the ground, and stampedes towards the red rag... Eileen: > But on the other hand, I got the whole L.O.L.L.I.P.O.P.S. thing by intuition, as soon as I had finished PS/SS (...) Three books later, and still no idea, but I'm a firm member of that illustrious club just because 1) I firmly believe in following one's intuition, even if I'm not sure intuition exists and 2) I think it's incredible so many other people came up with the idea very seriously (unlike flip jokes about Snape/Trelawney pairings) when there's not anything explicit in the text to support it. < ...accompanied by Eileen, Amanda, and the entire crew of the Good Ship LOLLIPOPS) No, there's nothing *explicit* in the text to support Snape/Lily. No "real foundation", so to speak. But this is hardly surprising. If Snape loved Lily and this played a pivotal role in the secret of Harry's past, to be revealed at the appropriate dramatic moment and point in the Harry/Snape relationship, JKR isn't exactly going to spell it out, is she? She likes to be crafty, to misdirect, to throw in red herrings and come up with the unexpected. There was nothing "explicit" in the text to support Scabbers=Peter until PoA either. All right, let me outline some of the (indirect but nonetheless thought-provoking) evidence. 1. Snape hates Harry on sight without any direct provocation whatsoever. Hence there must be some mysterious reason for this hatred pre-dating his actual meeting of Harry (possibly connected with Harry's appearance). 2. We later discover that Snape's main justification for his treatment of Harry is his "celebrity" status and rule-breaking, just like his father. Sure, Harry breaks rules, and gets a lot of leeway, but unlike Lockhart shows no sign whatsoever of wanting to capitalise on or wallow in his "Boy Who Lived" laurels. Snape refuses to see this, blinded by his own resentment, and takes points off Harry and gives him detentions and humiliating him at every opportunity. 3. Hagrid is very evasive when 11yo Harry declares that Snape hates him, making it clear that Snape *does* have a very good (albeit top secret and possibly adults only) reason for hating Harry, but one which is evidently overshadowed by a still better reason for protecting him. 4. Snape and James were at school together in Slytherin and Gryffindor respectively, and hated each other. The reasons put forward for this are: a) Snape was jealous of James' brilliant Quidditch performance, and possibly the fact that he became Head Boy despite rule-breaking. b) James, whom he already hated, saved his life after Sirius' practical joke. The ignominy of it! Snape then saved Harry from Quirrell, making he and James "quits", but continues to persecute Harry anyway. c) (indirect evidence from Marauder's Map and Sirius' sneers) Sirius and James, especially the former, lampooned Snape for being unattractive, i.e. greasy haired and big nosed and "slimy" (=servile and flattering?) 5. James and Lily met at school, therefore at the same time when Snape was around, and James and Lily were Head Boy and Girl at Hogwarts (at the same time, therefore in the same year, or one after the other?). Both were killed by Voldemort, leaving Harry an orphan raised by ghastly Muggle relatives; Lily needn't have died, but did so in order to protect Harry. 6. Lily was very pretty and apparently nice, clever and caring, as well as good at Charms (see above arguments and Hagrid's and Ollivander's comments near the start of PS/SS). 6. Snape hung around with a group of Slytherins and became a Death Eater, presumably not long after leaving Hogwarts, but then later did something drastic enough to convince Dumbledore (no fool,he) that he'd changed sides for good, and become a spy, *before Voldemort's downfall*. OK, so let's consider all this. Everyone seems to agree that Snape's malice towards Harry is connected with his grudge against James. This is one serious grudge... right from the start Snape persecutes and humiliates Harry, an 11 year old student of his, mercilessly and without any evidence of provocation (unlike Neville, Harry isn't a clumsy danger to everyone else, unlike Hermione he doesn't clamour for attention), he almost loses it altogether when he (correctly) suspects that Sirius' escape has something to do with Harry, he keeps on trying to get him expelled, he extends his nastiness to Harry's best friends, he constantly accuses Harry of trading on his fame despite the lack of evidence to the contrary... phew! This is nasty stuff! What did James *DO* that was so bad that Snape can't get over it, even after he's left school and Quidditch-induced popularity behind, James and his wife have been murdered, Sirius has a life sentence in Azkaban, Lupin is a starving social outcast, and Snape has a prestigious post as Head of Slytherin and Dumbledore the greatest wizard of modern time's left hand man? So unforgivable that Snape feels compelled to torture James' 11 year old son who has never done anything to him, didn't even know his own father, and was raised in horrible conditions by Muggles? You must admit, on the face of it that's pretty cruel, immature and spiteful behaviour from a successful 35 year old man in a position of responsibility at a school. All his enemies have been killed or punished severely: by comparison, he's doing great! Why can't he get over his grudge, or at least, keep it under control? However, we *know* there's more to it. Hagrid's evasion alone tells us that much. We *know* there's some dark reason why Snape would hate Harry - is it just the Quidditch and the werewolf joke, or something more? We *know* there must be have been something going on behind the scenes with Harry's parents. Voldemort obviously wanted to kill them for some important reason. We also know that Snape was, until not long before the Potter murders, hand in glove with Voldemort, and that he also knew at least James quite well in school. As Eileen said, it does intuitively look likely that there is more than meets the eye between Harry's parents and Snape, and Snape/Lily has definite potential for explaining the depth of that cross-generational grudge... For a start (apologies to those who've heard this a million times), Harry looks extraordinarily like James but with Lily's eyes, and is the living reason why Lily is dead. (The agony of it for lovelorn Snape when Harry walks into the Hall!) For another thing, the resentment at being teased about being ugly, not being a Quidditch star and being "slimy" (crawling... to whom??) from Sirius sounds suspiciously like a recipe for "jealous teenage boy that makes an idiot of himself not getting the girl when everyone knows he never had a hope in hell" to me. (Why that arrogant prat James, and not me? He's no better looking than me! It's that stupid strong man QUIDDITCH stuff! Maybe I should try lifting weights!). Hence the evidence of James' Quidditch prowess undeservedly getting the girl (Harry), would make Snape especially touchy about the possibility of Harry undeservedly getting adulation for something he didn't consciously do, i.e. almost destroy the big V. Let alone succeeding in Quidditch and breaking rules like his foul father! Snape is projecting... Harry's behaviour does resemble James' in some ways, but Snape is *looking* for parallels, quite possibly to justify his own behaviour towards Harry. As for the mystery of Harry's past, mightn't Snape's lingering feelings for Lily have been somehow linked in to Snape's defection to Dumbledore and the mysterious events which ended in the death of the Potters? In my Snape bio, I theorise that Snape was ordered to kill the Potters by V and suddenly realises what he has done in becoming a Death Eater (and that even if James and Harry are dead, he might approach Lily only to have her loathe him for his evil ways and then later have to join in slaughtering her and all other Mudbloods as V takes over the world...), leading him to a sudden crisis of conscience and side change not long before V goes to kill the Potters himself. OK, all you anti Snape/Lily types out there, open fire, the Good Ship LOLLIPOPS is ready for you... Ben: > Is there something intrinsic about the word "Accio" embedded into the magical fabric of the universe that causes things to be brought to the speaker (imagine the poor prehistoric wizard who discovers this as he sneezes, his wand inadvertently pointing at a woolly mammoth). < (Captain Tabouli chuckles merrily and wanders down into her ship's cabin for some rum. Accio Tankard!) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mrgrrrargh at aol.com Sat Jan 12 04:10:31 2002 From: mrgrrrargh at aol.com (mrgrrrargh at aol.com) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 23:10:31 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Veela (was Chatterly Saga (was McGonagall's Age Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33259 I agree that it is a bit strange to be having their first dance when the trio is fourteen. However, JKR said that in the next book the hormones will be working overtime. Here's a question that may have been brought up before... Are any of the HP characters gay? And will JKR write about that? I see potential fallout from people who don't want their children exposed to open discussions about sexuality if she does slip in a homosexual (or even bi) character. -Andrew > Which brings up something I've been wondering about since I read a > movie review which said "sexual content: None." Hagwarts covers the > part of a person's life when the hormones really start boiling, but > none of it seems to be going on in the first three books. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Zorb17 at aol.com Sat Jan 12 05:17:32 2002 From: Zorb17 at aol.com (Zorb17 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 00:17:32 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco's redemption - reprise Message-ID: <63.4c850db.297120ec@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33260 David said: <> I'm so glad that you brought this topic up, because it gives me a perfect opportunity to air my Theory of the Potterverse. The cliche problem is a tough one - damned if you do, damned if you don't. I think it can be sidestepped by making Draco's redemption a relatively small plot point, part of a larger structure. In my version of The Parallel Theory, Draco = Snape, Harry = James, and Ron = Sirius (possibly Peter, too). The older generation has a lot of unresolved issues, namely Snape's enmity towards the Marauders, and Voldemort's vendetta (or whatever it is) towards the Potter men. I think we can all agree that by the last page of Book 7, the Voldie issue will be resolved with Harry in the leading role. It stands to reason, then, that Harry's generation will resolve the other parallel issues. Draco, I believe, will start out as the poster boy for Junior Death Eaters (see P/SS, also CoS, also PoA, also GoF ;-)). However, just as Snape eventually switched back to the Light Side, so will Draco, although much earlier in life than his counterpart (who may even have something to do with this switch). He will be forced to come to Harry seeking absolution (probably not as dramatically as the word implies). Unlike Snape and James, who never reconciled, Harry will once again demonstrate his capacity for forgiveness (see PoA with Peter) and accept Draco as a decent human being, though not as a new sidekick and best buddy. I can see the two of them keeping up there general dislike of each other, but acknowledging that they're on the same side now. This assumes that Draco will live. I don't necessarily think that will happen. I believe in his redemption, he will bring along some small piece of information or aid that will help Harry in some manner. As a result of his switch, however, there's a good chance he'll die, but not before being redeemed. Why did I mention Ron as Sirius? Because I *also* think that as a Malfoy and a Weasley, Draco and Ron have a much more deeply rooted enmity than Draco and Harry do, as evidenced by their fathers' *brawl* in CoS. Back in the MWPP days, it was Sirius who nearly caused Snape's premature demise, not James. With the younger generation, I think this conflict will come to a head with Ron *finally* getting a chance to have a go at Draco and, essentially, beating the crud out of him. This humbles Draco, perhaps does something to convince him to switch back, and also gives Ron his bit of glory before he has his own betrayal dilemma (and I am firmly in the camp that says he will). If, however, both Ron and Draco go through traitorous cycles and come back, which I think they will, this almost guarantees that one of them will die - and I'd have to go with Ronniekins here. His sacrifice will be bigger, but the piece of information or tool that he brings back with his redemption will also be bigger. Phew! I'm sure other listees have put forth these theories before, and if so, just take this as my agreement. I like the Gollum scenario a lot, too. Zorb From terrilyn at ameritech.net Sat Jan 12 06:06:29 2002 From: terrilyn at ameritech.net (Terri Lyn Layman) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 01:06:29 -0500 Subject: Sex in HP'verse./SHIPS Message-ID: <000001c19b2f$479686e0$ae65fea9@c8b5v1> No: HPFGUIDX 33261 While I do enjoy the discourse on SHIPS and their various permutations. (Won't even touch that one right now.) I do have to point out one very valid point: The books, while enjoyed by adults, were written for children. And while, I agree with George Carlin that sometimes children are overprotected in society on many fronts, and we dictate too much of what we do as adults to shield children.... I highly doubt that there will be any evidence of serious "sex" in any of the books, even when he is 17/18 years old. Yes, I do think that there will be at least one serious relationship explored, and maybe even some references to kissing/hand holding. It's a children's book. There are things they won't understand or parents won't want to deal with. Even now, the few relationships that have been discussed (I believe Percy Weasly was mentioned as having a girlfriend) have been largely glossed over. It's a known thing that Cedric was with Cho, but yet it wasn't an overpresent force. I have a feeling that the series will retain it's sweet innocence, no matter what the age of the principle characters. If you really want anything more detailed than crushes and infatuation/flirtation, I suggest you go looking for some "slash" or fanfic. -Terri From ambiradams at hotmail.com Sat Jan 12 07:02:35 2002 From: ambiradams at hotmail.com (Ambir Adams) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 23:02:35 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] What if book 5 is not about Harry? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33262 >From: "pigwidgeon37" >Reply-To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com >To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com >Subject: [HPforGrownups] What if book 5 is not about Harry? >Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 06:53:03 -0000 > >Hi all, > >I have to admit that this crazy idea has been inspired by one of >David's last posts, where he wrote that Book 1 is about Harry, 2 >about Voldemort, 3 about James and 4 about the wizarding world. And >he ventured the prediction that Book 5 might be about Lily. >Which gave me this idea that, at least half an hour after waking up, >seems interesting: What if Book 5 is not about Harry, but, at least >for the larger part, situated in the past, between 1975 and 1981? Well it kinda has to be about Harry, its his POV. It wouldn't make sense for JKR to do that. I know I would like them to do that. Also I think Arabella Figg is gonna be the new DADA teacher, that makes sense, right? After all JKR said the next DADA teacher is gonna be a woman. >It would solve the problem of how to continue the series in a >credible manner after the incredible finale of GoF, it would be the >ideal means of telling the reader more about the past without having >to resort to endless monologue, JKR would even be able to break the >school year- pattern which for once might be quite interesting >etc.etc. And none of JKR's statements I can think of right now would >contradict this possibility: A "darker book"? Yes, of course, as most >probably the years of V's first reign of Terror were very dark times, >more of Arabella figg? Yes, because she seems to have played an >important role back in the 1970s, Romance? Of course, after all we'll And well its gonna be darker because Voldie is back, But Fudge doesn't want to accept that. Does anyone else suspect Fudge of being a DE? After all he is so against the idea of Voldie returning, he doesn't even want to hear it. What if it's just an act? Those are just my thoughts :) Ryoko-- _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx From judyshapiro at earthlink.net Sat Jan 12 07:37:41 2002 From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 07:37:41 -0000 Subject: The Female Students (and other female charcters) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33263 Ok, I can't resist saying a few more things. "christi0469" wrote: > If the female characters in Potterverse have not eveolved by the > end of the 7th book JKR will have failed to give a gender-balanced > perspective to the series: however, I do see a lot of potential in > the female characters we already have (and we will probably get more > as the books progess). That (development of the existing female characters) would be great. let's hope it happens! Cindy mentioned: > Lockhart, vain and pretty, and his portraits wear curlers. > Hagrid, who crys frequently. I'm not sure I've understood the point here, but I want to make it clear that I see nothing wrong with stereotypically female behaviors such as crying or wearing curlers. And, I see female occupations such as mother or healer as very important. My problem is that so many of JKR's female characters have nothing else to them *but* the stereotype. In the Potterverse, we get males doing so much more than their real-life counterparts: a school boy who thwarts a powerful wizard, a kindly old schoolmaster who is also leading the battle against the forces of darkness. If Mme Pince was a librarian who *also* was, say, teaching Harry to fight dementors, then her character would be fine with me. (I've been watching too much Buffy lately, can you tell?) I said: >> ... the message seems to be that even when women have equal >> opportunity, they just don't stand out. And "babelfisherperson" (Red XIV) responded: > I suppose that's why Hermione does better at everything except > Quidditch than any 2 male students combined. There's no question, Hermione is presented as exceptionally skilled compared to other students of either gender. (I really disliked it when Hermione dismissed her own skills as just "book learning and cleverness" towards the end of SS/PS; clearly, Hermione is 'powerfully magical.') But, she had been discussed earlier in this conversation and then the topic segued onto the *adult* female characters. (I would describe Hermione as "female" or "a girl", not as "a woman"; she is only 14.) I should have changed the subject line of my post to more clearly reflect what I was talking about. "rachelrenee1" wrote: > I think one really strong female character is missing here, in this > discussion. Molly Weasley is a pretty cool female character. Yes, > she is a stay-at-home mom, by all apearances, but that does not make > her weak in any way. I agree, Molly Weasley is an excellent character. She is my favorite female character, and the character in the story that I see as most like me. I just wish JKR had written more like her. From midwife34 at aol.com Sat Jan 12 10:41:10 2002 From: midwife34 at aol.com (jrober4211) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 10:41:10 -0000 Subject: What if book 5 is not about Harry? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33264 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pigwidgeon37" wrote: > > It would solve the problem of how to continue the series in a > credible manner after the incredible finale of GoF, it would be the > ideal means of telling the reader more about the past without having > to resort to endless monologue, JKR would even be able to break the > school year- pattern which for once might be quite interesting > etc.etc. And none of JKR's statements I can think of right now would > contradict this possibility: A "darker book"? Yes, of course, as most > probably the years of V's first reign of Terror were very dark times, > more of Arabella figg? Yes, because she seems to have played an > important role back in the 1970s, Romance? Of course, after all we'll > see at least James & Lily... > So, what do you think? Am I crazy or is it a possibility? I wondered that too. I also wondered if "The Order of the Phoenix" referred to Voldemort and his followers , or whether it referred to Dumbledore, Harry, and his followers in Book 5. I suppose it could go either way since both Harry and Voldemort have cheated death and possess wands with the phoenix feather core....... > >Jo Ellen From djdwjt at aol.com Sat Jan 12 13:05:46 2002 From: djdwjt at aol.com (elfundeb) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 13:05:46 -0000 Subject: The Female Students (and other female charcters) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33265 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "christi0469" wrote: > If the female characters in Potterverse have not eveolved by the > end of the 7th book JKR will have failed to give a gender-balanced > perspective to the series: however, I do see a lot of potential in > the female characters we already have (and we will probably get more > as the books progess). As Harry matures his understanding of the > females around him will hopefully mature as well, giving greater us > greater insight into their personality. I do admit that the in the > books we have so far the female characters have not been given > enough dimension, but I can accept the arguement that it is due to > Harry's limited POV. > > > I'm surprised that so many people here object to my negative > > descriptions of the female characters in the "Potterverse." If > you're > > defending these characters in order to show that women really > aren't > > so fussy, weak, etc., remember that the women in the Potterverse > are > > fictional. I don't see them as anything like the real women that > I > > know. If you are defending these characters because you like > them, I > > am surprised. I really like many of the male characters in the > > stories, but practically none of the female charcters in the > > Potterverse appeal to me much. I would add that in my view JKR's treatment of women (and minorities, for that matter) doesn't square well with statements she has made that prejudice is a major theme of the books. After paying lip service to the lack of traditional prejudice in the wizarding world by peppering the sidelines with female professors and Quidditch players and making sure we're aware that the Hogwarts population has a reasonable percentage of minorities, all of the female characters we see close up conform to classic stereotypes. (Aside -- do people feel the male characters are also stereotyped? I don't get that sense as much as with the females.) If the Weasleys are such Quidditch fans, why don't we see Ginny out there at the Burrow playing with her brothers? Why do there not seem to be any female Aurors? Why does every witch devour Witch Weekly? And why are the minority females notable mostly for their athletic abilities (Angelina, Cho) or their exotic appearances (Cho, Parvati)? In so many places in the books she slips in little details about the wizarding world, but she just doesn't seem to do it in her treatment of witches. > > I do like some of the female characters, especially McGonagall. I truly believe that there is a lot of depth to > McGonagall that has yet to be explored. McGonagall is a character I have particular problems with. Despite her position as assistant headmistress and obvious talent in her chosen field of transfiguration, she seems to be pretty much an outsider as far as knowing what's going on (starting with the first chapter of SS/PS when she peppered Dumbledore with questions about what happened in Godric's Hollow) and she seems to be mainly an administrator rather than a true leader like Dumbledore is (for example, she's the one who checks the book and sends the letters to witches/wizards turning 11). And in GoF she fails utterly at the task Dumbledore assigns her of guarding Crouch and acts like a hysterical female. McGonagall's development is a big reason for my sneaking feeling that JKR saved the best parts for the male characters. Prof. Trelawny remainds me > of a professor I had in college who was just far to impressed with > her own accomplishments. I think Trelawney has a lot of potential as an interesting character, but she is still a female stereotype, and not a flattering one. I will be very surprised if Ginny doesn't turn into > an important and potentially strong character. JKR has as much as told us that Ginny will get much more development in OotP, and there's just a hint of that in Ginny's role in the Yule Ball squabbles. But aside from that, I can find little in canon to disprove the notion that she is a weak and immature character. Some of that can be laid at Tom Riddle's doorstep (his words "stupid little Ginny" still ring in my ears), and the fact that Ginny is portrayed as extraordinarily tongue-tied where Harry is round, but not all. Her judgment in CoS was extremely poor (why, for example, didn't she throw the diary in the fire after she stole it back from Harry; opening it up again was an act of idiocy -- but maybe a case where character was sacrificed to plot). That said, I'd really like her to grow up and be strong. And if Hermione, the most brilliant witch at Hogwarts, chose her as her confidante regarding the Yule Ball date over the witches of her year (two of whom don't even have names!), she has definite possibilities.> Debbie (hoping for Lavender to demonstrate exceptional bravery in the battle against Voldemort, for her and Parvati to become acclaimed seers, but realistically putting too many of her feminist eggs in Mrs. Figg's basket) From aquamirror at edsamail.com.ph Sat Jan 12 08:10:57 2002 From: aquamirror at edsamail.com.ph (Athena Asamiya) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 16:10:57 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape and Lily Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33266 > >Now, how about Lily. Unrequited love for Snape? Nope. Nothing >indicates that she was unhappy with James. As a matter of fact, there >is the feeling in the book that suggests James and Lily were happy.I >find this unlikely.How did she feel about Snape in general? Snape >really hated the man she really liked. So, depending on Snape's level >of hostility, she probably gauged her reactions accordingly. Now, I am not for Severus and Lily, Catherine. Yes, there's no unrequited love for Snape but at that lead to my other question: Is Lily Potter happy with James? I can't see the point of happiness running away from Voldemort often. She's always in peril with the man she love, doesn't she? Or maybe...I just didn't comprehend things well. ~Athena~ __________________________________ www.edsamail.com From pennylin at swbell.net Sat Jan 12 14:17:41 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny & Bryce) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 08:17:41 -0600 Subject: Sex in HP'verse./SHIPS Message-ID: <3C404585.9030803@swbell.net> No: HPFGUIDX 33267 Hi all -- > Terri Lyn Layman wrote: >> While I do enjoy the discourse on SHIPS and their various >> permutations. (Won't even touch that one right now.) I do >> have to point out one very valid point: The books, while enjoyed >> by adults, were written for children. Er ...from JKR's *own* mouth (Sydney Morning Herald interview...recent): > A problem you run into with a series is how the characters grow up > ... whether they're allowed to grow up. The characters in Enid > Blyton's Famous Five books act in a prepubescent way right through > the series. In the Narnia books the children are never allowed to > grow up, even though they are growing older. I want Harry Potter > and his friends to grow up as well as older, though I'll keep it > all humorous, well within the tone of the books. I want them > eventually to be truly 17 and discover girlfriends and boyfriends > and have sexual feelings - nothing too gritty. Why not allow them > to have those feelings? Also in the recent BBC interview, she said something to the effect of "there will be inevitably more boy-girl stuff, the characters are aging, etc." As for whether the books were written *for* children, JKR has said she had no target audience in mind. We just debated this extensively sometime in the last month, so I won't rehash it. Other than to say that some of our members believe these are childrens books, others think they are Young Adult, others think they are a hybrid with the earliest volumes being juvenile/young adult & the later ones trending toward adult. I fall into the last category myself. In any case, there's nothing in JKR's statements to indicate that she will tailor the series for her youngest readers or do anything other than what she's planned as far as plot & themes. In fact, she's said as much in post-GoF interviews (From Entertainment Weekly's 2-part interview in July/Aug 2000: "Will you tone it down more for your children readers, GoF was a bit dark?" Answer: "No...if I lose some audience along the way, that's fine, but I'll write it the way I've planned it & the way I want it to be"). That's a paraphrase btw, because my baby is ready to go on a walk so I've no time to find the actual source & quote it word for word. No, Terri, I don't think we will see graphic sex in the HP series. But, I do think JKR plans to take it beyond mere "glossing" over romantic relationships. That's been true in the past because the books are from Harry's POV, and he was younger. He's growing up though and will be involved in romantic relationships or entanglements himself, as will his peers. :--) Penny From meboriqua at aol.com Sat Jan 12 15:02:42 2002 From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 15:02:42 -0000 Subject: Draco's redemption - reprise In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33268 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "southernscotland" wrote: > By the way, I think it also would be interesting to think about what > Harry would have turned out like if he had, indeed, been put into > Slytherin, with Draco. If Ron hadn't been around to tell him, he > wouldn't have known any better. What would Draco have done with Harry as a (potential) friend?> I recall Harry disliking Draco within minutes of meeting him, at Madame Malkin's shop. No one was there to nudge Harry and whisper "He's bad. He's in Slytherin". Draco's snotty attitude turned Harry off right away. On another Draco note, there are ways for JKR to resolve his character without cliches. Perhaps he will witness his own father being tortured and Draco will go insane and end up at St. Mungo's. Or perhaps, after witnessing his father being tortured or torturing others Draco will lose his edge and become bumbling and clumsy, much like Neville, one of Draco's current targets for bullying. Draco could fall madly in love with Hermione or he could defect from his father for completely personal reasons that have nothing to do with Voldemort. Maybe Draco will end up more powerfully bad than dad and will do away with Lucius himself, much like Voldemort did years ago. The possibilities are endless. --jenny from ravenclaw, who still thinks, despite everything, that Draco just isn't so bad underneath ****************** From meboriqua at aol.com Sat Jan 12 15:31:58 2002 From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 15:31:58 -0000 Subject: Sex in HP'verse./SHIPS In-Reply-To: <000001c19b2f$479686e0$ae65fea9@c8b5v1> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33269 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Terri Lyn Layman" wrote: > I do have to point out one very valid point: The books, while enjoyed by adults, were written for children.> I must agree with Penny here. These books, while being marketed for children, were never intended to be exclusively for children. > I have a feeling that the series will retain it's sweet innocence, no matter what the age of the principle characters. If you really want anything more detailed than crushes and infatuation/flirtation, I suggest you go looking for some "slash" or fanfic.> Oh, come on, now - are you saying that you can't even read between the lines here? There are multiple sexual references in HP. Here are some: * the security trolls comparing the size of their, um, *clubs* in PoA * the many males' reactions to the Veela in GoF * the many crushes on Lockhart in CoS, including Molly's * Harry's physical reaction upon first noticing Cho in PoA * Ron blushing when he goes to order butterbeers from the very curvy Madame Rosmerta in PoA * Ginny walking in on Percy and Penelope in CoS * the many tensions between Ron, Hermione, Krum in GoF... Just because JKR doesn't spell it out for us doesn't mean it isn't there. She may continue to be subtle in the next three books, but we'll know what she is talking about if she mentions "Hermione and Ron hurried out of the room, Hermione adjusting her cloak". We know when Ron curses even though the words he says are not actually written. Sexuality is not the only subject that makes these books less innocent. Some pretty nasty violence has also taken place - Pettigrew cutting off his hand, Cedric being murdered, etc. These are not things written simply for children. The chess scene in SS is also scary, and I distinctly remember several children begging to leave the theater because they were terrified watching it on screen. Innocence? Nah! --jenny from ravenclaw *********************** From Edblanning at aol.com Sat Jan 12 15:52:28 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 10:52:28 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re:Draco/ Snape parallels (was Draco's redemption - reprise) Message-ID: <13c.79822f3.2971b5bc@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33270 In a message dated 12/01/02 04:13:20 GMT Standard Time, aromano at indiana.edu writes: > The one thing that gives me hope that JKR has much more satisfying things > up her sleeve for our favorite silver-haired Slytherin is the fact that > she has taken such pains to shroud Snape in mystery. She's set up certain > parallels between Snape and Draco, and I believe more will be revealed as > the books progress. I don't know if this means she's planning a > Draco redemption, but I'm hopeful that it means we'll at least come to see > him as a real boy, and not just a close-minded Daddy's boy/anti-hero. > > Quite. I'd been musing on this, wondering if one of Draco's literary raisons d'etre is to give us a clue to Snape's own background. Working backwards from my own (very amateur) psychological profile of Snape led me to construct a hypothetical background very like Draco's. I was particularly strick by Erin's 'ramblings' on Draco: > He was very spoiled growing up,form his parents. And yet it shows they never showed Draco love. >HIs evil attitudes emerged from the prejudice of his parents, former Death Eaters , but also from copying his father's attitude, to impress him. >While at the shop, all Lucius can do is criticize Draco. The only other place Draco has to gain self-worth is at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, among his Slytherin crowd. The only friends Draco has at Hogwarts are Crabbe and Goyle. From the looks of it, I doubt they are true friends. Now I'm not sure if all this can be proved from canon, but it feels right to me and again I have no *proof* whatsoever, but I'd bet my bottom Galleon that Snape comes from an emotionally cold background, with a haughty father for whom his achievements are never enough. Fathers, their presence or absence, their strengths and weaknesses seem to have some importance in HP: Riddle, Crouch, Draco, Harry himself... are there others? Tabouli: >I suspect a boy who arrived at school knowing more Curses than anyone else is >most likely a boy with some serious grudges against the world (at 11! Poor >Severus) due to mistreatment somewhere, but this wouldn't make him > automatically popular in itself. He had friends in Slytherin: Lupin and Sirius admit >as much. In fact, from all I can see, Snape would have been an articulate,intelligent >boy with considerable magic talent combined with a chip on his shoulder and a >vengeful streak. Sound like anyone else we know? Working the other way, the character of Snape is showing us that there is a way out from the inevitable for Draco, if only he makes the right decision. What really intrigues me, though, and perhaps some of you other Friends of Snape out there can help me out on this one, is just *why* do some of us have sympathy for this horrible man, want to find excuses or reasons for his behaviour, whilst most of us seem to feel nothing but antipathy for Draco, who is after all only a child. Is Snape striking some chord, does he have other literary parallels? Any thoughts? Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lucy at luphen.co.uk Sat Jan 12 16:25:18 2002 From: lucy at luphen.co.uk (Lucy Austin) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 16:25:18 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] First Glances Re: Ginny and Harry (SHIP) References: Message-ID: <008501c19b85$b999bae0$11ae1e3e@stephen> No: HPFGUIDX 33271 >Eileen giving examples of first glances: >Anne of Green Gables: The first boy to come to her attention is Gilbert, and after looking around everywhere, who does she end up with? >War and Peace: Pierre sees Natasha briefly at the party near the beginning, when she's still just a silly kid (and if you think Ginny is silly, look at Natasha Rostova!), duly notes it, and then they go off, mess their lives up with incredibly ill-conducted romances and poorly-planned career moves, but, despite everything, end up together. >David Copperfield: IIRC, Agnes Wickfield is one of the first girls to come into David's life. He barely thinks of her, except as a friend, until after his wife Dora dies, and then realizes he has loved her all the time, and they marry. And although not precisely the same, Mercedes Lackey's Arrow trilogy - Dirk is the first Herald Talia sees, and the one she forms the lifebond with - indeed, it's even described as a 'very powerful bond' because he was the first she saw! Lucy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From hollydaze at btinternet.com Sat Jan 12 16:27:12 2002 From: hollydaze at btinternet.com (Hollydaze) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 16:27:12 -0000 Subject: Irrelevant Fawcetts? Message-ID: <00c901c19b86$23dea000$7aa101d5@j0dhe> No: HPFGUIDX 33272 I'm pretty certain this has not been mentioned before but I may be wrong: OK this is a totally ridiculous Question but I have been re reading some of the books and it is beginning to get on my nerves that we keep seeing the name Fawcett mentioned but that each mention is far enough apart from the last one to "not notice" it. Book 4, we are told that the Fawcetts Live somewhere near the Wealsey's but they "couldn't get tickets. (Pg 68 UK) This shows that there are a family of Fawcetts somewhere near Ottery St Catchpole. Book 2, there is a "Miss Fawcett" at the Duelling club (Pg 144 UK). This is a female who is in either the year below or one of the years above Harry. Book 4 There is a Fawcett in the bushes that Snape blasts at the Yule Ball, a female Fawcett who is in Hufflepuff. (Pg 371 UK). There is another reference that I can't find now in book 4 (it is before "the House elf liberation front" but after they arrive at Hogwarts). This one also mentions a Fawcett in Hufflepuff though, has anyone noticed any other references whether to Fawcetts or to "unknown" characters who keep cropping up rather a lot? I know this seems totally irrelevant but there is a point to all this. I was just wondering if perhaps these people might become more important in future books. Not main characters but people who may become involved with the fight against LV who are not concentrated on but mentioned in passing (on either side or with the ministry). They may just become a background character that we know some stuff about but not too much. I know this is driving the "Mrs Figg (baby sitter) is the same as Mrs Figg (old crowd)" idea of name dropping to new levels of ridiculousness but this doesn't seem to happen with many other names so why does this one crop up so often (like the Bone's being killed and then Susan Bones being in Harry's year) I just find it odd that this names crops up so often and yet they aren't a character that we know anything about. Now you can all tell me I'm too obsessed HOLLYDAZE!!! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lucy at luphen.co.uk Sat Jan 12 16:31:54 2002 From: lucy at luphen.co.uk (Lucy Austin) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 16:31:54 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Reassurance for Ginny fans (was: Emotions, GIANTCUSHION, etc) References: Message-ID: <00b801c19b86$a77266e0$11ae1e3e@stephen> No: HPFGUIDX 33273 <<>> >>I don't think it's anything to fear over. :) I don't believe that the aforementioned fan of Harry's that will die will be Ginny. Ginny is too obvious of a choice, and J.K. is notable in that she usually does exactly the opposite of what we expect. And besides, if she died, it would be just a reminiscent of CoS. >>Liz Great, thanks Liz. I hadn't thought of it like that! I'm not sure how obvious it is, but certainly it makes it far less likely that it will be Ginny because of the CoS similarities. Phew! Lucy, now just worrying about all her other faves who could be killed off! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From fordpr1020 at aol.com Sat Jan 12 16:38:17 2002 From: fordpr1020 at aol.com (thefortressiserlohn) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 16:38:17 -0000 Subject: Impressions Changed by Fandom (SHIP) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33274 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "babelfisherperson" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lucky_kari" wrote: > > Because in most simple children's books, when one nice character > > has a crush on another nice character.... you get the picture. :-) > > That can't work in Harry Potter, though, because by that rule Harry > would have to end up with Ginny AND Cho. :P > I thought it meant that one of them was bound to die by the end of the episode...at least that's how it works in anime. I wouldn't be surprised to see Cho go - she's one of harry's fans, ditto goes for ginny. --jc From marybear82 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 12 16:43:38 2002 From: marybear82 at yahoo.com (Mary Shearer) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 08:43:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re:Draco/ Snape parallels (was Draco's redemption - reprise) In-Reply-To: <13c.79822f3.2971b5bc@aol.com> Message-ID: <20020112164338.22520.qmail@web14004.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33275 --- Edblanning at aol.com wrote: > What really intrigues me, though, and perhaps some > of you other Friends of > Snape out there can help me out on this one, is just > *why* do some of us have > sympathy for this horrible man, want to find excuses > or reasons for his > behaviour, whilst most of us seem to feel nothing > but antipathy for Draco, > who is after all only a child. > > Is Snape striking some chord, does he have other > literary parallels? Any > thoughts? I think the attraction to Snape lies in his complexity. Very early on in the series (the end of the 1st book)Snape is disproven as a 2-dimensional villain. He saves Harry - why? Dumbledore trusts him implicitly-why? He has all kinds of personal issues with Harry/MMWP-why, why, WHY? There's got to be a rich backstory... (Mary shinnies up to the crow's nest of the good ship LOLLIPOPS, and waves to everyone)...what the heck is it???? Don't know about you guys, but its killing me! Draco, on the other hand, is just a child - but he does nothing to pique my interest. He's just plain nasty with no layers. If, just once, JKR had given us even a hint of vulnerability in Draco, he would probably gain Snape status. When we finally get *some* background- enter his parents, who are merely adult Dracos...nothin'. They treat him coldly, but he doesn't seem affected by it - by appearances, his relationship with his parents is on a good footing, though not the warm and nurturing one we would want with our own children. We may *try* to read behind the lines, but, literally, JKR gives us nothing other than the flat face of petty evil. Even Voldemort has more for us to sympathize with (rejected by his father's family, lost his mother young, etc.) Draco is...well...just a bad boy with no redeeming qualities. Feel free to come after me - I'll be down in the cabin swilling rum with Tabouli. -Mary > [Non-text portions of this message have been > removed] > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ From vencloviene at hotmail.com Sat Jan 12 17:44:06 2002 From: vencloviene at hotmail.com (anavenc) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 17:44:06 -0000 Subject: Q: why readers love Snape (Was:Draco/ Snape parallels) In-Reply-To: <13c.79822f3.2971b5bc@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33276 Eloise wrote: > What really intrigues me, though, and perhaps some of you other Friends of > Snape out there can help me out on this one, is just *why* do some of us have > sympathy for this horrible man, want to find excuses or reasons for his > behaviour, whilst most of us seem to feel nothing but antipathy for Draco, > who is after all only a child. > > Is Snape striking some chord, does he have other literary parallels? Any > thoughts? I almost started answering to Eloise's post, but finally thought I'd better leave it to people who are knowledgeable in literature and theory of writing. Maybe Tabouli, Elisabeth Dalton, Cindy(sphinx) and all you other literary experts, whose thought-provoking posts never fail to impress me, would like to reply to this one. However, I couldn't resist a temptation to throw in a very closely related question which I have been asking myself for a while: Snape is not only sympathised with, but much, much more. A large part of HP fandom consists of people who are simply infatuated with him. Meanwhile, it seems like JKR so far hasn't planned on readers loving him--at least not yet :). She keeps repeating in interviews that Snape is horrible and seems surprised when readers show signs of affection to him. Well, she obviously planned on making him intriguing, who would doubt it after reading the famous hospital scene in the end of GOF. But definitely not loveable. Inspite of this, Snape, probably more than any other HP character, mysteriously got out of JKR's hand and acquired a life of his own in readers' minds. For example, from JKR's point of view, nobody "would want him to fall in love with her", but *ahem* consider the huge amount of on-line discussions and especially fanfiction about his love life. So, I guess, my question is: why readers so badly want Snape to be different from the fellow we see in Rowling's books? Especially that the original character is so fascinating in his own right? Ana. From babelfisherperson at yahoo.com Sat Jan 12 18:02:10 2002 From: babelfisherperson at yahoo.com (babelfisherperson) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 18:02:10 -0000 Subject: What if book 5 is not about Harry? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33277 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Ambir Adams" wrote: > And well its gonna be darker because Voldie is back, But Fudge > doesn't want to accept that. Does anyone else suspect Fudge of > being a DE? After all he is so against the idea of Voldie > returning, he doesn't even want to hear it. What if it's just an > act? I don't think Fudge is that good an actor. I think he's just an incompetent fool who'd rather believe that Dumbledore has gone off his rocker than that Voldemort actually has returned. And I don't think Voldemort has any need to recruit Fudge. He's (unknowingly) serving Voldemort's interests just as well on his own as he would if Voldie actually were pulling his strings. Red XIV From babelfisherperson at yahoo.com Sat Jan 12 18:08:54 2002 From: babelfisherperson at yahoo.com (babelfisherperson) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 18:08:54 -0000 Subject: What if book 5 is not about Harry? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33278 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jrober4211" wrote: > I wondered that too. I also wondered if "The Order of the Phoenix" > referred to Voldemort and his followers , or whether it referred to > Dumbledore, Harry, and his followers in Book 5. I suppose it could > go either way since both Harry and Voldemort have cheated death and > possess wands with the phoenix feather core....... I've been assuming that "The Order of the Phoenix" is the name for Dumbledore & his followers. Voldemort's followers already have a name: the Death Eaters. And it's clear that Dumbledore has his own anti-Death Eater group that he's starting to mobilize at the end of GoF, the "old crowd" he mentions. Plus, Dumbledore has as much of a phoenix connection as Harry & Voldemort: the phoenix feathers from both of their wands come from HIS phoenix, Fawkes. And CoS indicates that Fawkes serves as Dumbledore's emmisary when he himself can't be present. Red XIV From babelfisherperson at yahoo.com Sat Jan 12 18:20:38 2002 From: babelfisherperson at yahoo.com (babelfisherperson) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 18:20:38 -0000 Subject: The Female Students (and other female charcters) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33279 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "elfundeb" wrote: > I would add that in my view JKR's treatment of women (and > minorities, for that matter) doesn't square well with statements > she has made that prejudice is a major theme of the books. After > paying lip service to the lack of traditional prejudice in the > wizarding world by peppering the sidelines with female professors > and Quidditch players and making sure we're aware that the Hogwarts > population has a reasonable percentage of minorities, all of the > female characters we see close up conform to classic stereotypes. > (Aside -- do people feel the male characters are also stereotyped? > I don't get that sense as much as with the females.) If the > Weasleys are such Quidditch fans, why don't we see Ginny out there > at the Burrow playing with her brothers? Why do there not seem to > be any female Aurors? Why does every witch devour Witch Weekly? > And why are the minority females notable mostly for their athletic > abilities (Angelina, Cho) or their exotic appearances (Cho, > Parvati)? In so many places in the books she slips in little > details about the wizarding world, but she just doesn't seem to do > it in her treatment of witches. Do remember, everything we see is from Harry's perspective. With the sole exception of Hermione, he pays almost no attention to girls through most of the series so far. And when he does pay attention them, he's mainly noticing their looks. He IS, after all, a boy. We haven't seen any female Aurors because, I'm fairly certain, we've seen a grand total of ONE Auror. We don't see Ginny playing Quidditch because we don't see much of her at all; Harry doesn't pay her any attention, as he seems to think of her as "Ron's annoying little sister". I've not seen indication that "every witch devour(s) Witch Weekly", and even if that were the case, we don't know that Witch Weekly is some magical equivilent of Cosmo or whatever. Red XIV From karen at infobreak.net Sat Jan 12 18:37:29 2002 From: karen at infobreak.net (infobreakdotcom) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 18:37:29 -0000 Subject: Classical knowledge (was: "This is just too easy...") In-Reply-To: <002401c19a2f$72ed9dc0$c808f1d5@OSLII> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33280 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Ev vy" wrote: > From: Eloise > : 1) The key to pacifying Fluffy clearly is not common knowledge ( I have to > : say that this lack of Classical knowledge is one of several failings in the > : curriculum that bothers me. There's enough Latin in the spells, many of the > : creatures occur in classical myth etc, and the style of education is old- > : fashioned enough to make me think that a knowledge of Latin and classical > : myth/ literature would be essential) > > Such an approach to Classical knowledge seems to me a Muggle approach. What for Muggles is classical myth/literature and Latin (as a separate language), for wizards may be a part of their common knowledge. > Harry, as brought up by Muggles does not have the knowledge, which a child brought up in a proper wizarding family may have, about all the creatures that could seem mythical to Harry (or the reader) and not very unusual to a child-wizard, who would hear about them quite frequently I guess. I think you missed the point. If knowledge of how to calm a three headed dog is common knowledge to wizards, Fluffy wouldn't be protecting the stone from many wizards. Even Ron would know unless he is a kinda stupid. So all you say about the limitations of Harry's knowledge is only valid if the stone is being protected from Harry, muggleborns, and wizards who lack common knowledge. From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Sat Jan 12 18:45:50 2002 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 10:45:50 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] How did Crabb and Goyle get to be Death Eaters? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <181147118070.20020112104550@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33281 Friday, January 11, 2002, 11:10:45 AM, pbeider wrote: p> This is the second of two questions I (a newbie) did not find p> addressed in the "Mysteries and Inconsistencies FAQ": I think we'd better add it, as it keeps getting asked. p> Near the end of Book 4, Crabb and Goyle are among the Death Eaters p> Voldemort talks to individually; he says something about them doing p> better "next time." But if they're close to Harry's age, they p> couldn't have done any work for Voldemort before his disappearance. p> Is it plausible that they would have had enough knowledge of p> Voldemort's revival to have signed on as Death Eaters since then?? Surely these are Vincent and Gregory's FATHERS. (They appear to be as clueless as their thuggish offspring.) -- Dave, who wonders if in future books Crabbe and Goyle, Sr. are going to function as "Orson and Seymour" to Voldy's "Witchiepoo" (i.e. bumbling "hired help" as comic relief). From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Sat Jan 12 18:51:10 2002 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 10:51:10 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Veela (was Chatterly Saga (was McGonagall's Age In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <185147438264.20020112105110@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33282 Friday, January 11, 2002, 6:36:14 PM, tex23236 wrote: t> There's a lot of tradition about magic powers and virginity. Tradition is vastly overrated. -- Dave From Littlered32773 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 12 19:09:50 2002 From: Littlered32773 at yahoo.com (oz_widgeon) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 19:09:50 -0000 Subject: Silly food question Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33283 I know this is going to sound dumb, but I have a question about something Aunt Marge says in PoA. "Excellent nosh, Petunia. It's normally just a fry-up for me of an evening...." (PoA 27 US) What's a fry-up? As an American I immediately come up with two possiblities: 1. a stir-fry, which seems highly unlikely or 2. something deep fried, pehaps fish and chips, which seems like a lot of trouble Can anyone tell me what the English consider a "fry-up"? Cheers! Slon From Zarleycat at aol.com Sat Jan 12 20:02:42 2002 From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 20:02:42 -0000 Subject: Survivor Snape, LOLLIPOPS sails again In-Reply-To: <00a701c19b46$2bb3bc60$7b31c2cb@price> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33284 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Tabouli" wrote: > Marianne: > > Of course, this scenario of Lily-the-evil-heartbreaker assumes that > Snape is lonely, friendless, unpopular, put-upon, etc.< > > Why? I don't see this. You don't have to be lonely, friendless and all the rest to have an unrequited crush on someone. Nor would Lily have to have been evil not to have reciprocated his feelings (as JKR said, what woman would want Snape in love with her?). Agreed. I was responding to the previous poster, who specultated that one reason that Snape is the way he is could be because he was somewhat unpopular, shy, etc. and fell for Lily, who treated him badly. What I was trying to point out is that we have evidence that Snape was not a loner or friendless, so I felt that this scenario didn't wash, regardless of Lily's behavior towards him. Marianne From lo0laa at yahoo.co.uk Sat Jan 12 21:35:56 2002 From: lo0laa at yahoo.co.uk (lo0laa) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 21:35:56 -0000 Subject: Silly food question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33285 "oz_widgeon" wrote: > Can anyone tell me what the English consider a "fry-up"? It's basically a 'traditional' english breakfast consisting of things like fried eggs, bacon, sausages, hash browns, fried bread, beans, fried mushrooms... you get the picture. Very fattening. Loolaa From Edblanning at aol.com Sat Jan 12 22:15:04 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 17:15:04 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Classical knowledge/ cultural education Message-ID: <119.ad7a510.29720f68@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33286 Ev vy replies > > From: Eloise > : I had the same thought, but of course, we have the benefit of hindsight. > : > : 1) The key to pacifying Fluffy clearly is not common knowledge ( I have > to > : say that this lack of Classical knowledge is one of several failings in > the > : curriculum that bothers me. There's enough Latin in the spells, many of > the > : creatures occur in classical myth etc, and the style of education is > old- > : fashioned enough to make me think that a knowledge of Latin and classical > : myth/ literature would be essential) > > Such an approach to Classical knowledge seems to me a Muggle approach. What > for Muggles is classical myth/literature and Latin (as a separate > language), for wizards may be a part of their common knowledge. 'Fabulous > beasts' exist in their world, Latin is incorporated into language to be > used in naming all the spells, and not necessarily exists as a separate > language or in fact a dead language (is it a correct term?). > > Harry, as brought up by Muggles does not have the knowledge, which a child > brought up in a proper wizarding family may have, about all the creatures > that could seem mythical to Harry (or the reader) and not very unusual to a > child-wizard, who would hear about them quite frequently I guess. E.g. the > Weasleys have a ghoul in their attic. They don't seem to think it's unusual > (rather annoying), or that the creature itself shouldn't be there or > shouldn't exist because it's mythical (that what a Muggle would think). > IMHO, Fluffy being a mythical creature for us, for wizards is just a huge > three-headed dog. Maybe not the only one around. > > Moreover, Harry not being very much 'Muggle-educated' (uncle Vernon is > known to shut Harry up in his cupboard for a long time periods) probably is > not aware of anything like Classical education and for him all the > creatures are just incredible, awesome, etc. and not mythological in the > very meaning of this word. And he may not even know that Latin _is_ a > separate language in the Muggle world. > > Actually, I think you are in some ways making my point again. Perhaps I didn't make my thinking very clear the last time. I agree that Harry, who has been English state- educated to the age of 10, will probably have a woeful lack of classical knowledge, but that isn't what concerns me. It is also,now that you point it out, quite possible that Latin is not a dead language in the wizarding world: perhaps that's why we have no evidence of their learning French or German or any other language to communicate with wizards of other nationalities (but don't I remember ?Bagman having communication problems with officials from another country at the World Cup?) What I mean is, if those creatures which are to us myth, and those accounts for which to us are mythical are in the wizarding world factual, or at least based on fact, then why is there an assumed general ignorance over such an important mythical creature? IMHO there should not be ignorance among wizards about something ( the power of music over Cerberus, who is clearly, if not Fluffy himself, at least his forbear/ close enough relative for it to be a reasonable guess that music might work) which even I as a mere muggle know about. It implies that the texts of which we know, Virgil, Homer, etc and treat as myth/ legend but which in the wizarding world might even be treated as historical/ pseudo-historical just aren't known. Sticking with Fluffy, if he is 'just a three- headed dog. Maybe not the only one around', (and doesn't Hagrid ask, 'How many three-headed dogs do you see?) it makes it even harder for me to understand why no-one knows how to tackle him. I'm not surprised Harry doesn't know; it's Snape's ignorance and the assumption of general ignorance (why else use him as a deterrent?) that bothers me. Just because a creature is a 'real' in the wizarding world doesn't mean it is common knowledge and shouldn't be taught about. They learn about unicorns in Hagrid's class. But what about, for instance centaurs? Not creatures you're going to 'care' for, but isn't it important to learn about them? Thinking about this, there seems to be a place in the curriculum for a whole subject devoted to the study of other magical beings that don't require care and aren't covered under DADA: elves, goblins, fairies etc etc. Others have noted a lack of reference to the lack of cultural/ recreational pusuits taking place at Hogwarts. I see it as part of this. There seems to be a whole cultural dimension missing or at least not mentioned in the curriculum: literature, music, art, language, (other) sports, dance . The one thing they do have is History. I suppose we could see a parallel with kids going off to a specialist music or stage school, but in the muggle world, there is generally an attempt to keep up a general education alongside the specialist one. I just can't see very rounded characters coming out if all they ever learn is magic. I also find it strange that there is no evidence of Maths teaching. I wonder how they manage those astronomy charts? Would you need it for Arithmancy? (confess complete ignorance of subject) Eloise (Who did study Latin many moons ago and is rather peeved that her children don't have the opportunity) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From djdwjt at aol.com Sat Jan 12 23:31:11 2002 From: djdwjt at aol.com (elfundeb) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 23:31:11 -0000 Subject: The Female Students (and other female charcters) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33287 > Do remember, everything we see is from Harry's perspective. With the > sole exception of Hermione, he pays almost no attention to girls > through most of the series so far. And when he does pay attention > them, he's mainly noticing their looks. He IS, after all, a boy. I can accept this as a partial explanation (and a full explanation in the case of Cho), but cannot hide my broader disappointment about the lack of clues that there are witches out there doing interesting, non- stereotyped things. As someone who as a child (more or less pre- women's lib) was always searching for books that projected positive images of women (regardless of the gender of the main character), I do feel that HP fails somewhat in this respect to date, with the sole exception of Hermione and there are instances where even she behaves like a damsel in distress waiting for the boys to come to the rescue (most notably the troll scene). > > We haven't seen any female Aurors because, I'm fairly certain, we've > seen a grand total of ONE Auror. We know of two: Moody and Frank Longbottom (technically, we haven't seen either one, because Moody was Crouch). JKR pointedly doesn't say Mrs. Longbottom was an Auror, though she was tortured along with her husband so there's no apparent reason to leave her off the list of Aurors; it would have been easy for JKR to make the no-prejudice- against-females point here by simply accusing Crouch Jr. & Co of torturing two Aurors with the Cruciatus Curse. But she doesn't. My comment also applies to Death Eaters, who also all appear to be men (but that may be Slytherin prejudice; they don't have any female Quidditch players either). We don't see Ginny playing Quidditch > because we don't see much of her at all; Harry doesn't pay her any > attention, as he seems to think of her as "Ron's annoying little > sister". Harry never, to my recollection, indicates that he thinks Ginny is annoying, and he does notice her when he's at the Burrow; otherwise we'd hear nothing about her. He would definitely notice if she came out to play Quidditch with the boys. I've not seen indication that "every witch devour(s) Witch > Weekly", and even if that were the case, we don't know that Witch > Weekly is some magical equivilent of Cosmo or whatever. You're right, "every witch" is an overstatement; Hermione certainly doesn't read it. But I did get the impression that a lot of the girls at Hogwarts read it, as do many older witches, such as Mrs. Weasley. And based on the content we've seen in Witch Weekly and Rita Skeeter's journalistic standards, I would venture to guess that Witch Weekly bears more resemblance to the National Enquirer (trash) than Cosmo (merely frivolous). Of course, since Rita also writes for the Daily Prophet, I don't get the impression that journalism is the strong point of the wizarding world. > > Debbie (who would be pleased to form the Witch Liberation Front at Hogwarts) From andrew_macian at yahoo.com Sat Jan 12 23:41:22 2002 From: andrew_macian at yahoo.com (Andrew MacIan) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 15:41:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] What if book 5 is not about Harry? Message-ID: <20020112234122.14746.qmail@web9506.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33288 Greetings from Andrew! Since for me it seems to be both "history" and "dyslexic typing" day, permit me to quote an old saw that is true, even today.... --- Ambir Adams wrote: {snip} > And well its gonna be darker because Voldie is back, > But Fudge doesn't want > to accept that. Does anyone else suspect Fudge of > being a DE? After all he > is so against the idea of Voldie returning, he > doesn't even want to hear it. > What if it's just an act? > > Those are just my thoughts :) > Ryoko-- "All that needs to happen for evil men to triumph is for good men to do nothing." Denial can be a "high speed" means of doing nothing; indeed, in this case, it would appear that Rowling is showing us that Fudge's decision to keep going all head full and ignoring the need to alter course is something of the sort. As for it being an act (and here I presume you're offering a notion that Fudge is on the side of the Dark), I would offer my opinion that, as far as we have been shown, it would be possible but unlikely. As Fudge's character has been drawn, I see him as being a superficial, supercilious career apparatchik, one who has determined in his own mind what's what. If this is the whole case, then I doubt that he has either the depth or strength of character to do anything but waffle. However, since the actual resolution of this is still only in Rowling's mind/notes/ms, we'll see what happens. 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 video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ From bonnie at niche-associates.com Sat Jan 12 23:54:07 2002 From: bonnie at niche-associates.com (dicentra_spectabilis_alba) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 23:54:07 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore "wrote" Book 1 Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33289 In 33131, I asked the group what had been said about the ease with which Harry and company made it through the gauntlet of spells to get to the Sorcerer's Stone. Thanks to Angela AKA Sweet Usagi (33144), Eloise (33145), and blenberry (33148) for giving me some good synopses of the theories posted here. I'd like to propose a theory that builds on all that's been said and then goes one step further: The spells were breakable by first-year students because Dumbledore MEANT for Harry to face Voldemort. And in fact, most of the events of SS were engineered by Dumbledore for Harry's benefit. (Sincere apologies if this very argument has been made before, but parsing 33,000 posts to find out was a bit daunting.) 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! So, that makes Dumbledore the "author" of SS/PS in the sense that he was the ultimate cause of the action. In Book 2, it was Lucius Malfoy, believe it or not, because he set it all in motion by giving Ginny the diary. In Book 3 it was Sirius Black, whose dead sexy escape set off the chain of events. (Or was it Cornelius Fudge, who gives Sirius the newspaper, or the Weasleys for getting their picture taken, or the editor of The Daily Prophet for publishing the picture, etc.?) And in Book 4, it was the fake Mad-Eye Moody. Wonder who will make Book 5 rock? --Dicentra, who would like an acronym for her theory, if it's not too much to ask From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Jan 13 00:53:52 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 00:53:52 -0000 Subject: Female and male characters Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33290 I think what makes the female characters (except Hermione) less compelling than their male counterparts is that they are socially secure. Since the story is about Harry's attempt to re-establish himself within the wizarding world as well as to defeat Voldie, the females seem to have less to do with the story, though they do exercise power and responsibility on a level with the males. The male characters echo various aspects of Harry's struggles. Arthur, Hagrid, Lupin and Sirius are all displaced and deprived of something important to them. Snape is also displaced, although we don't know for sure whether he is an unsung hero or an unpunished scoundrel. Even Dumbledore was deprived of his position for a while. Few of the females are displaced, although they are threatened at times. Often Rowling equips the female characters with a superior standing to their male associates in order to underline qualities which are missing from the males and which contribute to their displacement. For example, Krum, who is something of a loner, is defeated by the superior teamwork of the female Irish chasers. Hagrid needs Mme. Maxime's poise. McGonagall ranks superior to both Snape, who could use some of her fairness, and Lupin, who could use her self-discipline in dealing with a disliked colleague. It's clear that McGonagall would like to ridicule Trelawney the way Lupin does Snape, but she restrains herself. If Lupin had done the same, he'd still have a job. The highly stylized depiction of the females is a result of their symbolic role in the story, but it also makes them come across as "flat". Girls, or their guardians, who see social struggle as the essence of feminism and want to see more HP females fighting for recognition can only hope Winky will get herself into rehab and re-emerge as a leader for Elf-rights. ;-) But if Rowling's society is supposed to be gender blind, then she can't show women striving for success against sexist prejudice, can she? Pippin From brewpub44 at earthlink.net Sun Jan 13 01:02:32 2002 From: brewpub44 at earthlink.net (brewpub44) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 01:02:32 -0000 Subject: Draco's redemption - reprise In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33291 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "davewitley" wrote: > If Draco is redeemed, it > seems like a literary cliche. He has been set up as the bully who > has nuisance value, the foil for Harry who so far manages to be > absent whenever adventure really gets going. > > On the other hand, if he slides into Death Eaterism, then that's a > triumph for destiny (whether by birth, or Sorting Hat, or just fate) > over choice. > Some time ago, I posted my own personal theory which, well, I kind of like: Draco likes being hte leader of the bullying group. The grand poobah of all that is slimey at Hogwarts. Along comes LV, to whom the elder Malfoy has not only pledged his allegiance but is subservient to. Now, if Draco became a DE, he too would be under LV's thumb, a rotten place to be no matter whether you're a "good guy" or "bad guy." So, I would like to see Draco help Harry, not because Draco turns over a new leaf and is redeemed, but because Draco doesn't want to be a slave to LV like dear old Dad. In this manner, Draco is still Harry's nemesis, but hasn't turned a new leaf. There are many ways this could play out, but that's the gist of what I'd like to see. A Barkeep in Diagon Alley From brewpub44 at earthlink.net Sun Jan 13 01:16:27 2002 From: brewpub44 at earthlink.net (brewpub44) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 01:16:27 -0000 Subject: Lily (was gender-spiked musings); structure In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33292 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "davewitley" wrote: > Julie aka Viola wrote: > > No, I think Snape will only really appear as he is in Book 7 - that > would fit nicely with Harry's first year. Oh, and the Dursleys' true > importance will be revealed then. (Why do people focus on Petunia- as- > squib when the interesting backstory is Vernon's? Where did *he* > learn to fear magic?) > > > David I like most of hte theories in your post, but the bit on the Dursley's will IMHO be resolved in hte next book. I think it is likely because of the foreshadowing about 'why Harry is safe at the Dursleys' at the end of GOF. I think it's all going to come out next book. I personally would love to see it resolved in OOP largely because I cannot stand the Dursley's. LV is the "cool villain" of the piece, but the Dursleys are trash who abuse children, and nothing churns my stomach more. For the next book's Dursley scenes, I hope Harry let's them have it. Oh, not with any cruel curses or even simple, harmless charmes (let's not have the MOM on his case), but verbally thrash them to no end, even if it means he is banned from their house. They have to hear it told to them like it is: they are cruel, sadistic monsters, no matter what the reasoning. Phew, that actually felt good! Time for a Guinness! A Barkeep in Diagon Alley From cstump at kirkwood.cc.ia.us Sat Jan 12 18:45:04 2002 From: cstump at kirkwood.cc.ia.us (grandisiowa) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 18:45:04 -0000 Subject: Snape and Lily Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33293 > Now, I am not for Severus and Lily, Catherine. Yes, there's no unrequited love for Snape but at that lead to my other question: Is Lily Potter happy with James? I can't see the point of happiness running away from Voldemort often. She's always in peril with the man she love, doesn't she? I think Athena raises an excellent point. We really don't know if James and Lily were happy. We only know that they married. :) Certainly, the whole Voldemort situation no doubt did put a damper on their happiness. As many authors have said, we just don't know enough. I think that we can deduce that Lily was a devoted mother, based on her sacrifice for Harry, and the spell of her love in Harry's skin. That's all we know. Athena, thank you for pointing that out. Catherine From bricken at tenbit.pl Sun Jan 13 01:38:31 2002 From: bricken at tenbit.pl (Ev vy) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 02:38:31 +0100 Subject: Classical knowledge/ cultural education References: <119.ad7a510.29720f68@aol.com> Message-ID: <002301c19bd3$d0c8a660$ea08f1d5@OSLII> No: HPFGUIDX 33294 It's long. Longer than I though it would be. And I hope it's more or less logical. ---From: infobreakdotcom > I think you missed the point. If knowledge of how to calm a three > headed dog is common knowledge to wizards, Fluffy wouldn't be > protecting the stone from many wizards. Even Ron would know > unless he is a kinda stupid. So all you say about the limitations > of Harry's knowledge is only valid if the stone is being protected > from Harry, muggleborns, and wizards who lack common > knowledge. OK, I agree that it was not a well chosen example, or rather that my explanation to it was not well-applied. Acromantula would have been a better one. Fluffy may not be a part of common knowledge but may be a part of curriculum or knowledge of Greek wizards. Which may mean that Hagrid (expelled), children (not yet educated enough) may not know about its existence. But I'll elaborate on this later on in response to Eloise's post. ---From: Eloise <<>> Yes, Bagman did have troubles communicating with Bulgarian wizards during the World Cup. It was the Bulgarian Minister of Magic (or other official) who had a good command of English. But Latin, not being a dead language, does not have to be a lingua franca. Even if it's used in spells and potions (and wherever else) does not mean that wizards are able to communicate using Latin. <<>> Fluffy might not have been the best example. But, as I see it, this general ignorance may be in fact limited to tackling Fluffy and not his existence. Virgil and Homer were Muggles so their works may be simply disregarded in the wizarding world. If we assume that Muggle and wizarding worlds separated long time ago (and it's my view of this matter) then why should wizards pay heed to anything that was produced by Muggles? Moreover, if Muggles were writing about mythical creatures that existed in the wizarding world, even as not necessarily common ones but simply existing (or common in the past), it would have been even stronger reason to disregard their works, to ignore their existence. Or to laugh at them: "Oh, those poor Muggles, they think that three-headed dogs do no exist." Assuming that Muggles know about Fluffy/Cerberus (and what about tackling him? is anywhere in the Muggles writing mentioned how to tackle such a creature?) is somehow limited to educated and well-read Muggles. About ninety percent of Muggles don't have the faintest idea what a creature Cerberus was (sad truth, isn't it?). Another point: we don't know the exact curriculum, three-headed dogs may be a part of curriculum for older students, so Hagrid (expelled) and the Trio (first-years) may not know about his existence. Yet another point: Virgil and Homer may be a part of Muggle studies. Muggle studies is not an obligatory subject so children may be avoiding it (I don't see Slytherins willingly attending Muggle studies) as Muggles are considered in the wizarding world as less able (partially disabled by lack of magic) and thus their creations may be ignored. Of course there are wizards like Arthur Weasley who are fascinated with Muggle creations, but rather with mechanical devices that artistic creations. And even if Fluffy was a part of Muggle studies (as a beast in Muggle writings) learning about its existence wouldn't mean learning about tackling it, its not the scope of Muggle studies, but DADA. BTW, DADA may not be covering three-headed dogs as they may be rare enough (giant spiders do exist in a dangerous proximity of Hogwarts, their existence is acknowledged in general but their neither native nor believed to exist in Britain so they may not be the scope of DADA) or not native to Britain. <<>> I've written above why I think that the wizards may be ignorant about Fluffy. Same applies to Snape. Somehow I don't see him taking Muggle studies. Besides, the general ignorance about Fluffy may apply only to British wizards, they seem to be preoccupied mostly with creatures native to Britain. Even 'Fabulous Beasts' may not be known as a whole to each wizard. Or even if they have read it, they would forget about creatures they don't have in their own country. Hagrid got Fluffy from a Greek chappie, so at least one person in Greece knows how to handle Fluffy. And I'd assume that Greek wizards are acquainted with the fact of its existence and the way to tackle it. Well, at least some of them, or those who are interested. Voldemort didn't know how to tackle Fluffy and neither did Quirrell, come to think of it. However, I can't see Tom Riddle attending Muggle studies and Quirrell seems to be incompetent as DADA teacher (and I wrote my musings on the scope of DADA above). And Voldie had more important things to do than to enhance his knowledge about fantastic beasts. <<>> Centaurs may be a part of curriculum for older students, in any subject, I can't think of one which could cover them magical creatures, etc. Actually (this came to my mind second ago), centaurs may be a part of curriculum for Divination, they are creatures which look into the future, aren't they? And Hagrid spends a lot of time teaching (?!) about flobberworms, he seems not to have any curriculum. And do unicorns really need care? And still the students learn about them. Besides, we don't know the exact curriculum for all seven years. Elves (house-elves in particular) and goblins are so well established in the wizarding society that there's no need to teach about them. Or it's not written that students learn about them. Example: Harry refers to a person ordering raw liver (sorry, can't remember where or when) as a hag. But we don't see him learning (at school or anywhere else) about existence of hags. I'm not sure what creatures they are, but still. <<>> If we assume a complete separation of the two worlds (and I think that it's indeed so and it's taken place long ago), then these cultural pursuits may be considered as Muggle and not worth learning. E.g. literature. Let's take literature in the Middle ages: adventures of knights fighting against mythical beasts ('Beowulf'), romances, quest stories, lives of saints (I know it's not all, but at 2.30 a.m. I can't think of more examples). If the separation of the worlds goes back in time as far as middle ages (or further), I do see wizards completely ignoring literature, or most of it as not entirely applicable in their world (Merlin is legendary in our world, but in the wizarding world he's a part of history, and what about Circe? She's not Medieval, but the reasons apply to her, IMHO). And contemporary wizards would ignore those writings for the same reason. We don't know if anything like a notion of being a saint exists in the wizarding world. I, as a Muggle, had to read excerpts from lives of saints, but it was abstract for me (not that I didn't enjoy reading them). I love 'Beowulf', but how many people in Poland know it (I'm Polish, BTW)? Not many, as it's a part of British culture. So all these writings may have for wizards the same value as for Muggles (even in Britain, how many people read 'Beowulf' or lives of saints and remember exactly what it was about; I don't remember a single thing from the lives of saints; I can't refer to 'Beowulf' in the same manner as I still remember it quite well), or even less. Muggles would read and forget, wizards wouldn't read at all, why bother? And maybe those talents that Muggles have for literature, music (wizards can dance - Yule ball) were somehow substituted with the talent for magic. Just a thought, not re-considered. <<>> OK, I see it as such. Arithmancy is not an obligatory subject. Among the Trio only Hermione took this subject and she as Muggle-born knows at least basics, however it's probable, that she knows much more than average Muggle pupil, even older than she is. So maybe only those kids are admitted to Arithmancy, who have basic knowledge of Maths. Or maybe many wizarding children (before they come to Hogwarts) attend Muggle schools. Children stemming from wizard-only families probably don't attend Muggle schools as their existence is not known in the Muggle world (at least I think so), half Muggles and Muggle-borns probably attend Muggle schools in majority. But I see another problem here. I don't know British law, but in Poland parents who don't send their children to school may get arrested, as learning is obligatory. OK, I've heard about home-teaching or rather self-education, but I'm not sure if it's acceptable in the UK or the USA. So, Hermione who's Muggle-born probably attended a Muggle school, we know that Justin Finch-Fletchley's name was down for Eton so he must have attended a Muggle school. But when those kids are accepted to Hogwarts, they disappear form the Muggle world. So what happens? Are there any legal consequences? Maybe Hogwarts does exist in the Muggle world as a normal school, somehow. And as the kids leave it at the age of eighteen then it's no Muggle authority's scope of interest to check on them, to check on their level of education? <<>> Ev vy who had a chance to learn Latin but ignored the subject as it was extra-curricular and the teacher seemed not very sober most of the time ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ There's nothing level in our cursed natures But direct villainy. William Shakespeare "Timon of Athens" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover, To entertain these fair well-spoken days, I am determined to prove a villain William Shakespeare "Richard III" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From editor at texas.net Sun Jan 13 02:32:16 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Lewanski) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 20:32:16 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Female Students (and other female charcters) References: Message-ID: <3C40F1B0.57C2957A@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 33295 CAVEAT: I have not been reading this particular thread in detail. A lot of the feeling in the following has to do with impressions formed from gender-balance and/or orientation-balance threads from the past. This should not be construed as a personal criticism if that's not what you said, okay? Okay. The first line of this post caught my eye, and I thus respond. christi0469 wrote: > If the female characters in Potterverse have not eveolved by the end > of the 7th book JKR will have failed to give a gender-balanced > perspective to the series: I'm sorry, but this particular looming threat does not greatly disturb me. Over my eons on the list, I've formed this image of a fictitious (I *hope* it's fictitious) checklist that authors go down, along the lines of (box) Male characters are sensititve (box) Female/Male character ratio not too unbalanced (box) As many female as male characters developed and complex (box) As many female as male characters with Importance to the Plot (box) No portrayal of traditional relationships which might be construed as critical of untraditional (box) Etc.... Honestly, I don't care what genders the characters are, so long as they are believable, compelling, and interesting. I don't care what gender of character furthers the plot, so long as the plot is also believable, compelling, and interesting. I really, really hope that things like the gender balance she is portraying are not so close to JKR's mind as what happens next, and getting it on paper. What will matter to my daughter, be she ultimately gay or straight, fat or thin, tall or short, blonde or not, will be how my husband and I teach her how to perceive herself, much moreso than the gender balance in the books she reads. --Amanda, getting rant-y after two Smirnoff Ices and a sinus pill (yee-haw!) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From catlady at wicca.net Sun Jan 13 02:53:56 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 02:53:56 -0000 Subject: Immortality / LOLLIPOPS / Gay / Fawcett / Muggle Studies Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33296 Mercia Meglet wrote: > it is clear to me that Voldemort's obsession is not just the > standard evil dictator's aim of world domination but to achieve > immortality in this world and to pass on that to his selected > followers. I believe that Voldemort has made it clear in canon that he has worked very hard to gain immortality for himself. I suspect that he has promised immortality to his followers, because that is one very effective way of recruiting certain people, but I suspect that he has no intention of actually doing it. > I can't imagine she would call him theft of death without good > reason. As you suggest, he could be Thief from Death or Flight from Death because of his quest for immortality, to steal his life away from death. He could also be Flight of Death because he swoops down on people and kills them, or Thief of Death because he has 'stolen' (from God's Angel of Death, from Nature, from Fate, whatever) the power to give death (kill people). I perceive a contradiction between his desire to never die and his impulse to destroy pretty much everything he comes across: he seems not to have thought of how will he live without a support system (environment, food, air, servants, etc). Catherine grandisiowa wrote: > Not likely, given Snapes's connections, that he's going to be > attracted to a Mudblood. There is no evidence that Snape is opposed to Muggle-born witches and wizards: I can't think of any example of him picking worse on a Muggle-born than a Pureblood of the same House and similar Potions ability. I don't believe he joined the Death Eaters because he wanted to purify the wizarding world of Muggle genes: he may have been hoping to gain power, wealth, or immortality; he may have been going along with his friends out of loyalty; perhaps he welcomed any opportunity to oppose James... Andrew mrgrrragh (Mr. Grrragh? related to Aragh the English wolf?) wrote: > Are any of the HP characters gay? And will JKR write about that? That's a question that, historically, has started a number of feuds and flame wars. I suspect that JKR won't write about it, to avoid conflict with upset Muggles. However, she could, without being extraneous. Me, I think it would be hysterically funny to have scene where all the Weasleys (and Harry and Hermione and maybe Viktor) are at the Burrow and Fleur turns up on some excuse but really to chase Bill, and Bill is the only male not affected by her: Ron and Fred and George and Charlie are blatantly following her around with their tongues hanging out, Percy (and Viktor, if present) are always making excuses to wander up to her and start bragging, Arthur (whenever in her presence) gazes at at her with a reminiscent smile, Harry stares at her with a stunned expression whenever she's around --- and Bill makes the same polite conversation as with any guest. She finally corners Bill alone and asks what the hell is going on, and he explains: "I like you just fine as a friend, and I know you're a very pretty woman (I'm not blind), but I've never been interested in women that way; I've always been gay." Which could be followed, later in the book, by a scene where Molly is nagging Bill to find a nice young witch to marry and settle down and give her grandchildren, and he gets exasperated enough that he finally tells her: "I've already found the person with whom I want to spend the rest of my life, and it isn't a witch." Molly assumes it's a Muggle girl and gets angry that Bill apparently thought that she would be prejudiced against a Muggle daughter-in-law. When Bill replies: "Not a Muggle," Molly gets even worse distressed and gasps: "Not a Veela!" Finally, Bill tells her: "Not a Muggle, not a Veela, not a witch: a wizard named Jacques Chemaly from Lebanon, whom I met in Egypt." Then we get to see the rest of the Weasleys getting ddjusted to this new information, and it's Harry and Hermione who lecture them on gay rights (which Harry will have seen on the television news while at the Dursleys, and approve of because the Dursleys so loudly disapprove). Hollydaze wrote: > we keep seeing the name Fawcett mentioned (snip) > the Fawcetts Live somewhere near the Weasleys (snip) > a "Miss Fawcett" at the Duelling club (snip) > There is a Fawcett in the bushes that Snape blasts at the Yule > Ball, a female Fawcett who is in Hufflepuff. (snip) > This one also mentions a Fawcett in Hufflepuff Your last example is a Miss Fawcett of RAVENCLAW: when Fred and George try to use Aging Potion to cross the Age Line to put their names in the Goblet of Fire (which raises a whole 'nother question: how would one of them function as Champion without the other?) and grow long beards, Dumbledore says: "I suggest you both go up to Madam Pomfrey. She is already tending to Miss Fawcett, of Ravenclaw, and Mr Summers, of Hufflepuff, both of whom decided to age themselves up a little, too." I believe that the two Miss Fawcetts are sisters and the Fawcetts who live near the Weasleys are their parents. I have invented a whole fanfic for them: Miss Fawcett of Hufflepuff is a sixth year when caught in the rosebush and her name is Ellie (short for Electra Elizabeth) and her boyfriend Stebbins of Ravenclaw is also a sixth year and his name is Andy (short for Androcles Josephus). Miss Fawcett of Ravenclaw is one year younger, a fifth-year at that time, thus a roommate of Cho Chang, and she is Cho's very best friend and they are both mad for Quidditch even tho' Cho made the team and Mary didn't. The implausible list of names who checked out Quidditch Through the Ages on implausible dates are all students who are mad for Quidditch, so the Fawcett on that list must be Mary, altho' the initial on the list is S. She must be going by her middle name due to hatred of her first name. What name that starts with S would be so hated? Sexagunda! ANY young girl would HATE being called Sex-again-da. And I decided that Mr. Summers of Hufflepuff must be Mary's Hufflepuff boyfriend Sylvanus (Van for short), whom I had already invented for the fic but not given a last name yet. My excuse is that a stereotypic Hufflepuff would not use magic to break a rule unless urged to do so by a close friend, so the two violators mentioned by Dumbledore were a team, not separate incidents. Ev vy wrote: > (I don't see Slytherins willingly attending Muggle studies) Muggle Studies is said to be an easy course, so I imagine Crabbe and Goyle are taking it while Draco is taking Arithmancy and Ancient Runes. > I don't know British law, but in Poland parents who don't send > their children to school may get arrested, as learning is > obligatory. OK, I've heard about home-teaching or rather > self-education, but I'm not sure if it's acceptable in the UK or > the USA. (snip) But when those kids are accepted to Hogwarts, > they disappear form the Muggle world. So what happens? Are there > any legal consequences? There is home-schooling in USA. I believe the wizarding folk are experienced and competent at using magic to get around Muggle laws. I believe that Wizard-born kids (and that might apply to half-and- half kids from intact marriages) aren't ever mentioned in any Muggle records (not born in Muggle hospital, no Muggle birth certificate, etc) until they decide they want to live as Muggles for a while (as an adventure) and then all the paperwork (and computer records) they need magically appear in the right places (birth certificate, school records, tax records, whatever is needed to get on National Health, etc). Muggle-born kids who go to the wizarding world would start having documentation in the Muggle world, but maybe it would all vanish during the school year (so authorities never knew they existed so never wondered why they weren't in school) but re-appear during summer holidays. If Hermione decided to go to St. Andrews after Hogwarts, she would be supplied with complete records of gone to a foreign school but gotten plenty of O-levels and A-levels. From gwynyth at drizzle.com Sun Jan 13 02:40:21 2002 From: gwynyth at drizzle.com (Jenett) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 20:40:21 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Re: Classical knowledge/ cultural education In-Reply-To: <002301c19bd3$d0c8a660$ea08f1d5@OSLII> References: <119.ad7a510.29720f68@aol.com> <002301c19bd3$d0c8a660$ea08f1d5@OSLII> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33297 At 2:38 AM +0100 1/13/02, Ev vy wrote: >It's long. Longer than I though it would be. And I hope it's more or less >logical. > >---From: infobreakdotcom >> I think you missed the point. If knowledge of how to calm a three >> headed dog is common knowledge to wizards, Fluffy wouldn't be >> protecting the stone from many wizards. Even Ron would know >> unless he is a kinda stupid. So all you say about the limitations >> of Harry's knowledge is only valid if the stone is being protected >> from Harry, muggleborns, and wizards who lack common >> knowledge. > >OK, I agree that it was not a well chosen example, or rather that my >explanation to it was not well-applied. Acromantula would have been a >better one. Fluffy may not be a part of common knowledge but may be a part >of curriculum or knowledge of Greek wizards. Which may mean that Hagrid >(expelled), children (not yet educated enough) may not know about its >existence. But I'll elaborate on this later on in response to Eloise's >post. > >---From: Eloise ><<dead language in the wizarding world: perhaps that's why we have no >evidence of their learning French or German or any other language to >communicate with wizards of other nationalities (but don't I remember >?Bagman having communication problems with officials from another country >at the World Cup?)>>> > >Yes, Bagman did have troubles communicating with Bulgarian wizards during >the World Cup. It was the Bulgarian Minister of Magic (or other official) >who had a good command of English. But Latin, not being a dead language, >does not have to be a lingua franca. Even if it's used in spells and >potions >(and wherever else) does not mean that wizards are able to communicate >using Latin. > ><<accounts for which to us are mythical are in the wizarding world factual, >or at least based on fact, then why is there an assumed general ignorance >over such an important mythical creature? IMHO there should not be >ignorance among wizards about something ( the power of music over Cerberus, >who is clearly, if not Fluffy himself, at least his forbear/ close enough >relative for it to be a reasonable guess that music might work) which even >I as a mere muggle know about. It implies that the texts of which we know, >Virgil, Homer, etc and treat as myth/ legend but which in the wizarding >world might even be treated as historical/pseudo-historical just aren't >known.>>> > >Fluffy might not have been the best example. But, as I see it, this general >ignorance may be in fact limited to tackling Fluffy and not his existence. >Virgil and Homer were Muggles so their works may be simply disregarded >in the wizarding world. If we assume that Muggle and wizarding worlds >separated long time ago (and it's my view of this matter) then why should >wizards pay heed to anything that was produced by Muggles? Moreover, if >Muggles were writing about mythical creatures that existed in the wizarding >world, even as not necessarily common ones but simply existing (or common >in the past), it would have been even stronger reason to disregard their >works, to ignore their existence. Or to laugh at them: "Oh, those poor >Muggles, they think that three-headed dogs do no exist." Assuming that >Muggles know about Fluffy/Cerberus (and what about tackling him? is >anywhere in the Muggles writing mentioned how to tackle such a creature?) >is somehow limited to educated and well-read Muggles. About ninety percent >of Muggles don't have the faintest idea what a creature Cerberus was (sad >truth, isn't it?). Another point: we don't know the exact curriculum, >three-headed dogs may be a part of curriculum for older students, so Hagrid >(expelled) and the Trio (first-years) may not know about his existence. Yet >another point: Virgil and Homer may be a part of Muggle studies. Muggle >studies is not an obligatory subject so children may be avoiding it (I >don't see Slytherins willingly attending Muggle studies) as Muggles are >considered in the wizarding world as less able (partially disabled by lack >of magic) and thus their creations may be ignored. Of course there are >wizards like Arthur Weasley who are fascinated with Muggle creations, but >rather with mechanical devices that artistic creations. And even if Fluffy >was a part of Muggle studies (as a beast in Muggle writings) learning about >its existence wouldn't mean learning about tackling it, its not the scope >of Muggle studies, but DADA. BTW, DADA may not be covering three-headed >dogs as they may be rare enough (giant spiders do exist in a dangerous >proximity of Hogwarts, their existence is acknowledged in general but their >neither native nor believed to exist in Britain so they may not be the >scope of DADA) or not native to Britain. > ><<only one around', (and doesn't Hagrid ask, 'How many three-headed dogs do >you see?) it makes it even harder for me to understand why no-one knows how >to tackle him. I'm not surprised Harry doesn't know; it's Snape's ignorance >and the assumption of general ignorance (why else use him as a deterrent?) >that bothers me.>>> > >I've written above why I think that the wizards may be ignorant about >Fluffy. Same applies to Snape. Somehow I don't see him taking Muggle >studies. Besides, the general ignorance about Fluffy may apply only to >British wizards, they seem to be preoccupied mostly with creatures native >to Britain. Even 'Fabulous Beasts' may not be known as a whole to each >wizard. Or even if they have read it, they would forget about creatures >they don't have in their own country. Hagrid got Fluffy from a Greek >chappie, so at least one person in Greece knows how to handle Fluffy. And >I'd assume that Greek wizards are acquainted with the fact of its existence >and the way to tackle it. Well, at least some of them, or those who are >interested. Voldemort didn't know how to tackle Fluffy and neither did >Quirrell, come to think of it. However, I can't see Tom Riddle attending >Muggle studies and Quirrell seems to be incompetent as DADA teacher (and I >wrote my musings on the scope of DADA above). And Voldie had more important >things to do than to enhance his knowledge about fantastic beasts. > ><<it is common knowledge and shouldn't be taught about. They learn about >unicorns in Hagrid's class. But what about, for instance centaurs? Not >creatures you're going to 'care' for, but isn't it important to learn about >them? Thinking about this, there seems to be a place in the curriculum for >a whole subject devoted to the study of other magical beings that don't >require care and aren't covered under DADA: elves, goblins, fairies etc >etc.>>> > >Centaurs may be a part of curriculum for older students, in any subject, I >can't think of one which could cover them magical creatures, etc. Actually >(this came to my mind second ago), centaurs may be a part of curriculum for >Divination, they are creatures which look into the future, aren't they? And >Hagrid spends a lot of time teaching (?!) about flobberworms, he seems not >to have any curriculum. And do unicorns really need care? And still the >students learn about them. Besides, we don't know the exact curriculum for >all seven years. Elves (house-elves in particular) and goblins are so well >established in the wizarding society that there's no need to teach about >them. Or it's not written that students learn about them. Example: Harry >refers to a person ordering raw liver (sorry, can't remember where or when) >as a hag. But we don't see him learning (at school or anywhere else) about >existence of hags. I'm not sure what creatures they are, but still. > ><<recreational >pusuits taking place at Hogwarts. I see it as part of this. There seems to >be a whole cultural dimension missing or at least not mentioned in the >curriculum: literature, music, art, language, (other) sports, dance . The >one thing they do have is History. I suppose we could see a parallel with >kids >going off to a specialist music or stage school, but in the muggle world, >there is generally an attempt to keep up a general education alongside the >specialist one. I just can't see very rounded characters coming out if all >they ever learn is magic.>>> > >If we assume a complete separation of the two worlds (and I think that it's >indeed so and it's taken place long ago), then these cultural pursuits may >be considered as Muggle and not worth learning. E.g. literature. Let's take >literature in the Middle ages: adventures of knights fighting against >mythical beasts ('Beowulf'), romances, quest stories, lives of saints (I >know it's not all, but at 2.30 a.m. I can't think of more examples). If the >separation of the worlds goes back in time as far as middle ages (or >further), I do see wizards completely ignoring literature, or most of it as >not entirely applicable in their world (Merlin is legendary in our world, >but in the wizarding world he's a part of history, and what about Circe? >She's not Medieval, but the reasons apply to her, IMHO). And contemporary >wizards would ignore those writings for the same reason. We don't know if >anything like a notion of being a saint exists in the wizarding world. I, >as a Muggle, had to read excerpts from lives of saints, but it was abstract >for me (not that I didn't enjoy reading them). I love 'Beowulf', but how >many people in Poland know it (I'm Polish, BTW)? Not many, as it's a part >of British culture. So all these writings may have for wizards the same >value as for Muggles (even in Britain, how many people read 'Beowulf' or >lives of saints and remember exactly what it was about; I don't remember a >single thing from the lives of saints; I can't refer to 'Beowulf' in the >same manner as I still remember it quite well), or even less. Muggles would >read and forget, wizards wouldn't read at all, why bother? And maybe those >talents that Muggles have for literature, music (wizards can dance - Yule >ball) were somehow substituted with the talent for magic. Just a thought, >not re-considered. > ><<wonder how they manage those astronomy charts? Would you need it for >Arithmancy? (confess complete ignorance of subject)>>> > >OK, I see it as such. Arithmancy is not an obligatory subject. Among the >Trio only Hermione took this subject and she as Muggle-born knows at least >basics, however it's probable, that she knows much more than average Muggle >pupil, even older than she is. So maybe only those kids are admitted to >Arithmancy, who have basic knowledge of Maths. Or maybe many wizarding >children (before they come to Hogwarts) attend Muggle schools. Children >stemming from wizard-only families probably don't attend Muggle schools as >their existence is not known in the Muggle world (at least I think so), >half Muggles and Muggle-borns probably attend Muggle schools in majority. >But I see another problem here. I don't know British law, but in Poland >parents who don't send their children to school may get arrested, as >learning is obligatory. OK, I've heard about home-teaching or rather >self-education, but I'm not sure if it's acceptable in the UK or the USA. >So, Hermione who's Muggle-born probably attended a Muggle school, we know >that Justin Finch-Fletchley's name was down for Eton so he must have >attended a Muggle school. But when those kids are accepted to Hogwarts, >they disappear form the Muggle world. So what happens? Are there any legal >consequences? Maybe Hogwarts does exist in the Muggle world as a normal >school, somehow. And as the kids leave it at the age of eighteen then it's >no Muggle authority's scope of interest to check on them, to check on their >level of education? > ><<children don't have the opportunity)>>> > >Ev vy >who had a chance to learn Latin but ignored the subject as it was >extra-curricular and the teacher seemed not very sober most of the time > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >There's nothing level in our cursed natures >But direct villainy. > William Shakespeare "Timon of Athens" >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover, >To entertain these fair well-spoken days, >I am determined to prove a villain > William Shakespeare "Richard III" >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > >________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/ -- ----- 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 gwynyth at drizzle.com Sun Jan 13 02:57:10 2002 From: gwynyth at drizzle.com (Jenett) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 20:57:10 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Latin, languages, and sops to Cerberus (was Classical knowledge/ cultural education) In-Reply-To: <002301c19bd3$d0c8a660$ea08f1d5@OSLII> References: <119.ad7a510.29720f68@aol.com> <002301c19bd3$d0c8a660$ea08f1d5@OSLII> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33298 At 2:38 AM +0100 1/13/02, Ev vy wrote: >Yes, Bagman did have troubles communicating with Bulgarian wizards during >the World Cup. It was the Bulgarian Minister of Magic (or other official) >who had a good command of English. But Latin, not being a dead language, >does not have to be a lingua franca. Even if it's used in spells and >potions (and wherever else) does not mean that wizards are able to communicate >using Latin. It doesn't meant they *don't*, though. My mother was in high school in the early and mid 50s in Wales, when Latin was still an expected part of the curriculumn if you could handle it. My grandparents were very involved in the post WWII peace movement, which mostly (as my mother describes it) involved her going to youth camp type outings, getting together on mountaintops and singing. In a variety of countries. While Latin wasn't a *great* communication tool, it did allow her to talk to people whose languages she didn't speak reasonably efficiently (it's worth noting that my mother was Austrian by birth, and fluent in German because my grandparents spoke it at home and she also had French in school) They couldn't do deep intellectual conversations, but they could chat pretty well. However, from what we've seen that doesn't seem to be the case, but I'm just pointing out the possibilities. I think I'm currently favoring some sort of magical device that helps you learn languages more easily if you need to (the equivalent of language lessons on tape.) and where they aren't taught in school. Honestly, too, which ones would you pick? There seems to be a *lot* more variance in where people might end up after their school years - Charlie is in Romania, Bill is in Egypt. How do you pick which languages might be useful? French? Arabic? German? While I do think that language study is a good thing (heck, I'm moderately fluent in French, conversationally so with a bit more practice in German, and I read Ancient Greek and some Latin), it may well be that it's not a general part of the Hogwarts currciculum because it's not a necessary area of study for enough students, and there are alternatives available afterwards. Having teachers of different languages *does* add a lot of staff overhead in most cases, particularly if you've got to support more than a very few languages. Come to that,, I'd be sort of surprised if Hermione isn't at least somewhat comfortable in French - she's spent at least one holiday there, and she's struck me as the kind of person who would want to pick up at least a little of the language. (I speak basic tourist Italian for about the same reasoning: I dislike being in countries where I can't ask directions, order food, and read basic signs without help, so I learn enough to do that, at bare minimum.) As far as the rest of it - I had a weird enough upbringing when it comes to classical mythology (my father was an expert in Greek theatre, so I grew up having myths told to me at bedtime/walking to school/on dogwalks/etc) that I don't really feel I can comment on general knowledge very well. However, while music is one of the standard things to try with wild animals, it's more specific, in my recollection to *Orpheus* (a specific mythological human being) than linked to any specific animal. Certainly if I were going to go deal with a large three headed dog, I might well try it - but there's the trick of it being the first thing you try. One of the more conventional methods I always heard in the mythology of dealing with Cerberus was honey and bread or meat or meat bones being thrown - one grouping of food for each head. However, that'd obviously be impractical in the situation Rowling sets up (where you need more than a few seconds to get past the dog) though it works great if all you need to do is duck along a path. -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 babelfisherperson at yahoo.com Sun Jan 13 04:03:43 2002 From: babelfisherperson at yahoo.com (babelfisherperson) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 04:03:43 -0000 Subject: The Female Students (and other female charcters) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33299 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "elfundeb" wrote: > My comment also applies to Death Eaters, who also all appear to be > men (but that may be Slytherin prejudice; they don't have any > female Quidditch players either). Actually, Voldemort mentions Mrs. Lestrange as a Death Eater who never renounced him, and indicated that once she was freed from Azkaban, he would basically make her his 2nd in command. So apparently even the severely bigoted Death Eaters don't see women as being inferior to men. Red XIV From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Sun Jan 13 04:13:26 2002 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 04:13:26 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore "wrote" Book 1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33300 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "dicentra_spectabilis_alba" wrote: > > --Dicentra, who would like an acronym for her theory, if it's not too > much to ask It is not too much to ask when one presents an analysis which so clearly plants footwear upon donkeys.... IDIOM Is Dumbledore Infinitely Omniscient? Momentously! Or IDIOT Is Dumbledore Infinitely Omniscient? Tremendously! - CMC From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Sun Jan 13 04:27:27 2002 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 04:27:27 -0000 Subject: Some Traits With Voldemort (filk) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33301 Some Traits With Voldemort (from CoS, Chap. 18) (To the tune of The Streets of Baltimore) http://www.foxlink.net/~bobnbren/1960s.html NOTE: The original is an archetypal "cryin' in your beer" Country/Western song. The reader should imagine HARRY crying in his butterbeer. THE SCENE: Professor McGonagall's office. Alone with DUMBLEDORE, HARRY shares his fears about his heritage HARRY They bought the farm, so we as orphans were left on our own With Muggle kin, both lacking friends, on paths as hard as stone. And when I purchased my first wand, it possessed a phoenix core That Ollivander said shared traits with Voldemort's Well, my heart was filled with horror when I heard the Sorting Hat Tell me that in the Slytherin dorm I'd have success down pat And when I learned he spoke to snakes, a thing I had done before, I was shocked I shared some traits with Voldemort When the Secret Chambers I found, I met him face-to-face It was quite clear we looked alike, a Doppelg?nger case. Are we both heirs of Slytherin? No more can I ignore How I'm sharing all these traits with Voldemort DUMBLEDORE When Voldy tried to kill you, you gained his facilities But it's the choices that you make, not your abilities Because with Fawkes and the Sorting Hat you've gained such a rapport You can rank among the greats of Gryffindor (HARRY pulls the sword of Gryffindor out of the Sorting Hat) BOTH I/You can rank among the greats of Gryffindor - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From Jefrigo21 at aol.com Sun Jan 13 04:53:35 2002 From: Jefrigo21 at aol.com (Jefrigo21 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 23:53:35 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Silly food question Message-ID: <12.189ca0de.29726ccf@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33302 In a message dated 1/12/02 3:40:44 PM Central Standard Time, lo0laa at yahoo.co.uk writes: > It's basically a 'traditional' English breakfast consisting of things like > fried eggs, > bacon, sausages, hash browns, fried bread, beans, fried mushrooms ... you > get the picture. > Very fattening. > But at least is very filling, I had a traditional Irish breakfast, when I went to Ireland three years ago. Then again they might eat other breakfast items. I know that for sure because I asked them. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jenbea at snail-mail.net Sun Jan 13 05:04:17 2002 From: jenbea at snail-mail.net (jenbe_me) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 05:04:17 -0000 Subject: Madame Pomfrey Query Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33303 Do you suppose Madame Pomfrey is under special instruction from Dumbledore not to question the students when they come to her with a strange/suspicious ailment? I was recently re-reading Chamber of Secrets where Hermione messes up her Polyjuice potion and accidently turns herself into a cat instead of Millicent Bulstrode. She has to spend quite a lot of time in the hospital ward as a result, nearly a month, iirc, and I am wondering if Madame Pomfrey simply did not recognise this as the results of the Polyjuice potion gone wrong, or if she has been told by Dumbledore simply to treat the condition and not to reprimand students for getting into trouble/mixing potions they should not have been. Surely Madame Pomfrey would have had to recognise that it was Polyjuice potion in order to treat it effectively? jenbea (who hasn't posted for a long while over the holidays) From graceofmyheart at hotmail.com Sat Jan 12 13:03:51 2002 From: graceofmyheart at hotmail.com (flower_fairy12) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 13:03:51 -0000 Subject: Snape/Lily thought... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33304 > Marianne wrote: > For all we know, Lily might have been extremely cruel to Young > Severus, and deliberately humiliated him in front of his peers once, or more > than once. Having to be reminded of her and her boyfriend > every day would be torture. <<< I just don't like the thought of the Snape/Lily, unrequited love thing. Do we ever actually hear anyone in the books call Lily names, or put her down in any way? We hear Snape slagging on James etc., but never Lily. But I don't think it is because he loved her, or ever liked her. Maybe she was just a quiet girl who never bothered anyone, so therefore, no one could really say anything against her. Rosie From mailings at sbulloch.co.uk Sat Jan 12 19:17:21 2002 From: mailings at sbulloch.co.uk (sdb555) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 19:17:21 -0000 Subject: Silly food question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33305 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "oz_widgeon" wrote: > I know this is going to sound dumb, but I have a question about > something Aunt Marge says in PoA. > > "Excellent nosh, Petunia. It's normally just a fry-up for me of an > evening...." (PoA 27 US) > > What's a fry-up? As an American I immediately come up with two > possiblities: 1. a stir-fry, which seems highly unlikely or > 2. something deep fried, pehaps fish and chips, which seems like a > lot of trouble > > Can anyone tell me what the English consider a "fry-up"? > > Cheers! > Slon A 'fry-up' in this sense is basically fried food. Eggs, Bacon, Sausage, Tomatoes and Chips ('fries' in the Ameriacan dialect). It can of course include lots of other foods, but this is a general idea. Stewart From elizabethlouiseday at hotmail.com Sat Jan 12 19:32:38 2002 From: elizabethlouiseday at hotmail.com (day782002) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 19:32:38 -0000 Subject: Silly food question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33306 > Slon asked: > Can anyone tell me what the English consider a "fry-up"? <<< A fry-up usually consists of bacon, sausage, fried eggs, baked beans, mushrooms, fried tomatoes and toast. Its often referred to as a cooked breakfast. Hope that helps! Liz xxx From mdemeran at hotmail.com Sat Jan 12 19:43:18 2002 From: mdemeran at hotmail.com (demeranville) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 19:43:18 -0000 Subject: Silly food question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33307 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "oz_widgeon" wrote: > I know this is going to sound dumb, but I have a question about > something Aunt Marge says in PoA. > "Excellent nosh, Petunia. It's normally just a fry-up for me of an > evening...." (PoA 27 US) > What's a fry-up? As an American I immediately come up with two > possiblities: 1. a stir-fry, which seems highly unlikely or > 2. something deep fried, pehaps fish and chips, which seems like a > lot of trouble > Can anyone tell me what the English consider a "fry-up"? > Cheers! > Slon I had to check with my uncle who lives in England, but I think I got the ingredients right. A fry-up is the following: sausages, bacon, Tomatoes, Poached eggs, bread, Mushrooms, and baked beans all served together. It is typically served at breakfast, but I guess that the English have breakfast for dinner, too. I think that I have even been served this for breakfast while in London. Sorry to say my brothers and I weren't about to try it, so I don't know how it all tastes. But it sure seems like a definite way to raise your cholesterol. Does anyone want to comment on what this tastes like? Meg *** Mod note: Since the definition of the term "fry-up", which does come from the book, has been answered, if anyone else would like to discuss further how tasty or not fry-ups are, please take the discussion to OT-Chatter, where the topic of food lives in perpetuity. :-) Thanks! Kelley Elf, for the Mod Team From andrew_macian at yahoo.com Sat Jan 12 19:51:40 2002 From: andrew_macian at yahoo.com (Andrew MacIan) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 11:51:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] What if book 5 is not about Harry? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020112195140.49952.qmail@web9504.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33308 Greetings from Andrew! Since for me it seems to be both "history" and "dyslexic typing" day, permit me to quote an old saw that is true, even today.... --- Ambir Adams wrote: {snip} > And well its gonna be darker because Voldie is back, > But Fudge doesn't want to accept that. > Does anyone else suspect Fudge of being a DE? > After all he is so against the idea of Voldie returning, > he doesn't even want to hear it. > What if it's just an act? > > Those are just my thoughts :) > Ryoko-- "All that needs to happen for evil men to triumph is for good men to do nothing." Denial can be a "high speed" means of doing nothing; indeed, in this case, it would appear that Rowling is showing us that Fudge's decision to keep going all head full and ignoring the need to alter course is something of the sort. As for it being an act (and here I presume you're offering a notion that Fudge is on the side of the Dark), I would offer my opinion that, as far as we have been shown, it would be possible but unlikely. As Fudge's character has been drawn, I see him as being a superficial, supercilious career apparatchik, one who has determined in his own mind what's what. If this is the whole case, then I doubt that he has either the depth or strength of character to do anything but waffle. However, since the actual resolution of this is still only in Rowling's mind/notes/ms, we'll see what happens. 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 video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ From IAmLordCassandra at aol.com Sat Jan 12 20:26:06 2002 From: IAmLordCassandra at aol.com (IAmLordCassandra at aol.com) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 15:26:06 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Q: why readers love Snape (Was:Draco/ Snape parallels) Message-ID: <177.201a571.2971f5de@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33309 In a message dated 1/12/2002 12:45:47 PM Eastern Standard Time, vencloviene at hotmail.com writes: > So, I guess, my question is: why readers so badly want Snape to be > different from the fellow we see in Rowling's books? Especially that > the original character is so fascinating in his own right? Actually, I started loving the surly Potions master even before I joined this list and started getting into the complexity of the man. Even after that though, I've never tried to find the sympathy in him. I like him because he's cruel, sarcastic, and domineering. Lol, he and I are actually a bit alike. =P But I think the good handful of us who are in love/lust with Sevi (or any fictional character for that matter) make him out to be more than he is and dream up perfect fantasies about him simply because we know we'll never run the risk of being disappointed by the real thing. ^-^ ~Cassie-who's also wondering how a lot of fanfiction writers have come to the conclusion that Draco is a homosexual~ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tracym255 at aol.com Sat Jan 12 20:57:50 2002 From: tracym255 at aol.com (mullsym255) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 20:57:50 -0000 Subject: Irrelevant Fawcetts? In-Reply-To: <00c901c19b86$23dea000$7aa101d5@j0dhe> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33310 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Hollydaze" wrote: > > Book 4, we are told that the Fawcetts Live somewhere near the Wealsey's but they "couldn't get tickets. (Pg 68 UK) This shows that there are a family of Fawcetts somewhere near Ottery St Catchpole. > Book 2, there is a "Miss Fawcett" at the Duelling club (Pg 144 UK). This is a female who is in either the year below or one of the years above Harry. > Book 4 There is a Fawcett in the bushes that Snape blasts at the Yule Ball, a female Fawcett who is in Hufflepuff. (Pg 371 UK). > There is another reference that I can't find now in book 4 (it is before "the House elf liberation front" but after they arrive at Hogwarts). This one also mentions a Fawcett in Hufflepuff though, has anyone noticed any other references whether to Fawcetts or to "unknown" characters who keep cropping up rather a lot? > This is a bit strange, but in the US version, there is a Miss Fawcett from Ravenclaw who is mentioned on page 260 as someone who attempted to age themselves up in order to put their name in the goblet of fire. Also, during the Yule Ball, on page 426, Snape says "Ten points from Ravenclaw, Fawcett" and "Ten points from Hufflepuff too, Stebbins!" as a boy runs after her. So is there some reason this was changed? Is this Fawcett girl supposed to be in Ravenclaw or Hufflepuff I wonder. Tracy From david_p at istop.com Sat Jan 12 22:17:17 2002 From: david_p at istop.com (david_p2002ca) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 22:17:17 -0000 Subject: What if book 5 is not about Harry? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33311 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "babelfisherperson" wrote: > I don't think Voldemort has any need to recruit Fudge. He's > (unknowingly) serving Voldemort's interests just as well on his own > as he would if Voldie actually were pulling his strings. > Or, to quote an oft used phrase, All that is need for evil to triumph is for those of good will to do nothing. David From sweetusagi76 at yahoo.ca Sat Jan 12 22:42:59 2002 From: sweetusagi76 at yahoo.ca (sweetusagi76) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 22:42:59 -0000 Subject: Sex in HP'verse./SHIPS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33312 > > Terri Lyn Layman wrote: > > I do have to point out one very valid point: The books, while > enjoyed by adults, were written for children.> > > jenny_ravenclaw wrote: > I must agree with Penny here. These books, while being marketed > for children, were never intended to be exclusively for children.> I think I tend to agree with Jenny here. I don't think we're going to see graphic Harlequin novel-esque scenes in any of the HP books and if that's what an individual is looking for, look for a slash/fanfic that contains that. > jenny_ravenclaw also wrote: > Just because JKR doesn't spell it out for us doesn't mean it isn't > there.> Exactly! They don't spell out sexual innuendos in Disney films either (well, unless you see sex spelt out in the dust in The Lion King), but we all know they are there. They are practically urban legends! And as adults, we see them. Children, being innocent, don't read as much into things and tend to miss them or not fully comprehend the meaning. I think this is how JKR spans such a wide audience, she understands this and uses it to her advantage. Angela From aromano at indiana.edu Sun Jan 13 05:56:47 2002 From: aromano at indiana.edu (Aja) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 00:56:47 -0500 (EST) Subject: Draco's fandom sexuality/relation to canon Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33313 Cassie just asked how so many fanfic writers have come to the conclusion that Draco is homosexual. I'll take a stab at that and answer that it's purely wishful thinking on the part of slashers who want to see Harry paired with someone as strong and intelligent as they see him being. Since most of the Draco slash fic is written with Harry as his potential love interest it's safe to say that fandom!Draco reinforces the image of the sexy seductive villain archtype by playing off Harry's nobility and strength as his equal. I'll even venture to say that if JKR *hadn't* made the majority of the female students in the series flighty and/or underdeveloped, the Draco/Harry pairing wouldn't be as popular as it is. Hermione is a strong choice as a potential romantic interest for Harry, but as it stands now, no other female student has her intellect, wit, conviction, or importance as a major upcoming player in the series. Then there's Malfoy, who has all of those qualities, plus the romantic mystery attached to the role of the bad guy. If Malfoy happened to be female, the problem of where all the strong female students went would be much less of an issue--and undoubtedly there would be massive SHIP speculation over the prospect of he and Harry, just as there is now with H/H, H/G, etc--and given the popularity of love/hate relationships in our culture, from Jane Austen on down, the speculation probably could be taken seriously. As it is, Draco happens to be a male. A fanfic writer who tires of Hermione's bossiness (or maybe even her *goodness*) and wants to pair Harry with someone a little more interesting, has no further to look than Malfoy. It helps that he is small, thin, and pale, and possesses no overtly masculine traits, so it's an easy step to take to make the final leap. Is Canon Draco gay? Eh...it's possible. But it's safe to say his sexuality will have little to do with the plot of future books. I honestly *wish* JKR would put a gay couple in her story, but I also respect that it's not the role of the books to be political earth-shakers in any way. The scandals over HP slashfic will in all likelihood remain confined to fanfic. Ah, well. It's fun *imagining* JKR defending her choice of couplings--"I decided Sirius was too dead sexy not to wind up with Remus!"-- but til that far-off day comes, I'll have to content myself with reading/writing such pairings on the numerous sites devoted to HP Slash. Aja (who's planning a massive post on evidence of Draco's vulnerability in the books in response to Mary's challenge--if she can find any, lol) "You know you have a problem when you start saying things like Harry Potter and coital in the same sentence." --Cathryn From liana_l_s at yahoo.com Sat Jan 12 23:48:29 2002 From: liana_l_s at yahoo.com (liana_l_s) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 23:48:29 -0000 Subject: The Female Students (and other female characters) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33314 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "elfundeb" wrote: > I can accept this as a partial explanation (and a full explanation > in the case of Cho), but cannot hide my broader disappointment about > the lack of clues that there are witches out there doing interesting, > non-stereotyped things. As someone who as a child (more or less pre- > women's lib) was always searching for books that projected positive > images of women (regardless of the gender of the main character), I > do feel that HP fails somewhat in this respect to date, with the > sole exception of Hermione and there are instances where even she > behaves like a damsel in distress waiting for the boys to come to the > rescue (most notably the troll scene). > > This, for me, was one of the more interesting components to the "Quidditch through the Ages" book (and to a lesser degree, "Fantastic Beasts"). There are women leaders (one of whom outlaws the killing and use of Golden Snidgets), women researchers, women Quidditch players (according to the book, the only position women do not usually play is that of Beater, meaning they play all other positions - and could play a Beater with the appropriate skills), women adventurers (if I'm right that Jocunda is a woman's name - she made the first Atlantic broom crossing) and women inventors. For me, I'll wait until the series is finished before passing judgement on the goofiness of most female characters. I do think there'll be more developemnt, and opportunities of proving worth, bravery, intelligence and character to come. Liana From blenberry at altavista.com Sun Jan 13 00:24:08 2002 From: blenberry at altavista.com (blenberry) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 00:24:08 -0000 Subject: Classical knowledge/ cultural education In-Reply-To: <119.ad7a510.29720f68@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33315 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote: > There seems to be a whole cultural dimension missing or at > least not mentioned in the curriculum: literature, music, art, > language, (other) sports, dance . The one thing they do have > is History. I suppose we could see a parallel with kids going > off to a specialist music or stage school, but in the muggle > world, there is generally an attempt to keep up a general > education alongside the specialist one. I just can't see very > rounded characters coming out if all they ever learn is magic.> > Great post; I have thought the same things. Also, is there opportunity for higher education, like university? In the Muggle world, getting a place at University is one of the reasons for trying to get O and A levels, isn't it? So where would a young witch or wizard go after Hogwarts... to a Muggle university? Barbara From step_cain at hotmail.com Sun Jan 13 01:16:57 2002 From: step_cain at hotmail.com (snacain) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 01:16:57 -0000 Subject: Lupin and Snape(was female characters) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33316 I am under the impression that Snape informed the Slytherins that Lupin is a werewolf out of anger over losing the "order of Merlin". Lupin may have insulted him during their student days (as demonstrated by the maruaders map). But did he insult Snape openly during PoA? Steph From christi0469 at hotmail.com Sun Jan 13 01:22:14 2002 From: christi0469 at hotmail.com (christi0469) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 01:22:14 -0000 Subject: Draco's redemption - reprise/ Parallel Theory In-Reply-To: <63.4c850db.297120ec@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33317 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Zorb17 at a... wrote: >. > > In my version of The Parallel Theory, Draco = Snape, Harry = James, and Ron = Sirius (possibly Peter, too). The older generation has a lot of unresolved issues, namely Snape's enmity towards the Marauders, and Voldemort's vendetta (or whatever it is) towards the Potter men. I think we can all agree that by the last page of Book 7, the Voldie issue will be resolved with Harry in the leading role. It stands to reason, then, that Harry's generation will resolve the other parallel issues.> > I think the parallel theory is possible, but if Draco=Snape, Harry=James, Ron=Sirius, and Neville=Peter who would Hermione be parallel to, Sirius or Lily. And if Hermione is parallel to Lupin, who would be parallel to Lily(I imagine the GIANTCUSHION members would be happy to provide an answer to that one). Ron has several similarities to Sirius such as short temper and being Harry's best friend. Sirius feels like he betrayed James and Lily, so the theory would not exclude Ron betraying Harry. Lupin was very much a part of the MPWP so Hermione would be the closest parallel, but as far as we know Hermione does not have some terrible secret. And Harry saw Neville in his mind when he heard about Peter, so that's fairly likely as a parallel. But Neville is not particularly tied to HRH after SS/PS and he doesn't seem ambitious. We know so little about Lily that it is hard to find a parallel, but James may not have noticed Lily until his fifth year or later. It's an interesting theory but one with holes, and it may be too predictable. Christi From pigwidgeon37 at yahoo.it Sun Jan 13 06:23:40 2002 From: pigwidgeon37 at yahoo.it (=?iso-8859-1?q?pigwidgeonthirtyseven?=) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 06:23:40 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Latin, languages, and sops to Cerberus (was Classical knowledge/ cultural education) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020113062340.26352.qmail@web14702.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33318 Jenett wrote: >>Even if it's used in spells and >>potions (and wherever else) does not mean that wizards are able to communicate >>using Latin. >It doesn't meant they *don't*, though. But the sensible thing to do would be to teach those students at least basic Latin skills, because they'd have a less hard time memorizing the spells. That doesn't mean they'd have to read enormously difficult texts, let alone speak the language, but it's far easier to know your spells, charms and curses by heart if e.g. you know that "accio" means "I call something/somebody". There's absolutely nothing you can do to mitigate Cerberus, which is exactly why nobody before Orpheus had succeeded in entering Hades: It was he who put the monster to sleep by playing the lyra. But I agree that it might not be a good idea to make a random try just with *any* three-headed dog, assuming that Fluffy isn't identical with Cerberus. Susanna/pigwidgeon37 -------------------- http://gleewood.org/ -------------------- Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT ________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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service. "And how come those portraits seem to be alive?" "What'ya mean? All paintings move." "No, they don't. We have lots of paintings in our villa, among them a real Chagall, and none of them..." "And d'ya expect that something painted by a jackal will move? Now really..." --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Get personalised at My Yahoo!. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From southernscotland at yahoo.com Sun Jan 13 02:45:40 2002 From: southernscotland at yahoo.com (southernscotland) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 02:45:40 -0000 Subject: Lily (was gender-spiked musings); structure In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33319 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "brewpub44" wrote: > For the next book's Dursley scenes, I hope Harry let's them have > it. Oh, not with any cruel curses or even simple, harmless charms > (let's not have the MOM on his case), but verbally thrash them to > no end, even if it means he is banned from their house. They have > to hear it told to them like it is: they are cruel, sadistic > monsters, no matter what the reasoning.> > Here, here! A toast to you from me! I'll be reading that part over and over! And for my money, I'd let Our Mentor and Hero Emeritus, Dumbledore, have it, too! I know all the reasons he left Harry there, and I know about the magic spells, the comic relief, and all that, but I still think it's unconscionable! I think Harry should eventually be angry with Dumbledore, too! (And if I were McGonagall, I would never have let Dumbledore do it!) Also, who gave Dumbledore the right to risk a child's life over and over again (if that is indeed what he is doing)? I know it serves the story, but they are only kids. How would Ron's and Hermione's parents feel, for example, if they knew the kinds of predicaments that Dumbledore perhaps "led" their children to? Their judgment is not that of an adult's. I know it had to happen this way for the type of story it is, but the wizarding world certainly has its drawbacks! lilahp From vencloviene at hotmail.com Sun Jan 13 06:31:05 2002 From: vencloviene at hotmail.com (anavenc) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 06:31:05 -0000 Subject: Answer: why readers love Snape (Was:Draco/ Snape parallels) In-Reply-To: <177.201a571.2971f5de@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33320 Eloise wrote: (on readers liking Snape but not Draco) > Is Snape striking some chord, does he have other literary parallels? Ana wrote: JKR so far hasn't planned on readers loving him--at least not yet :). She keeps repeating in interviews that Snape is horrible and seems surprised when readers show signs of affection to him. Well, she obviously planned on making him intriguing, who would doubt it after reading the famous hospital scene in the end of GOF. But definitely not loveable. Inspite of this, Snape, probably more than any other HP character, mysteriously got out of JKR's hand and acquired a life of his own in readers' minds. For example, from JKR's point of view, nobody "would want him to fall in love with her", but *ahem* consider the huge amount of on-line discussions and fanfic about his love life. Cassie wrote: > Actually, I started loving the surly Potions master even before I joined this list and started getting into the complexity of the man. after that I like him because he's cruel, sarcastic, and domineering. But I think the good handful of us who are in love/lust with Sevi (or any fictional character for that matter) make him out to be more than he is and dream up perfect fantasies about him simply because we know we'll never run the risk of being disappointed by the real thing. ^-^ Ana again: It's just I find it deeply ironic (well, if honestly, hilarious) that the author wants her character to look repulsive, both inside and outsite, but nonetheless, readers en masse fall in love with him, never mind greasy hair and hatred of children. I suspect that's what happened here: Rowling endowed Snape with lots of vampire attributes for the reasons we don't know yet. Maybe, he really is one, or maybe just looks like that, so MMVP start the rumour Snape-vampire and ruin his life. But vampire falls into that dark, brooding, charismatic, tormented archetype which is also associated, say, with the image of Byronic lover. So Snape in readers' minds got associated with Byronic lovers and for many of them became a great romantic hero, much to his creator's surprise. Just an inadvertent result of vampire overtones in his characterization. This also answers Eloise's question about the chord Snape strikes. I didn't want to answer Eloise's post first because I thought somebody more literate than I would do it much better, but finally couldn't keep my mouth shut. From mrgrrrargh at aol.com Sun Jan 13 07:59:37 2002 From: mrgrrrargh at aol.com (mrgrrrargh at aol.com) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 02:59:37 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Female characters, Trelawney Message-ID: <180.20209df.29729869@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33321 > Debbie: > I think Trelawney has a lot of potential as an interesting character, > but she is still a female stereotype, and not a flattering one. I'm have a sneaking feeling that Trelawney is more than meets the eye. I doubt that Dumbledore would hire someone so (apparently) incompetent. What better cover for a gifted seer than that of one who has made two correct predictions. No one would bother to get her out of the way if she was thought to be useless. My theory also fits with your observation that McGonagall is out of the loop. She seems to be one of Trelawney's most adament detractors... even mentioning her doubts to students. -SpyGameFan (who will try to remember to sign his name -- in order to avoid the wrath of the list elves) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mrgrrrargh at aol.com Sun Jan 13 08:02:15 2002 From: mrgrrrargh at aol.com (mrgrrrargh at aol.com) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 03:02:15 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Female Students (and other female charcters) Message-ID: <4b.16b49909.29729907@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33322 > Red XIV: > We haven't seen any female Aurors << Weren't both of Neville's parents Aurors? -SpyGameFan [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mrgrrrargh at aol.com Sun Jan 13 08:04:40 2002 From: mrgrrrargh at aol.com (mrgrrrargh at aol.com) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 03:04:40 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Classical knowledge (was: "This is just too easy...") Message-ID: <175.208875a.29729998@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33323 > Karen (I'm assuming this is your name since you didn't sign your note): > If knowledge of how to calm a three > headed dog is common knowledge to wizards, Fluffy wouldn't be > protecting the stone from many wizards. << Perhaps the secret to keeping Fluffy calm is unique to Fluffy. Maybe other three headed dogs sleep without music. -SpyGameFan [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From faubert at optonline.net Sun Jan 13 06:46:06 2002 From: faubert at optonline.net (george faubert) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 01:46:06 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Classical knowledge/ cultural education References: Message-ID: <009801c19bfd$fa48f100$69022f18@oemcomputer> No: HPFGUIDX 33324 > Barbara wrote: > Great post; I have thought the same things. Also, is there > opportunity for higher education, like university? In the Muggle > world, getting a place at University is one of the reasons for trying > to get O and A levels, isn't it? So where would a young witch or > wizard go after Hogwarts... to a Muggle university? < < There is music. In COS when Harry goes to the Weasley's they do mention that she had an old radio which was playing a program the witching hour. And in GOF there is a musical group playing at the Yule Ball. So I think that in the world of Witches and Wizards that we have music, Sports and newspaper's. And probably is some version of Wizard's TV and it is rumored that they will have their own version of the Internet. I get the feeling that before going to Hogwart's or any school students are home schooled and that's where they learn the things like music, etc. Anf Hogwart's I think that they contiue on in the field they want to study. It's like on the job training. Or maybe Hogwart's have more classes then what we read about. We might not see the non magic classes. George [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mrgrrrargh at aol.com Sun Jan 13 08:19:35 2002 From: mrgrrrargh at aol.com (mrgrrrargh at aol.com) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 03:19:35 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] re: Immortality / LOLLIPOPS / Gay / Fawcett / Muggle Stud... Message-ID: <10d.bb3059a.29729d17@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33325 > CatLady (Again... taking this from your e-mail addy): > and it's Harry and Hermione who lecture them on gay > rights (which Harry will have seen on the television > news while at the Dursleys, and approve of because the > Dursleys so loudly disapprove). << Now, could see Hermione doing the lecturing to the Weasleys. But Harry has never struck me as being a civil rights advocate. Maybe it was his complete lack of concern for house-elfs, and while I don't see him being homophobic, I really doubt that he'd be doing the lecturing. -SpyGameFan (The MrGrrrArgh is a reference to the TV show "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" -- and as Andrew is a rather common name I think I'll stick with SpyGameFan) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mrgrrrargh at aol.com Sun Jan 13 08:25:58 2002 From: mrgrrrargh at aol.com (mrgrrrargh at aol.com) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 03:25:58 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Madame Pomfrey Query Message-ID: <31.20df022a.29729e96@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33326 > jenbea: > Do you suppose Madame Pomfrey is under special instruction from > Dumbledore not to question the students when they come to her with a > strange/suspicious ailment? << If Pomfrey does have a confidentiality with students is it of her choosing or Dumbledore's? She's obviously been there a long time (didn't some character mention her as being around when [s]he was at Hogwarts years ago), so was the confidentiality agreement in effect with other Headmasters as well? -SpyGameFan (Who is sincerly hoping that there is no limit on number of posts... cause gosh I've sent like 5 already) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From elfriede.schaden at chello.at Sun Jan 13 08:30:06 2002 From: elfriede.schaden at chello.at (gypaetus16) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 08:30:06 -0000 Subject: Q: why readers love Snape (Was:Draco/ Snape parallels) In-Reply-To: <177.201a571.2971f5de@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33327 > ~Cassie- wrote: > But I think the good handful of us who are in love/lust with > Sevi (or any fictional character for that matter) make him out > to be more than he > is and dream up perfect fantasies about > him simply because we know we'll never run the risk of being > disappointed by the real thing. ^-^ >> I can also imagine two additional points. First, a character, who is more or less horrible is much more interesting than a nice character. I am an opera lover and the evil characters are always more interesting than the good ones - in particular in Italian operas it is nearly almost the baritone vs. the tenore or the alto vs. the soprano. The tenore has the better love songs but the baritone has much more power in his arias and for my ears and impression also the "better" melodies (not always but often). Second, I also can imagine that the "good handful of us who is in love/ lust with Sevi" would hope that our love may save his soul and because of our love he could become a better person. Who does not hope to change a beloved but evil person to the better because of our love? That?s MHO Gabriele From catlady at wicca.net Sun Jan 13 09:15:18 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 09:15:18 -0000 Subject: Irrelevant Fawcetts? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33328 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "mullsym255" wrote: > This is a bit strange, but in the US version, there is a Miss > Fawcett from Ravenclaw who is mentioned on page 260 as someone who > attempted to age themselves up in order to put their name in the > goblet of fire. Also, during the Yule Ball, on page 426, Snape says > "Ten points from Ravenclaw, Fawcett" and "Ten points from > Hufflepuff too, Stebbins!" as a boy runs after her. So is there > some reason this was changed? Is this Fawcett girl supposed to be > in Ravenclaw or Hufflepuff I wonder. I have the UK edition. In which, page 371 has this: "Ten points from Hufflepuff, Fawcett!" Snape snarled, as a girl ran past him. "And ten points from Ravenclaw, too, Stebbins!" as a boy went rushing after her. and page 229 has the quote I already posted: "She is already tending to Miss Fawcett, of Ravenclaw, and Mr Summers, of Hufflepuff, both of whom decided to age themselves up a little, too." If the blasted rose bush scene in the US edition better reflects JKR's intentions, there is probably only one Miss Fawcett and she is in Ravenclaw. A long long time ago, maybe back in the year 2000, or in the Late Cretaceious, I posted some "proof" that the Miss Fawcett in the Dueling Club was a Ravenclaw. That her name was mentioned in the vicinity of known Ravenclaws, or something. From djdwjt at aol.com Sun Jan 13 13:16:56 2002 From: djdwjt at aol.com (elfundeb) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 13:16:56 -0000 Subject: First Glances Re: Ginny and Harry (SHIP) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33329 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lucky_kari" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Penny & Bryce wrote: > > On a related point, could Pippin (or anyone for that matter) give me > > some examples of novels where this convention (first girl boy sees > is > > the one he is fated to be with) is used? I *honestly* can't think > of > > any, which is another stumbling block to my perception of the theory > in > > general. :--) > > It works with both the sexes, of course. It doesn't necessarily have > to be the exactly first person you see. But there is a tradition of a > person whom you see the near the beginning, note in a non-romantic way > and, after a long period in which you are looking in completely > different directions, you end up with. > One author who has used variations of this plot scenario more than once is Jane Austen, whom JKR has cited as one of her favorite authors numerous times: Emma: Knightley & Emma have longstanding nonromantic relationship but Knightley has been waiting for her to grow up, whereupon Emma deludes herself into thinking she is attracted to Frank Churchill (of whom Knightley is very jealous); Emma finally realizes she loves Knightley, who has been under her nose all the time. Mansfield Park (MP): Fanny has crush on Edmund dating from childhood which matures into something more, waits and suffers in silence while Edmund becomes infatuated with Mary, even refusing marriage offer from highly eligible suitor though she has no hope of Edmund, Edmund finally sees through Mary and notices what was under his nose all the time. Sense & Sensibility: Col. Brandon is in love with Marianne but Marianne thinks he is too old. He waits patiently while she has romance with Willoughby whom Brandon knows to be morally unsuitable (I think) and recovers from the heartbreak Willoughby causes, then makes his move. Marianne finally realizes she is in fact in love with Brandon, whom she has already married. Other parallels: In Emma and MP, Fanny and Knightley are practically members of the family, much as Harry has become a surrogate member of the Weasley family. Ginny to date is undeveloped and seems to act younger than her chronological age, much as Fanny was at the beginning of MP. Ginny seems to be beginning to mature, as Fanny did during the course of MP, but the crush is not going away. Bottom line, I can see JKR possibly going in this direction even if there seems to be little canonical support for it to date. Perhaps Harry would finally "notice" her in a different way if she does something dramatic. For example, she might try to sacrifice herself for Harry at some point, since she owes a debt to him for rescuing her from the Chamber of Secrets. He would definitely notice that. Of course, she could also lose her life in the attempt . . . . Debbie From Edblanning at aol.com Sun Jan 13 14:33:23 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 09:33:23 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Q: why readers love Snape (Was:Draco/ Snape parallels) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33330 In a message dated 12/01/02 17:45:46 GMT Standard Time, vencloviene at hotmail.com writes: > So, I guess, my question is: why readers so badly want Snape to be > different from the fellow we see in Rowling's books? Especially that > the original character is so fascinating in his own right? > > Thanks for clarifying my question, Ana, you put it much better. I think that in real life, Snapes probably exist (dreadful thought!). In fiction though we're much more used to the unpleasant character who is transformed (usually redeemed through the heroine's love) or the ugly character whose character/ heroism is such that looks become irrelevant. In Snape, however we have a character who is both physically repulsive and deeply unpleasant, yet through the hints of past heroism and assumption that he is basically 'on the right side' kindles our interest and curiosity. How do we deal with him? Perhaps, since the whole package is so hard to take, we have to ignore part of it. If we take away one aspect of the character, he becomes easier to catagorise and I think that possibly we then find parallels that we subconsciously relate to. Removing the nastiness, so that we just have to deal with the physical repulsiveness, well there are all those frogs who turn into handsome princes. And what about the Beast? Nasty *and* ugly until transformed by Beauty's love. Removing the physical aspect, we are left with an arrogant, rude, selfish man who has no regard for those around him (but with a hint of an interesting back story , at least part of which we can be sympathetic to). Now this seems so ridiculous, even to me, that I hesitate to voice it, but doesn't it sound like Mr Darcy? ( attempts to suppress image of Alan Rickman emerging from Hogwarts lake clad in a clinging, wet shirt! I don't know how international that image is, but the British female readership will get it). He then joins the ranks of other rather difficult men with troubled pasts, who come right in the end under the influence of the right woman (?Mr Rochester, ?Maxim de Winter) As Gabriele points out, it's that redeeming love thing. A strong theme in literature (and opera) and don't we always think that we can change men for the better? Perhaps we're just all hopeless romantics. By the way, does Snape have any male fans? Eloise, who really thinks she is old enough to know better and is now also wondering why she has no inclination to try to take the avowedly handsome Sirius in hand) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Jan 13 15:03:17 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 15:03:17 -0000 Subject: Lupin and Snape(was female characters) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33331 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "snacain" wrote: > I am under the impression that Snape informed the Slytherins that > Lupin is a werewolf out of anger over losing the "order of Merlin". > Lupin may have insulted him during their student days (as > demonstrated by the maruaders map). But did he insult Snape openly during PoA? Yes, when he suggested that Neville force the boggart to appear as Snape in drag. The story spreads like wildfire and the whole school knows. Snape, of course, doesn't think it's funny. Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Jan 13 15:31:26 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 15:31:26 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore "wrote" Book 1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33332 When I first read the message subject, I thought you might mean it literally. The narrative voice in PS/SS does skip ahead, and back. And then I thought, what if the narrative voice *is* Dumbledore? It goes outside Harry's POV to follow Hermione's attack on Snape, and it tells us that "Snape would never know what happened." Who'd know that, really, except Dumbledore? The finality of it gives me pause, though. If my theory's right, then Dumbledore will survive the series but Snapey(sob!) won't. On a point that *is* related to your post...we've speculated that McGonagall's The Stone Is Impossible To Steal comment is the literal truth. Well, what if what everyone, Hagrid, Sirius, Hermione and Voldemort himself, is telling the truth when they say No One Can Harm Harry At Hogwarts While Dumbledore Is There? From a wizard's point of view broken bones are a minor inconvenience...in which case Harry's only ever been hurt by accident, falling off his broom or being de-boned unintentionally. What do you all think? Pippin From werekat_san at yahoo.com Sun Jan 13 07:40:16 2002 From: werekat_san at yahoo.com (Werekat) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 10:40:16 +0300 Subject: A strange little theory In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <139101726320.20020113104016@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33333 Reading through some 150 posts, I suddenly remembered a little thing me and a couple of friends discussed after reading these books. Does anyone remember Seamus' Finnigan's theory of how maybe they'll get a vampire DADA teacher in their fourth year? Well, does anyone imagine it happening in their fifth year? I think it'd be particularly amusing... And possible, now that Hogwarts, as far as it seems to me, is without official backup/guidance from MoM. Therefore, Fudge would not be able to dissuade Dumbledore. A bit more on that: I can imagine Hogwarts changing their program to suit the near-war times, and therefore resorting to things like more DADA classes and more practice than theory. I think it's in Dumbledore's spirit to make up all sorts of quests for students to solve.. And especially for our threesome and talented students from other houses. The changes subtle, yet powerful.. It's be interesting if there was a specialty group for that.. And it'd be even more interesting if Draco and Harry ended up in it together. But, back to the topic which I started.. It's strange, but I can imagine a vampire telling Harry/Hermione/Ron (In that order, really, since Ron would be rather creeped out by such a factor) about WHY s/he teaches, of all things, DADA.. "Do you have any idea of how boring it gets during the years? When you've had your share of enemies, your share of magic, your share of Clan enmity? We vampires generally do not interfere in the things you humans do. You're a feeding base to most of us, little more. Yet I have taken some delight in watching your feud with Voldemort. And, as I find your side more interesting than theirs, I wish to teach you some of what I know,and then see how you use it." Chuckle. "And, as so far, you've done quite a lot to dispel my boredom, I plan to continue doing this until the end of the year. Then, you're on your own." Any of you fanfic writers want to take on this, a bit insane, idea? Kat _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com From mikecgoodman at yahoo.co.uk Sun Jan 13 10:12:52 2002 From: mikecgoodman at yahoo.co.uk (Michael Goodman) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 10:12:52 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Female Students (and other female charcters) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33334 > judyserenity said: > I'm not sure I've understood the point here, but I want to make it > clear that I see nothing wrong with stereotypically female behaviors > such as crying or wearing curlers. And, I see female occupations such > as mother or healer as very important. My problem is that so many of > JKR's female characters have nothing else to them *but* the > stereotype. In the Potterverse, we get males doing so much more than > their real-life counterparts: a school boy who thwarts a powerful > wizard, a kindly old schoolmaster who is also leading the battle > against the forces of darkness. If Mme Pince was a librarian who > *also* was, say, teaching Harry to fight dementors, then her character > would be fine with me. (I've been watching too much Buffy lately, canyou tell? I'm fairly new to this group, having just arrived a few weeks ago, and this is my first posting. Having watched the topics with very keen interest, I thought it was time to jump in. One thing that I find absolutely fascinating is the debate on feminism and JKR's approach to women in the role. I find the whole argument absurd. The Harry Potter story is fantasy. So what if we get males doing more than their real-life counterparts; besides when did you last see a real-life wizard? I feel that JKR has used characters that help tell a story she has been trying to tell for years. Her life experience and her attitudes will influence the very essence of the characters. By analysing every single aspect of the characterisation, you are merely looking for a deep-rooted symbolism that isn't there. > judyserenity said: > There's no question, Hermione is presented as exceptionally skilled > compared to other students of either gender. (I really disliked it > when Hermione dismissed her own skills as just "book learning and > cleverness" towards the end of SS/PS; clearly, Hermione is 'powerfully magical.') Perhaps I am just being naive, or maybe I just believe in fairy-tale endings, but I think Hermione is just trying to give Harry encouragement. He is about to challenge Quirrel/Voldermort and needs the confidence Hermione no doubt gave him to overcome this challenge. Hermione is a true caring friend and although we see it earlier in the story, it really comes to light here. I personally think that JKR has achieved what very few writers before her have done. She has created a magical fantasy that has universal appeal to both young and old. Her characterisation is perfect. In an earlier posting, there was a reference to McGonagall as being a stereotypical spinster. She appears strong and forceful, while being caring at the same time. She may have been gorgeous in her day, we don't know; we may find out later, but at this stage we don't. I think all this analysis of gender in this group is irrelevant, particularly regarding Hermione; I feel that she is portrayed as strong, caring and in GoF, beautiful. Sorry for the harsh criticism (especially as this is my first posting), but it's the one issue I feel deserves comment. Mike...... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ickle_ronniekins at yahoo.com Sun Jan 13 13:38:47 2002 From: ickle_ronniekins at yahoo.com (Ronald Rae Yu) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 05:38:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: Gudgeon Family, Harry's Middle Name Message-ID: <20020113133847.19744.qmail@web21104.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33335 Besides the Fawcett girl, what about the Lockhart fan Gladys Gudgeon and the boy who lost his eye to the whomping willow, Davey Gudgeon? Any possible relationships? This one's not exactly discussion material, but I just want to point out that unless I am mistaken and middle names mean a different thing in Britain, or Lily and Petunia's maiden name is James, I think what JKR intends to tell us when she said that 'James' is Harry's middle name, is that 'James' is part of Harry's given name -- a second-name or whatchamacallit. Harry's full name is clearly Harry James Evans Potter, with Evans as his middle name, not James. Where I live, at least, the mother's maiden name is the child's middle name. Just correct me if I'm wrong somewhere in my reasoning. Ron Yu __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ From graceofmyheart at hotmail.com Sun Jan 13 15:57:28 2002 From: graceofmyheart at hotmail.com (flower_fairy12) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 15:57:28 -0000 Subject: Lily (was gender-spiked musings); structure In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33336 > And for my money, I'd let Our Mentor and Hero Emeritus, Dumbledore, > have it, too! I know all the reasons he left Harry there, and I know > about the magic spells, the comic relief, and all that, but I still > think it's unconscionable! > Yes, I agree! For all the reasoning in the world, I do not think that Harry should have been left in the care of the Dursleys. They clearly hate him, and how they have got away with all the abuse for the past 13 years is weird. > I think Harry should eventually be angry with Dumbledore, too! >Also, who gave Dumbledore the right to risk a child's life over and > over again (if that is indeed what he is doing)? I know it serves the > story, but they are only kids. How would Ron's and Hermione's parents > feel, for example, if they knew the kinds of predicaments that > Dumbledore perhaps "led" their children to? Their judgment is not > that of an adult's. > lilahp I had never thought of it like that before. Dumbledore sure can't like Harry *that* much, considering what the poor boy has gone through at school. If the same had happened to Ron, however, Mrs Weasley would be furious and would probably be very angry at Dunbledore too, for letting it happen, while he is under the care of all the students at Hogwarts. IMO, he needs a few things brought home, if you get my meaning, however great he is. Rosie From jbryson at richmond.infi.net Sun Jan 13 17:04:47 2002 From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 17:04:47 -0000 Subject: Q: why readers love Snape (Was:Draco/ Snape parallels) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33337 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote: > In a message dated 12/01/02 17:45:46 GMT Standard Time, > vencloviene at h... writes: > Perhaps we're just all hopeless romantics. By the way, does Snape have any > male fans? Well, yeah, me I guess. I taught like Snape, and had sense enough to bail out of teaching. I keep wondering what Snape is there for. At the end of PoA, I got the feeling that he is there to be the Teacher You Love to Hate; brain candy for young readers who know which teacher of theirs they would like to see frothing hysterically at the mouth. Now, I wonder if the whole HP series is about Snape. He seems to me to be the most developed character by the end of PoA. When we find out what he really is, or when he is tranformed, it will be a major resolution in the HP story. To me, he seems like the cop in Les Miseribles where the struggle is between two ideas of good, rather than between good and evil per se. "tex23236" From Zarleycat at aol.com Sun Jan 13 17:18:58 2002 From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 17:18:58 -0000 Subject: Female and male characters In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33338 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" wrote: > > The male characters echo various aspects of Harry's struggles. > Arthur, Hagrid, Lupin and Sirius are all displaced and deprived > of something important to them. Snape is also displaced, > although we don't know for sure whether he is an unsung hero > or an unpunished scoundrel. Even Dumbledore was deprived of > his position for a while. > McGonagall ranks > superior to both Snape, who could use some of her fairness, > and Lupin, who could use her self-discipline in dealing with a > disliked colleague. It's clear that McGonagall would like to > ridicule Trelawney the way Lupin does Snape, but she restrains > herself. If Lupin had done the same, he'd still have a job. > Snip I have to take issue with this. McGonagall makes her feelings about Trelawney and her Seeing abilities pretty clear at the Christmas dinner in PoA. While she is not openly ridiculing Trelawney, her comments are fairly pointed. And, I also can't agree that it's Lupin's treatment of Snape that lost him his job. Snape never wanted him to be there and used whatever ammunition he could find during the school year to undermine Lupin. As far as the Lupin-Snape boggart incident, it's not Lupin's fault that Neville's greatest fear is Snape - I'd say that's Snape's fault. Yes, Lupin helped Neville out in making boggart-Snape look ridiculous, but that seems to be the only incident where Lupin has a hand in doing anything to possibly ridicule Snape. His other interactions with Snape are unfailingly polite and professional, and these attributes are not returned in kind by Snape. We know that Snape did not want Lupin teaching at Hogwarts. On Halloween night after the discovery of the slashed Fat Lady, Snape says to Dumbledore that Black must have had inside help in getting into the castle, referring to Lupin. When Snape teaches Harry's DADA class, he uses the opportunity to try to make them realize Lupin is a werewolf, and finally, when all else fails, he lets slip the werewolf secret in the hearing of the Slytherins. Marianne, in full werewolf defense mode... From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Jan 13 18:32:25 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 18:32:25 -0000 Subject: Female and male characters In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33339 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "kiricat2001" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" wrote: > > > > The male characters echo various aspects of Harry's struggles. > > Arthur, Hagrid, Lupin and Sirius are all displaced and deprived > > of something important to them. Snape is also displaced, > > although we don't know for sure whether he is an unsung hero > > or an unpunished scoundrel. Even Dumbledore was deprived of > > his position for a while. > > > McGonagall ranks > > superior to both Snape, who could use some of her fairness, > > and Lupin, who could use her self-discipline in dealing with a > > disliked colleague. It's clear that McGonagall would like to > > ridicule Trelawney the way Lupin does Snape, but she restrains > > herself. If Lupin had done the same, he'd still have a job. > > > Snip > > I have to take issue with this. McGonagall makes her feelings about Trelawney and her Seeing abilities pretty clear at the Christmas dinner in PoA. While she is not openly ridiculing Trelawney, her comments are fairly pointed. > > And, I also can't agree that it's Lupin's treatment of Snape that > lost him his job. Snape never wanted him to be there and used whatever ammunition he could find during the school year to undermine Lupin. That's right...she doesn't openly ridicule Trelawney, even though she could. She manages to comfort her class when they're spooked while making it very clear that though Trelawney is a tempting target for ridicule, it is *not* acceptable for anyone to speak ill of her. McG's a team player. Lupin and Snape are *both* loose cannons, IMO. Snape didn't want Lupin there, but Lupin took the first step toward restarting the old feud...if Lupin had wanted to be diplomatic, he could have avoided a confrontation in front of the whole class as he does for Hermione, whose greatest fear is also a teacher. Hermione's driven attitude toward her studies is no secret, after all. So Snape retaliates with the werewolf business, which Lupin (apparently) counters with the vampire essay. Then there's the map. Snape doesn't know how Harry got the map, but he knows that Lupin knows more about it than he's telling, which is confirmed when Snape discovers the activated map in Lupin's office. And Lupin, who tells Harry how amazed he is that Harry didn't turn in the map, keeps it instead of giving it to Dumbledore. Consider how Lupin's actions look from Snape's point of view...even if he learned the truth that night from Dumbledore and accepted that Sirius was innocent and Pettigrew was the traitor, it's still *Lupin's* fault that Pettigrew escaped. That has to be the final straw for Snape, who has, however reluctantly, kept Lupin's secret and faithfully supplied him with the potion all year despite his misgivings. Pippin From cindysphynx at home.com Sun Jan 13 19:42:59 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 19:42:59 -0000 Subject: Snape & Lupin Loose Cannons? (WAS Female and male characters) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33340 Pippin wrote: >Lupin and Snape are > *both* loose cannons, IMO. > > Snape didn't want Lupin there, but Lupin took the first step > toward restarting the old feud...if Lupin had wanted to be > diplomatic, he could have avoided a confrontation in front of the > whole class as he does for Hermione, whose greatest fear is > also a teacher. I can't agree with the characterization of Lupin as a "loose cannon." For instance, when Lupin returns from his illness and finds that Snape has tried to "out" him as a werewolf, he does absolutely nothing about it. All Lupin does is tell the kids they don't have to complete the werewolf essay, all without a hint of criticism of Snape. Lupin's handling of Snape's insult to Neville in the staffroom was also measured, appropriate and professional. As for Lupin's alleged dig at Snape about the vampire essay, we really don't have any proof that Lupin did anything vindictive. We don't know that Snape is a vampire or even that Lupin actually did assign such an essay. As for the Cross-Dressing Snape incident, I don't see that as unprofessional on Lupin's part. He didn't suggest that Neville envision Snape; Neville did. Snape, of course, helped Neville make that association by belittling Neville in the staff room. Lupin gave Neville ideas on how to make Snape look ridiculous. There are far more humiliating ways to make Snape look ridiculous than the one Lupin suggested, and we have no way of knowing that Snape ever even learned about Neville's boggart battle. My opinion is that Snape comes off quite poorly in a comparison against Lupin. Lupin is a great teacher and mentor who respects his peers without exception. Snape may be serving some higher, yet-to-be- disclosed purpose, but he is a dreadful teacher and highly disrespectful to Lupin. Cindy (who would have suggested that Neville remove every stitch of Snape's clothing to make him look ridiculous) From hollydaze at btinternet.com Sun Jan 13 19:49:11 2002 From: hollydaze at btinternet.com (Hollydaze) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 19:49:11 -0000 Subject: Lupin/Snape - who started it? References: Message-ID: <00e901c19c6b$5fb02e60$f105073e@j0dhe> No: HPFGUIDX 33341 Pippin wrote: > if Lupin had wanted to be diplomatic, he could have avoided a > confrontation in front of the whole class as he does for Hermione, > whose greatest fear is also a teacher. Hermione's driven attitude > toward her studies is no secret, after all. But Hermione's fear isn't of a teacher (McGongall/Boggart - here after McBoggart), it's of failure. When in the end of year exam, McBoggart tells here she failed her exams, it is not McGonagall she is frightened of but what McBoggart is saying to her. > So Snape retaliates with the werewolf business, which Lupin > (apparently) counters with the vampire essay. You can't use that as evidence until it is confirmed by canon. HOLLYDAZE!!! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From harper_liessa at yahoo.co.uk Sun Jan 13 18:37:28 2002 From: harper_liessa at yahoo.co.uk (Liessa) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 18:37:28 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's Middle Name References: <20020113133847.19744.qmail@web21104.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000901c19c61$5b78f8e0$0200a8c0@Nshare> No: HPFGUIDX 33342 Ron Yu wrote: >This one's not exactly discussion material, but I just >want to point out that unless I am mistaken and middle >names mean a different thing in Britain, or Lily and >Petunia's maiden name is James, I think what JKR >intends to tell us when she said that 'James' is >Harry's middle name, is that 'James' is part of >Harry's given name -- a second-name or >whatchamacallit. Harry's full name is clearly Harry >James Evans Potter, with Evans as his middle name, not >James. Where I live, at least, the mother's maiden >name is the child's middle name. Just correct me if >I'm wrong somewhere in my reasoning. Its not usually the case in the UK that the mothers maiden name appears anywhere in a childs name, at least I've never heard of it. My 'middle name' for instance is my grandmothers name (Dorothy), my brothers is James after my father. There are cases where the mothers maiden name is hyphenated onto the surname (eg Evans-Potter), but as far as I know over here thats as far as the maiden name usage goes. I could be wrong though. Liessa [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From andrew_macian at yahoo.com Sun Jan 13 18:54:45 2002 From: andrew_macian at yahoo.com (Andrew MacIan) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 10:54:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Madame Pomfrey Query In-Reply-To: <31.20df022a.29729e96@aol.com> Message-ID: <20020113185445.87931.qmail@web9506.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33343 Greetings from Andrew! Another speculation.... --- mrgrrrargh at aol.com wrote: > > jenbea: > > Do you suppose Madame Pomfrey is under special > instruction from > > Dumbledore not to question the students when they > come to her with a > > strange/suspicious ailment? << > > If Pomfrey does have a confidentiality with students > is it of her choosing or > Dumbledore's? She's obviously been there a long time > (didn't some character > mention her as being around when [s]he was at > Hogwarts years ago), so was the > confidentiality agreement in effect with other > Headmasters as well? I cannot speak about such things in the UK (and I trust someone there can, and will), but in the US, privilege of communication attaches to medical professionals as well as to the legal. Could this be one reason that Pomfrey enjoys such a position of trust at Hogwarts? 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 video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ From Ryjedi at aol.com Sun Jan 13 19:09:23 2002 From: Ryjedi at aol.com (rycar007) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 19:09:23 -0000 Subject: What if book 5 is not about Harry? In-Reply-To: <20020112195140.49952.qmail@web9504.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33344 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Andrew MacIan wrote: In otherwards, a politician. Fudge is a perfect characterization of the failings of most politicians, he's self-motivated, inept, and refuses to alter his way of life for the general good. JKR has done a great job so far as a part-time satirist, and Fudge is one of her greatest creations. Making him a DE, just like making Petunia a squib, really detracts from the point of the character IMHO. -Rycar From judyshapiro at earthlink.net Sun Jan 13 20:05:13 2002 From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 20:05:13 -0000 Subject: The Female Students (and other female characters) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33345 I was going to forget about this argument. But, now my honor is at stake! Michael Goodman wrote, in response to my comments about women in the Potterverse: > ...I find the whole argument absurd. Umm, if you tbink arguing about this topic is absurd, then why are *you* arguing about it? At last count, there were 33,343 posts in this forum. Just about every aspect of the Harry Potter stories has been discussed here at one point; I don't see why this topic is any more absurd than the others. He then continued: > The Harry Potter story is fantasy. So what if we get males doing > more than their real-life counterparts... Michael, I see a couple of things you may be getting at here. The first is that JK Rowling is entitled to tell the story as she wants. That's true, but readers are also entitled to discuss the story, commenting as they like. Freedom of expression works both ways. The second thing you might be saying is that since this is fiction, it has no influence on real life. I would strongly disagree with that. Fiction can have a huge impact on how people see the world. This brings me to another comment: Amanda Lewanski said: > ...What will matter to my daughter, be she ultimately gay or > straight, fat or thin, tall or short, blonde or not, will be how my > husband and I teach her how to perceive herself, much moreso than > the gender balance in the books she reads. Amanda, I'm wondering how old your daughter is? I think you may be overestimating how much influence parents have, and underestimating how much influence the general culture has. I don't have children of my own (unfortunately), but I've closely watched my sister struggle in vain to overcome the media's influence on my nephews. I also have taught classes on gender role socialization. I'd say that parents who try to oppose popular culture are usually fighting a losing battle. On a different aspect on the gender topic, Red XIV "babelfisherperson" said: > Actually, Voldemort mentions Mrs. Lestrange as a Death Eater who > never renounced him, and indicated that once she was freed from > Azkaban, he would basically make her his 2nd in command. So > apparently even the severely bigoted Death Eaters don't see women as > being inferior to men. Voldemort does mention the Lestranges, although he doesn't mention Mrs. Lestrange separately from her husband. We only know that the Lestranges are a married couple because Sirius said so. Voldemort doesn't say anything about making Mrs. Lestrange his second in command, only that "the Lestranges [both of them] will be honored beyond their dreams", which could mean a variety of things. I have no idea whether the Death Eaters are supposed to see women as inferior, but they seem to be overwhelmingly male. At least 14 Death Eaters are mentioned by name, of which Mrs. Lestrange is the only female. Pippin said: > I think what makes the female characters (except Hermione) > less compelling than their male counterparts is that they are > socially secure.... > The male characters echo various aspects of Harry's struggles.... Well, the idea that JKR likes to feature "socially insecure" characters in an interesting one, and it seems possible that the important characters mirror Harry's own struggles. Maybe you should start a thread on this, Pippin. However, I don't see the female charcters as necessarily more secure than the males. Madame Maxime has to conceal her half-giant status. Rita Skeeter was last seen trapped in a jar and in danger of being revealed as an unregistered animagus. In contrast, Cornelius Fudge has the highest ranked position in the British wizarding world, and no one is threatening his position. Even when males' postions are threatened and the females' positions are not, that's often because the females don't *have* a position. Artur Weasley was investigated by his employer, but Molly Weasley just doesn't have an employer. Lucius Malfoy was kicked off the Hogwarts' Board, but Narcissa Malfoy was never on the Board (if she had been, Draco would have been sure to brag about it.) And, one of the reasons that fewer females are in threated positions is that there are just fewer females in the story, period. For example, all of James' friends are threatened in some way, but we haven't seen Lily's friends at all. So, I don't see this "threatened characters get more attention" theory as explaining the low profile of females in the Potterverse. Lastly, I'll quote Michael Goodman again: > I personally think that JKR has achieved what very few writers > before her have done. She has created a magical fantasy that has > universal appeal to both young and old. Well, I don't know about universal appeal, but certainly the stories have broad appeal. And in case anyone got the wrong impression, I like the stories very much. I wouldn't be here if I didn't. But, that doesn't mean I have to like everything about them. Anyway, now I'm going to write about a much more fun topic -- why I love Snape. From david_p at istop.com Sun Jan 13 20:13:59 2002 From: david_p at istop.com (david_p2002ca) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 20:13:59 -0000 Subject: Q: why readers love Snape (Was:Draco/ Snape parallels) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33346 Eloise wrote (in part): > Perhaps we're just all hopeless romantics. By the way, does Snape > have any > male fans? To which tex23236 replied (in part): > Now, I wonder if the whole HP series is about Snape. > He seems to me to be the most developed character > by the end of PoA. When we find out what he really is, > or when he is tranformed, it will be a major resolution > in the HP story. > > To me, he seems like the cop in Les Miseribles where > the struggle is between two ideas of good, > rather than between good and evil per se. Time to delurk myself... I can't resist a thread that encompasses two of my favourite characters - Snape and Javert from Les Miserables. I must say from the outset that I do not see any great similarities between the two. Snape is a marvellously convoluted and complex concoction, both bitter and noble, who has undergone a virtually complete reversal in his life, while Javert is a rather stiff absolutist who suicides rather than accept change (I do love his song "Stars", though...) What do we know of Snape? Certainly, he is petty, seeming to enjoy arbitrary penalties and points deductions. But if we look at his major actions, what has he done? I would argue his actions have been almost exclusively designed to protect Harry. Examples? - The first Quidditch match, where he was attempting the counter- curse until Hermione set him alight (PS/SS) - The second Quidditch match, where he took over as referee to protect Harry (PS/SS) - He went out to the Shrieking Shack to protect Harry (and incidentally Ron and Hermione) from a werewolf (PoA) - He leaves Hogwarts to return to his former Dark Lord as a spy, at great risk to himself (GoF) In PoA we are told that a spy within He Who Must Not Be Named's organization had revealed the plan to attack James and Lily - my bet is that it was our friend Severus. So, let's think about this a bit. James had saved Snape's life (discussed in depth in PoA). Snape risks himself to warn of the pending attack against James and Lily - and it's all for naught; they die anyways. But the Dark Lord is defeated, so Snape can return to an (almost) normal life. And then, a decade later, a boy shows up at Hogwarts. The spitting image of James Potter. And all the unresolved issues between James and Snape are uncerimoniously dumped on poor Harry's head, with Harry having no knowledge at all of what had transpired in the past. Yes, much of Snape's behaviour is childish and petty. But his ultimate aims are good, his efforts are noble. As for his DADA aspirations: given is past as a DE, who at Hogwarts would be better suited to teach the subject? In the words of Fred and George, "He knows. He's seen it all." Just my two knuts. David P. From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Sun Jan 13 20:27:13 2002 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 20:27:13 -0000 Subject: Little Shop on Knockturn (filk) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33347 Little Shop on Knockturn (from CoS, Chap. 4) (To the tune of the title song from The Little Shop of Horrors) Dedicated to Cassie THE SCENE: Knockturn Alley, in front of Borgin and Burkes. Enter HARRY, and as backup chorus, HERMIONE, GINNY, AND MOLLY WEASLEY. HARRY Little shop, little shop on Knockturn Little shop, I much to my shock learn Achoo on floo guarantees a wrong turn CHORUS No, oh, oh, no-oh! HARRY Little shop, sellin' hands of glory There I dropped, `midst its inventory I did not find this hunky-dory CHORUS No, oh, oh, no-oh! HARRY Boy oh boy, what a sleazy ploy Played by both Malfoys! CHORUS Dad and son, look out, look out! ALL Here they are drawn to try to pawn Dark Arts contraband Malfoy's son, and his dad with poisons Don't you sell a thing. I better (telling you, you better) Tell M.O.M. that they gotta get `em. This isn't (no it surely isn't) Day care! HARRY & CHORUS Little shop, little shop on Knockturn Good wizards always all their stock spurn Hagrid's here, now it's time to adjourn CHORUS Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh! - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From brewpub44 at earthlink.net Sun Jan 13 21:16:59 2002 From: brewpub44 at earthlink.net (brewpub44) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 21:16:59 -0000 Subject: Lily (was gender-spiked musings); structure In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33348 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "flower_fairy12" wrote: > > And for my money, I'd let Our Mentor and Hero Emeritus, Dumbledore, > > have it, too! I know all the reasons he left Harry there, [the Dursleys] and I > know > > about the magic spells, the comic relief, and all that, but I still > > think it's unconscionable! > > > Well, let's not be too hard on the old sot, but it does beg the question: has Dumbledore dangerously misunderstood not only the Dursleys but also the Muggle world in general? He definitely showed tremendous lack of judgement putting Harry there, IMHO, Mrs. Figg or no Mrs. Figg. A Barkeep in Diagon Alley From brewpub44 at earthlink.net Sun Jan 13 21:34:18 2002 From: brewpub44 at earthlink.net (brewpub44) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 21:34:18 -0000 Subject: What if book 5 is not about Harry? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33349 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "rycar007" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Andrew MacIan wrote: > superficial, supercilious career apparatchik, one who has determined > in his own mind what's what.> > > In otherwards, a politician. Fudge is a perfect characterization of > the failings of most politicians, he's self-motivated, inept, and > refuses to alter his way of life for the general good. \ Ryjedi, you missed Leadership by Focus Group as a failing characteristic of politicians. Fudge's refusal to remove dementors from Azkaban because the people won't stand for it is typical. Politicians let the public, as ignorant as they may be, lead them by the nose. Leaders convince a dubious public that their way is the correct way (which is what Dumbledore is now forced to do). A Barkeep in Diagon Alley. From brewpub44 at earthlink.net Sun Jan 13 21:46:54 2002 From: brewpub44 at earthlink.net (brewpub44) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 21:46:54 -0000 Subject: Q: why readers love Snape (Was:Draco/ Snape parallels) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33350 > Eloise wrote (in part): > > > By the way, does Snape have any male fans? > I didn't see this post when it was originally missing, but Snape is my favorite character in the entire series to date. He is the most interesting of them all, IMO. He is definitely not popular (amongst the other characters), so he could very easily take hte easy road and remain a DE, or hide in his chambers when not teaching, or by and large not really being interested in anything going on. But he doesn't. Instead, he does some really tremendous, yet difficult, things: -- putting Harry in his place when he first arrives (some say this is despicable, I say it is good judgement to remind the boy that "fame isn't everything". -- teaching a tough potions class. From the sounds of it, potions aren't something to be toyed with. -- threatening to poison one of hte students so they'll work getting their antidotes right is cruel, but effective. This is like drill sergeants making sure no one's butts get blown off during military exercises -- trying to keep Harry and the other students in check and obeying the rules. Look at many schools in America right now, who is in control, the students or the faculty? And the quality of education thus suffers -- Saving these kids time and time again, too numerous to mention here -- Turning on the DEs at the end of LV's reign of terror -- Taking Dumbledore's dangerous mission at the end of GoF There are many more examples but I won't bore you. Even his favoritism of Draco may not be all bad. If, as I suspect, Lucius becomes a pawn to LV, Draco may need someone to turn to for help, and that would be Severus. Perhaps Snape is trying to make the boy a leader, not a follower, which, in my book, is better, even if you are a bad guy. A Barkeep in Diagon Alley, who believes the good road isn't the easy, or popular, one. From blenberry at altavista.com Sun Jan 13 21:00:26 2002 From: blenberry at altavista.com (blenberry) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 21:00:26 -0000 Subject: Sops to Cerberus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33351 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Jenett wrote: > However, while music is one of the standard things to try with wild > animals, it's more specific, in my recollection to *Orpheus* (a > specific mythological human being) than linked to any specific > animal. > One of the more conventional methods I always heard in the mythology > of dealing with Cerberus was honey and bread or meat or meat bones > being thrown - one grouping of food for each head. > -Jenett Just had to chime in here. I, too, remember that the *usual* way to get past Cerberus was to throw him honey cakes. I think the reason music worked for Orpheus had more to do with his extraordinary skill on the lute, not because Cerberus had a special weakness for music (Orpheus worked his musical magic on Hades himself, as well). So it would be a dangerous assumption to think that anybody playing any instrument could subdue any old three-headed dog. Susceptibility to any kind of music seems to be an individual quirk of Fluffy's. Barbara From andrew_macian at yahoo.com Sun Jan 13 23:37:21 2002 From: andrew_macian at yahoo.com (Andrew MacIan) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 15:37:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What if book 5 is not about Harry? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020113233721.56764.qmail@web9507.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33352 Greetings from Andrew! Furthering the questions... --- rycar007 wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Andrew MacIan > wrote: > being a > superficial, supercilious career apparatchik, one > who has determined > in his own mind what's what.> > > In otherwards, a politician. Well...yes and no. Given that Fudge carries the title of "minister", I wonder if that's an elected position, or, more typically of what I know of the UK political structure, an appointed one. If elected, you're perfectly correct. However, if this is true, then who is the electorate, and what's the mechanism for election and recall? If appointed, then the characterization of career "civil" "servant" applies a bit more, I'd say. > Fudge is a perfect > characterization of > the failings of most politicians, he's > self-motivated, inept, and > refuses to alter his way of life for the general > good. Well...yes and no {grin}. In my own experience, most pols will adapt to the expressed will of the electorate, as what's important to said pol is continued re-election. So far as the population at large is concerned, this means that some things are done as the population wishes, or the pol will not be returned. On the other hand, Fudge shows a fine disdain for what others might think, save in the matter of the dememtors (or that's what comes immediately to mind here). This is the attitude that I have experienced with career aparatchiki; most local pols are only too willing to appear to listen to people. > JKR has done a > great job so far as a part-time satirist, and Fudge > is one of her > greatest creations. Making him a DE, just like > making Petunia a > squib, really detracts from the point of the > character IMHO. > Concur. I guess what I'm thinking about is the electoral process-- if any-- in the mage-world. Who does Fudge represent other than Fudge? 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 video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ From tia__bella at hotmail.com Mon Jan 14 00:26:26 2002 From: tia__bella at hotmail.com (tia_potter) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 00:26:26 -0000 Subject: Madame Pomfrey Query In-Reply-To: <20020113185445.87931.qmail@web9506.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33353 >Could this be > one reason that Pomfrey enjoys such a position of > trust at Hogwarts? Alright, here's my take on the Pomfrey debate: I think that not only does Madame Pomfrey enjoy her trusting position, that she chooses what to tell Dumbledore and what not too. I mean, even if she told Dumbledore almost everything that went on in the infirmary, Hermione is a very good, respected students at hogwarts, and I assume that Madame Pomfrey would have recognized the situation, and kept it quiet, as not to hurt the girl. --Tia From andrew_macian at yahoo.com Mon Jan 14 00:52:24 2002 From: andrew_macian at yahoo.com (Andrew MacIan) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 16:52:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Madame Pomfrey Query In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020114005224.1484.qmail@web9505.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33354 Greetings from Andrew! Some clarification need/offered.... --- tia_potter wrote: First, could I ask that you specify who it is that you're quoting in your posts? These happen to be my words, so... > >Could this be > > one reason that Pomfrey enjoys such a position of > > trust at Hogwarts? > > Alright, here's my take on the Pomfrey debate: I > think that not only > does Madame Pomfrey enjoy her trusting position, > that she chooses > what to tell Dumbledore and what not too. This goes to the issue of privileged communications, I presume, since Pomfrey then would be both capable of "editing" someone's comments and would be required to do so in certain cases. > I mean, > even if she told > Dumbledore almost everything that went on in the > infirmary, Hermione > is a very good, respected students at hogwarts, and > I assume that > Madame Pomfrey would have recognized the situation, > and kept it > quiet, as not to hurt the girl. A very good instance, and one of the ones I had in mind when I offered the notion of privilege. 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 video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ From jenbea at snail-mail.net Mon Jan 14 01:22:32 2002 From: jenbea at snail-mail.net (jenbe_me) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 01:22:32 -0000 Subject: Madame Pomfrey Query In-Reply-To: <20020114005224.1484.qmail@web9505.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33355 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., someone (i lost track of who) wrote: > Alright, here's my take on the Pomfrey debate: I > > think that not only > > does Madame Pomfrey enjoy her trusting position, > > that she chooses > > what to tell Dumbledore and what not too. Adding to the thread I started, (something I didn't realize at first) I am thinking that perhaps maybe Madame Pomfrey realizes the danger of making students feel they will be punished if they come seeking proper medical treatment if they've gotten themselves into some predicament that was their fault. For example, Hermione could have tried another potion to turn herself back from a cat when the polyjuice potion failed, but gotten herself into even MORE trouble. A "closed lips" policy is sure to do less damage overall, and if students are more trusting of her, they are going to come to her sooner than later with the problem before it blows up into something very difficult to solve. Remember when Harry's arm was "deflated" by Lockhart? Madame Pomfrey sure was peeved (no pun intended) by having to regrow all those bones rather than mend a simple broken arm. Another example of how she would rather have just done it herself. I don't know if it's Madame's decision or Dumbledore's to have this policy, but I'm pretty sure it exists, because there's no evidence from canon to show that Hermione was punished (or even reprimanded) for turning herself into a cat. jenbea From Elizabeth.Dalton at EAST.SUN.COM Mon Jan 14 02:07:39 2002 From: Elizabeth.Dalton at EAST.SUN.COM (Elizabeth Dalton) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 21:07:39 -0500 Subject: Draco's redemption/Snape References: Message-ID: <3C423D6B.AA982FD@sun.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33356 davewitley wrote: > > The question is, how can it be satisfying? If Draco is redeemed, it > seems like a literary cliche. He has been set up as the bully who > has nuisance value, the foil for Harry who so far manages to be > absent whenever adventure really gets going. > He could go the Severus Snape route-- renounce the Death Eaters, but retain his unpleasant personality. ;) In fact, if he does "switch sides," I think this is his only way to avoid mortal clichedom. Regardless of whether or not he dies. Though I rather like jenny's idea of him ending up in St. Mungo's. Elizabeth (Not a Draco fan, but willing to give him a chance to become more interesting) From aromano at indiana.edu Mon Jan 14 02:14:48 2002 From: aromano at indiana.edu (Aja) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 21:14:48 -0500 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Draco's redemption/Snape In-Reply-To: <3C423D6B.AA982FD@sun.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33357 On Sun, 13 Jan 2002, Elizabeth Dalton wrote: > davewitley wrote: > > > > The question is, how can it be satisfying? If Draco is redeemed, it > > seems like a literary cliche. He has been set up as the bully who > > has nuisance value, the foil for Harry who so far manages to be > > absent whenever adventure really gets going. > > > > He could go the Severus Snape route-- renounce the Death Eaters, but retain his > unpleasant personality. ;) > In fact, if he does "switch sides," I think this is his only way to avoid mortal > clichedom. Regardless of whether or not he dies. Here's something I just thought of today as I was thinking over the frequent discussions of generational parallels in the books. Fratricide is already a recurrent generational theme in the books. Tom Riddle murdered his father, Barty Crouch murdered his... who's next in line with a father who might stand in the way of his future plans? *dun dun dun* Draco Malfoy. What could be more *un-cliche* than having the once-evil Draco choose to fight for good but end up murdering his father, possibly out of a need for bitter revenge? Can anyone else see this type of scenario occurring, perhaps for other reasons? Aja From Elizabeth.Dalton at EAST.SUN.COM Mon Jan 14 02:39:23 2002 From: Elizabeth.Dalton at EAST.SUN.COM (Elizabeth Dalton) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 21:39:23 -0500 Subject: Q: why readers love Snape (Was:Draco/ Snape parallels) References: Message-ID: <3C4244DB.D7E0C5BB@sun.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33358 anavenc wrote: > > I almost started answering to Eloise's post, but finally thought I'd > better leave it to people who are knowledgeable in literature and > theory of writing. Maybe Tabouli, Elisabeth Dalton, Cindy(sphinx) and > all you other literary experts, whose thought-provoking posts never > fail to impress me, would like to reply to this one. > I'm a literary expert???? Time to disabuse everyone of that notion! To paraphrase a popular movie: "Potion Masters are like onions." "They stink and make you cry?" "No! They have layers!" (play the rest of the scene in your head.... "Potion Masters are not like cakes!".... "How about parfaits?") Mind, I'm not in love with the fellow. But I do find him to be highly intriguing, and possibly the reason I kept reading after PS/SS (which was ok, but not knock-your-socks-off like PoA). He was just so darn fascinating. And a splendid plot twist, in and of himself. Though, since I do seem to make a hobby of befriending men with difficult pasts and limited social skills, given the opportunity, I'd probably make a go at trying to find out what makes the guy tick, and see if I could cheer him up a bit. Elizabeth (Flattered to be considered "knowledgeable in literature and theory of writing." Baffled, but flattered.) From jmmears at prodigy.net Mon Jan 14 02:42:01 2002 From: jmmears at prodigy.net (serenadust) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 02:42:01 -0000 Subject: Draco's redemption/Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33359 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Aja wrote: > > Here's something I just thought of today as I was thinking over the > frequent discussions of generational parallels in the books. > > Fratricide is already a recurrent generational theme in the books. I hate to nitpick, but don't you mean paticide? Fratricide is the killing of ones own brother. Aja wrote: Tom > Riddle murdered his father, Barty Crouch murdered his... who's next in > line with a father who might stand in the way of his future plans? *dun > dun dun* Draco Malfoy. What could be more *un-cliche* than having the > once-evil Draco choose to fight for good but end up murdering his father, > possibly out of a need for bitter revenge? Can anyone else see this type > of scenario occurring, perhaps for other reasons? I have to admit that I also find the "redeemed Malfoy" scenario to be too much of a cliche for JKR to use. However, I wonder why he would want to murder his father for "bitter revenge"? As far as I can see, his father gets him anything he wants, confides DE secrets to him, takes him to the Quidditch World Cup match, and generally has made his life quite pleasant. The only time his dad is critical of him at all is when he chides him for not doing as well in his studies as Hermione. Things would have to take a big turn for the worse at chez Malfoy, before Draco would have any reason to feel hateful toward Lucius. Jo From Elizabeth.Dalton at EAST.SUN.COM Mon Jan 14 02:51:09 2002 From: Elizabeth.Dalton at EAST.SUN.COM (Elizabeth Dalton) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 21:51:09 -0500 Subject: The Female Students (and other female charcters) References: Message-ID: <3C42479D.96082C0E@sun.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33360 Just when I was starting to think I could live without this list, a thread like this comes along.... ;) Unlike Amanda (whose opinion I do respect), I *have* been reading through my half-week backup of posts, looking for every related side-turning of this thread. This is my summary and response. cindysphynx wrote: > Cindy (thinking the pressure is on to have Mrs. Figg be even better > than Lupin, Black and Moody put together) > Oh, wouldn't that be something to see?! (Whether or not she's the new DADA teacher.) Hopefully we'll see McGonnagal get sent on a secret mission, too, or otherwise do something amazing and impressive. And even though I do think Trelawney is a wacky old fraud, if Lavender or Parvati were to develop good accurate Seeing abilities, that would go a long way toward improving their characters. BTW, I think Sprout is a decent female character, not just a "flower cutter." I really like her no-nonsense attitude about the Mandrakes and other dangerous plants. And after all, she's a Hufflepuff. They don't go in for drama. But we don't see an awful lot of her. I'll go along with what Pippin says: > We don't know how powerful Professor Sprout is as a witch, but > she is the only professor at Hogwarts who can get a decent > performance out of Neville...that probably makes her the best > teacher in the school, bar none. As I've written previously, I think Lupin takes that prize, for much the same reason (with much more difficult material), but I agree with you that Sprout is top-notch. I will agree with Christi that Molly Weasley is a good strong female character. I'd kind of like to find out she has an interesting past-- it would be cool if she's a retired Auror. (Not likely, but cool.) But I don't want to go hyper-feminist here, either. Being a good mom to the Weasley brood is a fine accomplishment in and of itself, as Rachel points out in her Saturday post. (I couldn't do it-- we have a stay-at-home Dad in my family-- my husband.) Christi also did a good job defending Maxime, Fleur, and the "bad" women in her later post. Susanna/pigwidgeon37 remarked: > Frankly, I'd rather prefer a complete absence of strong women to an > unspoken, yet inherent equation "strong women = bad women". That is rather disturbing, isn't it? David writes: > But I digress. Lily is being saved up *because* she is important, > and her appearance will to some extent restore the gender balance. > It would be nice if her old girl friends, corresponding to Sirius and > Lupin, were to pop up, but that seems too easy - note that the 'old > crowd' characters named were men except for the (apparently) much > older Mrs Figg. I suspect this question is linked to the way that > the past will be revealed this time around. Unfortunately, this "old boy old crowd" doesn't help in the gender imbalance problem. But I'll give a few points to the "Lily last because she's important" theory. It's a good opportunity for Rowling to pull out of the current rut, if she manages to make Lily's past overshadow James' by the end of the series. judyserenity really sums it up here: > I agree that JKR may have her reasons for any one particular character > being male, or any one particular female charcters being stereotypical > or failing at a task. But, it still adds up to a pattern of very weak > female characters. JKR's quite creative, she could have fixed this > problem if she wanted to. Exactly. Debbie (elfundeb) adds: > I would add that in my view JKR's treatment of women (and minorities, > for that matter) doesn't square well with statements she has made > that prejudice is a major theme of the books. After paying lip > service to the lack of traditional prejudice in the wizarding world > by peppering the sidelines with female professors and Quidditch > players and making sure we're aware that the Hogwarts population has > a reasonable percentage of minorities... And at that, Dean Thomas being Black was added by Scholastic for the American edition! I agree with everything else Debbie wrote about the problems with McGonnagal. I keep wanting to like her more. I keep wanting to see her *doing* more. But really, she doesn't. Red XIV suggests: > We haven't seen any female Aurors because, I'm fairly certain, we've > seen a grand total of ONE Auror. Two, at least: Frank Longbottom was one. (Debbie caught this, too, I see, and said everything I was going to say about it, only better, probably.) I don't buy the often-cited excuse that we don't see girls because Harry doesn't notice girls yet. Harry certainly notices McGonnagal. She just doesn't *do* much. Ditto the other female teachers, generally. I have to admit, though, Liana has a good point about the different status of women as portrayed in TTTA and FB&WTFT: > ....There are women leaders (one of whom > outlaws the killing and use of Golden Snidgets), women researchers, > women Quidditch players (according to the book, the only position women > do not usually play is that of Beater, meaning they play all other > positions - and could play a Beater with the appropriate skills), > women adventurers (if I'm right that Jocunda is a woman's name - > she made the first Atlantic broom crossing) and women inventors. Maybe Binns is a male chauvinist. He only teaches about goblins because they're chauvinistic too, so he doesn't have to mention any female accomplishments. ;) I also think Pippin has an interesting theory: > I think what makes the female characters (except Hermione) > less compelling than their male counterparts is that they are > socially secure. ...if Rowling's > society is supposed to be gender blind, then she can't show > women striving for success against sexist prejudice, can she? It's a good point (though judyserenity posts some counterexamples). This places a limitation on the *kind* of things the female characters should be struggling about. (In a series like _Protector of the Small_, by Tamora Pierce, this is the core of the story.) Maybe Rowling is just too nice to her female characters, so she doesn't give them enough to do. Especially McGonnagal. Hm. It's the best excuse I've heard yet. Aja takes the prize for funniest contribution, IMHO: > If Malfoy happened to be female, the problem of where all > the strong female students went would be much less of an issue--and > undoubtedly there would be massive SHIP speculation over the prospect of > he and Harry LOL! Now I don't know whether to wish for it or not! I won't comment on Michael Goodman's remarks, except to say: you'll either get used to this kind of discussion or leave, because whatever you may have thought you'd be getting into on a group like this, this is the kind of thing we talk about a lot here. (Not exclusively, but a lot.) Elizabeth (Still hoping Rowling will manage to give us some stronger female characters in the remaining three books, because, if for no other reason, that has a lot to do with whether *I* like a book.) From aromano at indiana.edu Mon Jan 14 03:00:28 2002 From: aromano at indiana.edu (Aja) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 22:00:28 -0500 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Draco's redemption/Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33361 On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, serenadust wrote: > I hate to nitpick, but don't you mean paticide? Fratricide is the > killing of ones own brother. Lol! No, whoops, you're absolutely right--I was listening to a song from Joseph and the Amazing... earlier today and had the word "fratricide" on the brain. :) > I have to admit that I also find the "redeemed Malfoy" scenario to be > too much of a cliche for JKR to use. However, I wonder why he would > want to murder his father for "bitter revenge"? As far as I can see, > his father gets him anything he wants, confides DE secrets to him, > takes him to the Quidditch World Cup match, and generally has made > his life quite pleasant. The only time his dad is critical of him at > all is when he chides him for not doing as well in his studies as > Hermione. Actually, we don't know that at all, IIRC. The only *real* exchange we ever see between Draco and his father--real as in, completely private (so they think)--is in the scene at Knockturn Alley. There, Lucius is nothing but abusive and critical. As far as Death-Eater secrets--we don't know that either. Lucius doesn't tell his son anything about Tom Riddle or the existence of the Diary. Nor does he fill Draco in on the fact that Sirius was not the spy who betrayed the Potters--something a Death-Eater so close to Voldemort would probably have known. And JKR never explicitly *says* that Malfoy knows his father is a Death-Eater. At the Quidditch Cup he neither admits nor denies it--a clever Malfoy tactic when you don't know the answer to the question, imo. All that as it may, I do agree with you that Malfoy *worships* his father, by all appearances--which is why if Lucius ever *did* do something hurtful to betray or "sacrifice" Malfoy or his friends (a very interesting scenario if Draco were in love with Hermione, as many have proposed before), I believe the result would be tramautic. Sirius wasn't about to hesitate when he went to kill Peter Pettigrew, his former best friend. If the stakes were high enough, I could see Draco coming unwound enough to wind up in a similar situation. > Things would have to take a big turn for the worse at chez > Malfoy, before Draco would have any reason to feel hateful toward > Lucius. In contemplating this I keep coming back to Hagrid's words, in, is it Book One? I'm paraphrasing from memory, but basically he says, "When a wizard turns bad, there ain't nothin' or nobody matters to 'em anymore." This sounds like an apt quotation to keep in mind when thinking about Lucius Malfoy. Just my thoughts... Aja From jbryson at richmond.infi.net Sun Jan 13 21:12:55 2002 From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 21:12:55 -0000 Subject: The Female Students (and other female charcters) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33362 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Michael Goodman" wrote: > > judyserenity said: > > ...One thing that I find absolutely > fascinating is the debate on feminism and JKR's approach to women > > in the role. I find the whole argument absurd. The Harry Potter > story is fantasy. So what if we get males doing more than their > real-life counterparts; > I personally think that JKR has achieved what very few writers > before her have done. She has created a magical fantasy that has > universal appeal to both young and old. Her characterisation is > perfect. In an earlier posting, there was a reference to McGonagall > as being a stereotypical spinster. She appears strong and > forceful, while being caring at the same time. She may have been > gorgeous in her day, we don't know; we may find out later, but at > this stage we don't. I think all this analysis of gender in this > group is irrelevant, particularly regarding Hermione; I feel that > she is portrayed as strong, caring and in GoF, beautiful. Agreed. It almost seems some readers forget JKR is female. OTOH, if a male had written HP, he would have been castigated even more for "his" lack of strong female characters. I also find it interesting that such critics don't mention other groups. We see a few Blacks and a few kids with ethnic-sounding names; and I half expected to see some Voodoo, at least, from these kids. But I suppose JKR was right in sticking to a single system of magic. tex23236 From jbryson at richmond.infi.net Sun Jan 13 22:27:43 2002 From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 22:27:43 -0000 Subject: Q: why readers love Snape (Was:Draco/ Snape parallels) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33363 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "david_p2002ca" wrote: > > Time to delurk myself... I can't resist a thread that encompasses > two of my favourite characters - Snape and Javert from Les > Miserables. > > I must say from the outset that I do not see any great similarities > between the two. Snape is a marvellously convoluted and complex > concoction, both bitter and noble, who has undergone a virtually > complete reversal in his life, while Javert is a rather stiff > absolutist who suicides rather than accept change (I do love his > song "Stars", though...) I guess what about Snape reminded me of Javert was that Snape also is a stickler for the rules. Their "evil" seems to come from a constipated notion of what is good. > What do we know of Snape? Certainly, he is petty, seeming to enjoy > arbitrary penalties and points deductions. But if we look at his > major actions, what has he done? I would argue his actions have been > almost exclusively designed to protect Harry. > In PoA we are told that a spy within He Who Must Not Be Named's > organization had revealed the plan to attack James and Lily - my bet > is that it was our friend Severus. Yes, likely, although that should have "evened the score" in the life-saving column. > > So, let's think about this a bit. James had saved Snape's life > (discussed in depth in PoA). Snape risks himself to warn of the > pending attack against James and Lily - and it's all for naught; they > die anyways. But the Dark Lord is defeated, so Snape can return to > an (almost) normal life. > > And then, a decade later, a boy shows up at Hogwarts. The spitting > image of James Potter. And all the unresolved issues between James > and Snape are unceremoniously dumped on poor Harry's head, with Harry > having no knowledge at all of what had transpired in the past. Yes, > much of Snape's behaviour is childish and petty. But his ultimate > aims are good, his efforts are noble. Which I think we can say of Javerts. > As for his DADA aspirations: given is past as a DE, who at Hogwarts > would be better suited to teach the subject? In the words of Fred > and George, "He knows. He's seen it all." That's another thing. Dumbledore is scraping the barrel of DADA teachers, wizard-world-wide("Oh, dear, we do seem to go through them, don't we?"), while a very good one is available(according to student scuttlebutt). And in the meantime, Harry is teaching himself DADA, while most of the students are getting nothing. And this generation may need it most. Why doesn't Dumbledore offer the post to Snape? (rather than Lockhart, frex?) Tex From Ryjedi at aol.com Sun Jan 13 23:23:39 2002 From: Ryjedi at aol.com (rycar007) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 23:23:39 -0000 Subject: Q: why readers love Snape (Was:Draco/ Snape parallels) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33364 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "brewpub44" wrote: > > > Eloise wrote (in part): > > > > > By the way, does Snape have any male fans? Well, yeah I'm a Snape fan, I love the idea of a guy who knows he's a good guy but hates it, even if he's a jerk he has to do the right thing despite himself. Kinda like Spike during 4th/5th season Buffy :) >..he does some really tremendous, yet > difficult, things:... > -- trying to keep Harry and the other students in check and obeying > the rules. Look at many schools in America right now, who is in > control, the students or the faculty? And the quality of education > thus suffers -brewpub44 I tend to disagree with you here, actually. I think it's the adherence to indifferent rules that's one of Snape's failings, as well as part of the failings of America's schools and court system. Snape cares more about whether students are out at night or not than whether, say, a dragon is loose in the castle, and passes this on to his students. Rules are not everything. > -- Turning on the DEs at the end of LV's reign of terror > -- Taking Dumbledore's dangerous mission at the end of GoF - brewpub44 Here here! Another interesting aspect of Snape's character. > Even his favoritism of Draco may not be all bad. If, as I suspect, > Lucius becomes a pawn to LV, Draco may need someone to turn to for > help, and that would be Severus. Perhaps Snape is trying to make the > boy a leader, not a follower, which, in my book, is better, even if > you are a bad guy. -brewpub44 Is there an acronym for not being able to stand all this Draco-angst stuff? He's a jerk, and the worst kind; I can't stand him, and don't see him ever being "redeemed" or whatnot. Begging for mercy and saying now, as he dies, he realizes his fault perhaps...but anyway. It seems to me as if Lucius, and most of the DEs, don't know Snape was a spy. I even question whether Voldy knows. Would Dumbledore really send Snape back if he thought Voldemort knew, would Voldemort ever accept Snape if he had once been a spy, despite his pleadings? Somehow, "the one who is lost to us"? If Malfoy (Draco) thinks Snape is an escaped but faithful DE, isn't that a bad influence for the little rat? -Rycar, proud member of L.O.L.L.I.P.O.P.S. From judyshapiro at earthlink.net Mon Jan 14 02:07:18 2002 From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 02:07:18 -0000 Subject: Snape & Lupin Loose Cannons? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33365 "cindysphynx" wrote: > As for the Cross-Dressing Snape incident, I don't see that as > unprofessional on Lupin's part. He didn't suggest that Neville > envision Snape; Neville did. Snape, of course, helped Neville make > that association by belittling Neville in the staff room. Lupin > gave Neville ideas on how to make Snape look ridiculous. There are > far more humiliating ways to make Snape look ridiculous than the one > Lupin suggested, and we have no way of knowing that Snape ever even > learned about Neville's boggart battle.... Well, huge Snapefan that I am, I have to say this incident was Snape's fault. He basically put Lupin in a position where either Neville or Snape would have to be humilliated: The only way for Neville to battle the boggart was to make Snape look ridiculous (or rather, "ridikkulus") since Neville couldn't control what the boggart turned into, and if Lupin *didn't* have Neville battle the boggart, it would look like he believed Snape's claim that Neville couldn't do anything right. Given this choice, it makes sense that Lupin humiliates Snape -- Neville is right there and Snape isn't; Neville is Lupin's student and Lupin has responsibilities to him; and Snape created the whole dilemma by insulting Neville. Snape *did* find out about this incident -- it says the story "spread like wildfire", and there are several mentions of Snape being angry about it. Someone else (not Cindy) asked whether we know that Lupin really assigned a vampire essay. Yes, we do -- he told Harry and Ron, in Snape's presence, "I want a word about my vampire essay." We don't know for sure whether the essay was intended as retaliation for Snape's werewolf essay, but it certainly looks that way. The timing is right, and Lupin made sure Snape knew about the essay. Of course, this wouldn't necessarily mean Snape *is* a vampire -- only that Lupin *suspects* Snape is a vampire. From fluxed at earthlink.net Mon Jan 14 00:37:37 2002 From: fluxed at earthlink.net (A. Vulgarweed) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 19:37:37 -0500 Subject: Why readers love Snape In-Reply-To: <1010931858.1082.95197.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33366 hey y'all been lurking for a while, finally feel like pitching in. Nice to "meet" ya. > >Eloise wrote: (on readers liking Snape but not Draco) I find Draco petty and dull, the perfect archetype of the pretty but brainless upperclass jerk, and wouldn't weep too much if he gets killed off. (Maybe it's too much Edward Gorey and Roald Dahl, but the death of perfectly horrible and one-dimensional fictional children doesn't upset me nearly as much as the death of perfectly horrible--but fascinating--fictional adults might). Though I would prefer creative torments to outright death, as they're more entertaining (e.g., the bouncing ferret scene). Now, Cassie's right in one with the Byronic baggage our Potions Master carries (though I really don't buy the vampire stuff). If JKR *really* didn't want Snape to accumulate groupies, she (a) shouldn't have dressed him so well; (b) shouldn't have given him a mysterious past or a tormented soul, and certainly not a commanding/insinuating voice; (c) shouldn't have made his sarcastic barbs so dead-on funny; and (d) [referencing an unmentionable] should NEVER have told ANYONE that her first actor choice for the role was Alan "Roast Sex on a Stick" Rickman. Being a very well-read woman, she would certainly be familiar with the very common phenomenon of bookish ladies developing crushes on literary characters, the good-bad-but-not-evil brooding antihero being particularly popular. (Sirius Black and Remus Lupin fall into this category also, but in different ways--what a smorgasbord she's given us). It's only a more visual-imagination-heavy version of having the hots for a celebrity after all--celebrities are just as "fictional" for non-Hollywood types who have to invent personalities for them since we have no idea what the real ones are. I think I know a lot more about Snape's personality (or that of any major character in any novel I've read) than I do about, say, Tom Cruise's or Johnny Depp's (or that of any actor, really); hence there's a lot richer crush material there. > and Gabriele wrote: > >I can also imagine two additional points. >First, a character, who is more or less horrible is much more >interesting than a nice character. I am an opera lover and the evil >characters are always more interesting than the good ones - in >particular in Italian operas it is nearly almost the baritone vs. the >tenore or the alto vs. the soprano. The tenore has the better love >songs but the baritone has much more power in his arias and for my ears >and impression also the "better" melodies (not always but often). >Second, I also can imagine that the "good handful of us who is in love/ >lust with Sevi" would hope that our love may save his soul and because >of our love he could become a better person. Who does not hope to >change a beloved but evil person to the better because of our love? >That?s MHO >Gabriele > Actually, I like him the way he is. The 'all he needs is the love of a good woman' fantasy makes me think, alas, too much of the all-too-common story in which Good Woman tames Bad Boy (makes the dashing gambler get a straight job to support the family, gets the rock star to stay home from the road, etc.) and then gets frustrated because his end of their marriage involves a lot of weight-gaining and TV watching and virtually no active interest in life, including sex. Well....duh, what did they expect? The reason I like Snape the way he is that he is such a wonderful twist on the bad-guy theme, especially as seen through the kids' POV. So far as we know in canon, he's a mean-spirited, sarcastic, domineering, sadistic s.o.b. who would actually be a real villain if all the kids had to worry about was the normal stuff schoolkids worry about in much kids' lit, where the mean teacher IS the worst they have to face. BUT, technically, he IS one of the "good guys." The fact that in JKR's universe "nice" and "good" are not at all the same thing adds a lot of depth that wouldn't otherwise be there, IMO. I also tend to believe that Dumbledore has known all along that Voldemort will likely return, has never trusted the Ministry, and has enlisted the faculty he has at his fortress, Hogwarts, for strategic reasons that aren't just about education. So I tend to believe that virtually everyone who works there (especially those who seem to have no business working there) might turn out to have some skill and/or destiny that's important in protecting the place. Still can't explain Trelawney or Lockhart by this theory, but what the hell, they're funny. I bet Dumbledore would find that important too. A.V. (who remembers none of her high school years except her Latin teacher, who was sardonic, occasionally mean, and absolutely brilliant [and sorta dowdy and female--no obvious parallel there] and whose Latin is still much better than her algebra ever was.} From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Mon Jan 14 03:48:21 2002 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 03:48:21 -0000 Subject: Pronunciation of Little Whinging Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33367 Is Little Whinging pronounced without the first "g"? (that is, as "Little Whining") - CMC From christi0469 at hotmail.com Mon Jan 14 00:41:38 2002 From: christi0469 at hotmail.com (christi0469) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 00:41:38 -0000 Subject: Madame Pomfrey Query In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33368 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "tia_potter" wrote: > >Could this be > > one reason that Pomfrey enjoys such a position of > > trust at Hogwarts? > > Alright, here's my take on the Pomfrey debate: I think that not only > does Madame Pomfrey enjoy her trusting position, that she chooses > what to tell Dumbledore and what not too. I mean, even if she told > Dumbledore almost everything that went on in the infirmary, Hermione > is a very good, respected students at hogwarts, and I assume that > Madame Pomfrey would have recognized the situation, and kept it > quiet, as not to hurt the girl. > --Tia Madame Pomfrey probably realizes that students would be less likely to seek her medical help if she did not keep their ailments confidential. She seems to really care for her patients and would want the students to feel free to seek her assistance without fearing reprisals; however, she might go to Dumbledore if she thought it was something truly important. Perhaps in Hermione's case she thought the after effects of the Polyjuice potion were punishment enough (who would be likely to try that again?). Christi From Zorb17 at aol.com Mon Jan 14 02:34:16 2002 From: Zorb17 at aol.com (Zorb17 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 21:34:16 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Parallel Theory (WAS: Draco's redemption) Message-ID: <197.10a968b.29739da8@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33369 Christi said <> I think you're going a little far with what I said. I don't mean that the characters are carbon copies of their predecessors, merely that they fulfill similar roles in Harry's and James's lives. Harry/James is the Leader. Draco/Snape is the nemesis from the opposing house. Ron/Sirius has the similarities you mentioned, but I would also say that Ron parallels Peter. This theory does not require that every single character have a counterpart, however, nor that having one counterpart excludes having another (see Ron). As you said, that would be predictable and, frankly, disappointing. I'd be the first person to caution against trying to equate characters exactly, as they are all, in the end, unique individuals. Harry, for example, is a combination of James and Lily through pure genetics. I do think that parallels are useful for predicting the actions of characters in certain roles. Zorb From judyshapiro at earthlink.net Mon Jan 14 01:43:18 2002 From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 01:43:18 -0000 Subject: Why do readers love Snape? (and Draco/ Snape comparison) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33370 > Eloise wrote: > > > What really intrigues me, though, and perhaps some of you other > > Friends of Snape out there can help me out on this one, is just > > *why* do some of us have sympathy for this horrible man, > > want to find excuses or reasons for his > > behaviour, whilst most of us seem to feel nothing but antipathy > > for Draco, who is after all only a child.... Anavenc replied: > I almost started answering to Eloise's post, but finally thought I'd > better leave it to people who are knowledgeable in literature and > theory of writing.... > However, I couldn't resist a temptation to throw in a very closely > related question which I have been asking myself for a while: > Snape is not only sympathised with, but much, much more. A large > part of HP fandom consists of people who are simply infatuated with > him. Meanwhile, it seems like JKR so far hasn't planned on readers > loving him--at least not yet :). She keeps repeating in interviews > that Snape is horrible... > So, I guess, my question is: why readers so badly want Snape to be > different from the fellow we see in Rowling's books? Great posts, Eloise and Ana! But, to answer the question "Why do readers love Snape?", you don't want to ask a literary expert. You want to ask a psychologist! I am happy to oblige. First, a confession. I developed a huge crush on Snape by Book 2 -- or maybe it was by the end of Book 1. And there I was, ashamed of my attraction to such an unappealing character. Imagine my relief when I signed up here and found all these other people who were smitten with Snape! So, when I saw this question, I gave it a lot of thought. My answer is that JKR may have *intended* Snape to be a horrible person, but what she has actually written (so far) is a character who has a very unfriendly, sarcastic manner, but loads of positive qualities. Just what positive qualities? First, he's obviously brilliant. No doubt about it. Second, he's very skilled magically. This isn't the same as being brilliant -- Muggles can be brilliant, and as Hermione says when facing Snape's potions puzle in SS/PS, many skilled wizards don't have an ounce of logic. Third, he's very accomplished professionally, having become a Hogwart's teacher and housemaster at a young age. Again, this is in addition to being brilliant and magical -- Lupin, Sirius, and Barty Crouch Jr., could possibly also be said to be brilliant and highly magical, but they got nowhere professionally. (I'm not dissing Lupin, people are prejudiced against him!) Fourth, he's quite brave, risking death via Voldemort (or Fluffy.) Fifth, and perhaps most important, Snape's meanness seems to be all style, rather than substance (as others here have pointed out.) Most of his actions actually have benefitted others (protecting the Stone, protecting Harry from Quirrell, spying for Dumbledore, etc.) Even when he makes a severe threat, he doesn't carry through -- he said he wanted to feed Sirius to the dementors, but instead he took Sirius to Fudge (and even gave Sirius a comfy stretcher, which is way better than Sirius treated the unconscious Snape.) The closest he's come to physical violence is knocking Lockhart off his feet in the Dueling Club scene in CoS -- and dueling was Lockhart's idea in the first place. Remember, this is in a story where the truly bad characters torture people for fun, kill random people for no real reason, and murder their own families. By that standard, Snape has never done anything bad (that we've seen.) Given all that, it's easy to come to the interpretation that Snape is not, in fact, supposed to be a bad person. I have certainly met people who said very nasty things -- either because they regarded insults as a sort of game, or because they didn't realize they were hurting people's feelings -- and yet were pretty decent people underneath. One can even try to justify his actions towards his students (not that I would want a real teacher behaving that way.) Maybe the nastiness is an act, to impress the Death Eater kids. And, Neville is a hazard in class and probably shouldn't be there. Harry has in fact done many of the things Snape has accused him of (used potion ingredients stolen from Snape, sneaked into Hogsmeade) without being punished. A lot of relationships start off with verbal banter and teasing, and develop into genuine caring. I suspect that many people infatuated with Snape have that sort of relationship in mind. And, plenty of people want a lover who plays at being dangerous, yet never actually hurts them. Snape has been portrayed as perfect for this. Given all this, I was pretty dismayed when I heard that JKR had described Snape as a "deeply horrible person." I guess I had better get over my crush before the remaining books come out, and we find out just how bad Snape is. Ok, now here's why I *don't* like Draco. He has none of Snape's good qualities, or at least is not shown as having them. Snape was already noticably talented as a child ("knew more curses than half the 7th years"), while Draco is not (Lucius says Draco's grades had better pick up, or he'll only be able to be thief or plunderer.) Draco is not shown as brave -- he will only confront Harry with Crabbe and Goyle at his side, he is terrified in the Forbidden Forest, he runs when Harry's cloak slips and reveals Harry's head. (As a teenager, Snape was brave, or at least reckless; he rushed into the Whomping Willow alone.) Draco doesn't have accomplishments of his own -- his dad bought his way onto the Quidditch team. Snape's insults are often clever, or at least creative, while Draco's are just cheap shots ("Hey, Weasley, you're poor!") So, why do some fans prefer Draco to Snape? I would guess it's age. Many fans are too young to think of Snape romantically. Oh well, they can re-read the books when they're 30 and old enough to appreciate him. Let me just comment on two other theories that have been raised. (I don't have time to find the exact quotes, sorry.) 1) Maybe people think that Snape can be redeemed by love. Quite possibly. I think many people have the idea that if they love someone who is very unhappy, lonely, and needy, that person will intensely return their love. (Unfortunately, it often does't work out that way in real life.) 2) Snape's appeal is that he's a vampire. Not to me. I never considered that Snape might be a vampire until I joined here. (I think he's more likely a bat animagus. Maybe that's how he spied on MWPP and saw Lupin go into the Whomping Willow?) I really don't want Snape to be a vampire. I want to fantasize about having a relationship, not about developing a really bad case of anemia. "judyserenity" From judyshapiro at earthlink.net Mon Jan 14 01:50:35 2002 From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 01:50:35 -0000 Subject: Madame Pomfrey Query In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33371 "jenbe_me" wrote: > Adding to the thread I started, (something I didn't realize at > first) I am thinking that perhaps maybe Madame Pomfrey realizes the > danger of making students feel they will be punished if they come > seeking proper medical treatment if they've gotten themselves into > some predicament that was their fault.... if > students are more trusting of her, they are going to come to her > sooner than later with the problem before it blows up into something > very difficult to solve. Jenbea, I think you've hit the nail on the head. Madame Pomfrey is known for "not asking too many questions", as Ron and Harry say to Hermione. If injured students were grilled about the cause of their problems, they'd be afraid to go to Madame Pomfrey for help. We've seen that Madame Pomfrey feels students' health is the top priority, more important than Quidditch games or the Triwizard Tournament. So, it stands to reason that she'd think access to medical care matters more than enforcing school rules. My guess is, Dumbledore backs her up completely on this. "judyserenity" From aromano at indiana.edu Mon Jan 14 03:53:04 2002 From: aromano at indiana.edu (Aja) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 22:53:04 -0500 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Female Students (and other female charcters) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33372 On Sun, 13 Jan 2002, tex23236 wrote: > Agreed. It almost seems some readers forget JKR is female. Being female makes it even *more* of a shame in my opinion that HP is not frequented with more strong, positive females. (And although my contribution to this discussion has been limited to the "most hilarious offering" according to Elizabeth *grin*, I'd like to jump in and say that I've felt the series lacked good female roles ever since the first book, and I've been thoroughly enjoying hearing the views from everyone else who's chimed in on the topic.) I think there's a real cause for alarm as the books stand now in the absence of positive female role models. I'm not saying JKR has denigrated women in any way--but, one has only to look at the new female characters introduced in GOF to see the imbalance: --Narcissa Malfoy: presented as a haughty woman; she says nothing in the book, is only shown with her husband (and enters walking behind him), and is mentioned as wearing a nasty look each time she comes up in discussion. --Madame Maxine and the Beauxbatons students: presented more positively, but there is a very unflattering moment when all the members of the girl's school summarily burst into tears after not being chosen by the goblet to compete in the TWT. (I must say this was when I put down my book and said, "Oh, please!" in dismay.) Maxine is insecure about her identity and unwilling to confront her half-giant ancestry. Although she *is* a positive role model as the only female headmaster, she could easily lose the position based on prejudice against giants, if not against women--this makes her weaker than her male counterparts in the same positions, even Karkaroff. --Rita Skeeter: is just horrible. She has IMO little intelligence, and is presented as being hard-nosed, heartless, and pretty much awful. For a long time I wasn't sure if we were supposed to see her as comic relief or as a serious threat--but I was completely disappointed with her character. I guess I've watched His Girl Friday too many times. --Mrs. LeStrange: as discussed ad nauseum, she wears the pants, but she's also, from all appearances, just plain evil. --Fleur: beautiful, but she comes across as a bit manipulative because of her Veela looks and ancestry. She is also presented as the worst of the four tri-wizard competitors. >From this batch alone it seems to me JKR has left out a significant representation of strong females--the kind who are strong but *not* evil, and good but *not* insecure or weaker than their male counterparts. And were I to let this issue affect my enjoyment of the books as a whole, I'd be really embarrassed that a writer so seemingly conscientious about other aspects of her work chose to depict such a lop-sided view of women. > OTOH, if a male had written HP, he would have been castigated even more for "his" lack of strong female characters. This is nice to speculate, but completely irrelevant. I still feel I am more attuned to her lack of development in this area because she *is* female. > I also find it interesting that such critics don't mention other groups. We see a few Blacks and a few kids with ethnic-sounding names; Are you saying that those in the discussion haven't taken prejudice of other kinds into consideration? I believe you're wrong there--I point you to Elizabeth's most recent post (mssg # 33360) for the latest thoughts on this. I think the general consensus among the debaters is that she could use some work there too. > and I half expected to see some Voodoo, at least, from these kids. But I suppose JKR was right in sticking to a single system of magic. It's not to be expected that JKR could work in *every* social/cultural aspect and diversity into 7 books with a tight story arc. That's not what the books are ultimately about-- which is partially *why* this list sprang up, to allow us to indulge in endless debates about where the strong women/minorities/ethnic and religious groups/international factions/Cockneys/Welsh/Scottish/other regional accents/ theatre/music/arts classes/missing 24 hours/anything else you can think of went in the canon. :) Aja *looks at her Slytherin Malfoy doll which she bought just for Tom Felton's picture on the front--$6.77 Walmart bucks for one smirk, the little whore* ~~~RQ: Where Little Boys Find No Mercy~~~ From oppen at cnsinternet.com Mon Jan 14 04:39:00 2002 From: oppen at cnsinternet.com (Eric Oppen) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 22:39:00 -0600 Subject: Check Your Assumptions... Message-ID: <029c01c19cb5$63eee9e0$fdc71bce@hppav> No: HPFGUIDX 33373 One thing I've noticed is that everybody on here and elsewhere in the online Potterverse _assumes_ that the "Crabbe" and "Goyle" addressed by Lord Voldemort in the Graveyard Scene are the fathers of Malfoy's Stones-that-Speak (sorry, an Effinger reference), Crabbe and Goyle. It would be...interesting...to say the least, if it turned out that Malfoy's flunkies' fathers were _not_ DEs at all, or at least were nowhere near the graveyard on that fateful night. Voldemort's "Crabbe" and "Goyle" could be older siblings or uncles...or even totally unrelated to the Two Slytherin Goons. _Particularly_ if Harry or his friends acted hastily, on the assumption that the two Harry heard Lord Voldemort talking to _were_ the Stones' fathers, only to be pulled up short, like so: "Let me get this straight, Mr. Potter. You say that you saw Lord Voldemort speaking to Gregory Goyle's father in the cemetery at Little Hangleton?" "Yes, sir. He wanted to know if Mr. Goyle would do better this time." "That's...interesting. Particularly since your classmate Gregory Goyle's father has been dead since Gregory himself was five years old. I think you've been straining your brain a little too hard, Mr. Potter. Maybe you need a nice long rest somewhere." On a related note, Ron _assumes_ that he wants what Harry has. Wouldn't it be a hoot if he wished for it, and got his wish...and had to spend the summer holidays at the Dursleys' residence, _as Harry?_ While Harry's lolling at the Burrow, with Mrs. Weasley fluttering all over being nice to him, here's poor Ron, having to find out what "Harry Potter, This Is Your Life" is _really_ all about. I can see him, catching up to Harry at Platform 9 3/4, and grabbing onto him, begging "For the gods' sake don't send me back there---_Please!_" *heh heh heh* From tabouli at unite.com.au Mon Jan 14 04:53:59 2002 From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 15:53:59 +1100 Subject: Utopian vision vs realism in fiction Message-ID: <002b01c19cb7$903c3e60$d150dccb@price> No: HPFGUIDX 33374 judyserenity: > The second thing you might be saying is that since this is fiction, it has no influence on real life. I would strongly disagree with that. Fiction can have a huge impact on how people see the world.< Ahaa! It's the realism vs role model issue again! I've tried a few times to stir a rousing debate on whether fiction should reflect the world as it is or as it should be, but alas. Judyserenity, as specialist in gender role socialisation who has obviously given the matter some musing, any thoughts? This may even have some bearing on the kiddiefic debate: to what degree do the authors of children's fiction have a responsibility to "set a good example", and have positive representatives of different ethnic groups, positive gay characters, strong capable female characters doing unstereotypically female things, male characters being sensitive and kind, etc.etc.?? Should they? Should authors of adult fiction? Should JKR? Now. Let me put myself in the firing line here (bullet proof vest, concrete bunker, etc.) It could be argued (and before you start loading your e-guns I'm not saying I personally hold this view) that a book where the male Anglo-Saxon characters are the ones on centre stage with the power and the main players in the action, while the female characters display more stereotypically "feminine" behaviour and worry about their relationships and looks and children and being caring and nurturing, the gay characters are oppressed and still in the closet for fear of social rejection (and hence don't appear in the book), the non-Anglo-Saxon characters are also oppressed and less likely to play central roles and have positions of power, etc.etc. is largely quite realistic, no matter how much progressive idealists find this terrible and wish it wasn't the case (and immediately start pointing out changing social trends, exceptions to the rule, the fact that they personally have a life full of strong successful women who should be recognised more, etc.etc.) I've read at least one article which suggests that HP is popular with little boys precisely *because* the traditional gender roles in the books are much closer to their real-life experiences than feminist era children's fiction full of impossibly capable and assertive little girls. Very interesting. Should authors of fiction create a utopian world where things are closer to the way they think things "should" be, in the hope that this will help it eventually become true? (Does this work, or is it an unconvincing and transparent ploy for all but the very young?) Or should they reflect the world as it is, "warts and all", and leave the role model and education stuff to educators and parents? To what degree are authors of fiction educators? Are only children's authors educators? I'm reminded of telling my Honours supervisor (successful young female lecturer of strident feminist convictions) about David Lodge's "Nice Work", in which a strong, highly educated, intelligent, attractive young lecturer in English Literature (female) visits a factory floor with the company's managing director (male), and all of the (male) workers shout out sexist remarks, whistle, etc. For me, as an example of what is essentially a cross-cultural encounter, I thought the situation depicted was very believable. My supervisor, on the other hand, found the very idea offensive. "How sexist! What a thing to write. I hope people treated the Managing Director like a stupid sex object somewhere in the book." What? I thought (OK, so maybe she wasn't entirely serious, but she sounded it). I mean, realistically, isn't what Lodge wrote more or less exactly what would happen under the circumstances? And *isn't* it very unlikely that a middle aged male managing director would ever have the same experience as a young woman in that situation? It's not a good or desirable thing, but it *is* realistic... I've never totally resolved this issue for myself, as both writer and psychologist. One thing I am sure of, though, is that if you're going to take the "utopian" route, you have to do it convincingly (for example, a lot of Hollywood's efforts at strong female characters are so badly drawn and transparently tokenistic it's just embarrassing). I think clunky preaching can actually have the reverse of the desired effect, because it undermines the credibility of the fictional world and the author and can make the reader feel patronised and manipulated. judyserenity: >> Amanda Lewanski said: >> ...What will matter to my daughter, be she ultimately gay or >> straight, fat or thin, tall or short, blonde or not, will be how my >> husband and I teach her how to perceive herself, much moreso than >> the gender balance in the books she reads. > >Amanda, I'm wondering how old your daughter is? I think you may be overestimating how much influence parents have, and underestimating how much influence the general culture has. I don't have children of my own (unfortunately), but I've closely watched my sister struggle in vain to overcome the media's influence on my nephews. I also have taught classes on gender role socialization. I'd say that parents who try to oppose popular culture are usually fighting a losing battle.< OK, I can feel myself steadily sliding OT here, but anyway, I'll finish this post. Yes, the culture in which you live bombards people daily with messages that are almost impossible to avoid. The media (though I'd argue more things like advertising, TV and movies and magazines than novels) and institutions in a society (schools, governments, laws, religious bodies) are constantly teaching us what the "rules" are. What's "right" and "wrong", "attractive" and "unattractive", "cool" and "uncool". I agree with judy that the best willed parent in the world would find it very hard indeed to isolate their children from messages like "girls have to be pretty" and "boys have to be brave" and "it's bad to be fat" and "it's cool to rebel" and so on, however undesirable they believe these messages to be. They've done studies showing kids as young as 2 or 3 already know what the "appropriate" behaviour is for their sex. By the time people reach their teens they're usually hyper aware of the social norms of their society and the penalties for not living up to them (hence many Western teenagers being very embarrassed by their parents' behaviour: at their age, such cluelessness about how to apply the rules is punishable by complete loserdom!). However... I wouldn't underestimate the importance of the parents' role either. There are two parts to the process. One is learning the rules (very hard for the parents to control), the other is deciding where you stand on them. Which ones you endorse, and how much, which ones you reject. *This* is where the parents have a very important role to play. It's the role model factor: they are your first and most salient examples of how an adult of your sex thinks and behaves. They are living illustrations of particular positions on the rules. They are the ones who teach, both directly and indirectly, which rules are the most important ones. Sure, after about 12 many Western kids go out of their way to rebel against and reject their parents' views (=individualist culture's message on forging your independence) and concentrate on their peers, but this doesn't mean those views haven't sunk in somewhere: after all, they're still defining themselves by them by rebelling against them! Certainly what your parents tell you you're like stays with you, like it or not. Take me for example: from day one I was told I was smart by my parents. It was just taken for granted. *I* took it for granted. Even though I got all society's messages about women being ornamental and less smart than men, glass ceiling, sexism, etc., I never, ever doubted that I was smart, and got very offended indeed if anyone tried to imply I wasn't (but offended without feeling threatened: I just went into Hermione "prove I'm not a dunderhead" mode, I *knew* I was smart). If anything, the cultural messages influenced me in another, though equally undesirable way: as a child I developed this social split, where I talked to women about fashions and relationships and reserved "intellectual" discussions for male company (and considered these superior). If I had a daughter, I don't think I'd be too worried about them reading Harry Potter and picking up dire traditional gender roles: once she's old enough to read a book this complex, she's probably old enough to talk to about these issues, at least in a simple way. I would, however, keep a fairly close eye on the television she watched, especially when very young, (discreetly ensuring that she had some non-stereotyped female characters in TV and books), and try to lead by example. Arrange for at least one of her dentist and GP to be female. Talk to her as if I assumed she'd have a life of her own and career (as my father did with me), not as if her only true mission in life was to get married. Be comfortable and matter of fact about sex, in the hope that she'll later feel comfortable talking to me about it (I wish my parents had done this). *Not* showing by my own comments and behaviour that being thin and pretty and having a man is the most important thing in the world (providing real-life evidence to counteract what the media will tell her). And so on. Sure, once she hit 13 or 14 she'd probably jump on all those bandwagons herself with her peers (and see listening to me as about as uncool as it gets) but I still think there's a very important window of opportunity before then to lay down a foundation. Of course, this is all hypothetical: I have no children and don't see myself having any in the near future, so arguably I am in no position to comment! All the same, from my own musings on parents and culture, these are my conclusions so far... Tabouli (prone to long analytical posts) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From srae1971 at iglou.com Mon Jan 14 05:00:33 2002 From: srae1971 at iglou.com (Shannon) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 00:00:33 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Check Your Assumptions... In-Reply-To: <029c01c19cb5$63eee9e0$fdc71bce@hppav> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.20020114000033.00a85b08@pop.iglou.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33375 At 10:39 PM 1/13/2002 -0600, Eric Oppen wrote: >On a related note, Ron _assumes_ that he wants what Harry has. Wouldn't it >be a hoot if he wished for it, and got his wish...and had to spend the >summer holidays at the Dursleys' residence, _as Harry?_ While Harry's >lolling at the Burrow, with Mrs. Weasley fluttering all over being nice to >him, here's poor Ron, having to find out what "Harry Potter, This Is Your >Life" is _really_ all about. I can see him, catching up to Harry at >Platform 9 3/4, and grabbing onto him, begging "For the gods' sake don't >send me back there---_Please!_" *heh heh heh* It might be funny, but I also think it would be very good for Ron to spend even one day seeing the kind of life Harry has to live when he's not at Hogwarts. It might make Ron realize that what he has--a large, *living* family that loves him--is more valuable in the long run than what Harry has--fame for something he doesn't remember, an inheritance from his dead parents...oh yes and an incredibly evil wizard who wants him dead. I doubt Harry has really told anyone what his life is like there, least of all Ron. Ron only knows that he lives with some particularly horrible Muggles, but could he really have any concept of what it would be like living with the kind of people who'd make you sleep in a closet for eleven years? I'd love to see Ron get stuck there for a day or two somehow. I doubt the Dursley's would allow him to stay but there's always that Invisibility Cloak. :) Shannon From DMCourt11 at cs.com Mon Jan 14 06:04:42 2002 From: DMCourt11 at cs.com (DMCourt11 at cs.com) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 01:04:42 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Draco's redemption Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33376 In a message dated 1/13/02 10:06:52 PM Eastern Standard Time, aromano at indiana.edu writes: > On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, serenadust wrote: > > I have to admit that I also find the "redeemed Malfoy" scenario to be > > too much of a cliche for JKR to use. However, I wonder why he would > > want to murder his father for "bitter revenge"? As far as I can see, > > his father gets him anything he wants, confides DE secrets to him, > > takes him to the Quidditch World Cup match, and generally has made > > his life quite pleasant. The only time his dad is critical of him at > > all is when he chides him for not doing as well in his studies as > > Hermione. > > Actually, we don't know that at all, IIRC. The only *real* exchange we > ever see between Draco and his father--real as in, completely private (so > they think)--is in the scene at Knockturn Alley. There, Lucius is nothing > but abusive and critical. As far as Death-Eater secrets--we don't know > that either. Lucius doesn't tell his son anything about Tom Riddle or the > existence of the Diary. > Aja > > Although Malfoy spoils his son, he's also shown no confidence in Draco. > Buying the brooms implies that he figures Draco has no hopes of ever making > the Quidditch team on his own merits. In his first chance to prove > himself, he fails to catch the snitch that is hovering right by his ear. > Odds are the story got back to Lucius, and Draco surely heard a few choice > comments from his father on the subject. > > Earlier, as Aja points out, we get the exchange between father and son in > Knockturn Alley, where Harry is delighted to see Draco looking both > "abashed and angry" at his father's comments. To top everything off, we > know he doesn't tell him anything about Tom Riddle or the diary. Draco > confides to Harry and Ron (as Crabbe and Goyle) that he wished he knew who > the heir of Slytherin was, that he would help him, but that his father > doesn't want him mixed up in it and that if he knows too much about the > chamber of secrets it would look suspicious. So Lucius also has no faith > that his son can keep a secret or that he won't mess things up by trying to > help out. > > Draco can't have much self confidence. He must also have a lot of anger > towards his father even if he can't admit that to himself. However, he > strikes me as being too weak a character to turn on his father by either > going over to the other side, or confronting and/or killing him. I don't > see him redeeming himself because he realizes his father is evil. Unless > there's something that comes out in later books, how would he have learned > about good and evil? All he's been told is that: 1. he comes from an old > and pureblood family, that they should be respected and run things, 2. > mixed blood is polluting the wizard world and other purebloods who let this > go on are destroying the race, 3. they have an obligation to correct this > situation, 4. muggles are inferior but dangerous. Since we mostly see things in the books through Harry's perspective, we don't know if Dumbledore or anyone else has tried to talk to him about this. So far, Draco seems too insecure and scared to ever change. Donna > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From caliburncy at yahoo.com Mon Jan 14 06:43:27 2002 From: caliburncy at yahoo.com (caliburncy) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 06:43:27 -0000 Subject: Utopian vision vs realism in fiction In-Reply-To: <002b01c19cb7$903c3e60$d150dccb@price> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33377 Hi all, --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Tabouli" wrote: > Ahaa! It's the realism vs role model issue again! I've tried a > few times to stir a rousing debate on whether fiction should > reflect the world as it is or as it should be, but alas. Apparently it was before my time or I somehow missed it, because surely had I seen such a thread, I would have commented on it. > Should authors of fiction create a utopian world where things are > closer to the way they think things "should" be, in the hope that > this will help it eventually become true? Or should they > reflect the world as it is, "warts and all", and leave the role > model and education stuff to educators and parents? Hmm . . . I guess I'm inclined to say that I see no reason why this cannot be left up to the individual author. I think it would be a great disservice to the literary form if publishers were to suddenly declare that, from here on out, they will only accept works that present a utopian worldview. Or only works with a realistic worldview. Or, for that matter, a dystopian worldview, which I notice you left out either intentionally or by accident, but which, I think, also has the ability to promote social change just like these other two. What I find most interesting in the above quote, is that Tabouli implies (probably unintentionally) that by choosing the "warts and all" realistic portrayal, an author is choosing to not educate. Of course, I disagree. That which is portrayed is not thereby condoned, or else all the persons who lament the satanic bent of HP would be vindicated, simply by the presence of Voldemort. Ah, you say, but Voldemort's views and actions are not condoned by the books; rather, they are quite clearly rejected. Indeed. I believe that what is ultimately important is not the type of portrayal itself, or even the individual elements of that portrayal, but whether those elements are apparently rejected or condoned by the work. For example, in Tabouli's debate with her Honours supervisor about David Lodge's "Nice Work", what is the true matter at hand, in my opinion, is not the actual actions of the males involved, but whether said action is apparently rejected or condoned by the work. A good author will rarely take an explicit stance, but even without the explicit stance, an implicit stance is, well, implied. I have not seen this particular work in order to specifically comment upon it, sadly. But that's not the point anyway. The point is that that scene could have been written from an utopian, realistic, or dystopian viewpoint and still ultimately take the same stance on the issue. So, regarding HP and the gender presentations therein, what is more important to me than the statistical representation of non- stereotypical female characters, or the presence (or lack) of good female role models, or even the presentation of gender roles in general, is whether or not the negative effects of those gender roles are condoned or rejected. (Personally I believe all the effects of gender roles are ultimately negative even though they may not seem to be in the immediate circumstance, but many people disagree, which is why I have specified the "negative" bit.) In other words, the biggest question for me is not, "how many this or how much that?", but straight to the big enchilada of "Does HP endorse sexist views?" The answer, as best as I can tell, is no. Perhaps part of the reason this is a concern is that, although HP does not seem to condone sexism, it never has an opportunity to overtly reject it either, because so far no instance of sexist treatment has occured in order to be commented upon, either pro or con. This then makes the lack of "sufficient" good female role models seem more problematic to some, since the stance on gender roles is thereby made even more vague. I concede this is a valid concern. But while I would never undermine the importance of role models, I think the overall stance of the books is much more important, and therefore I think that while HP may not be *winning* any feminist battles, with its arguably too-vague stance, it is probably not *losing* any either. I do not really think that, in the end, it is having any adverse effects on young girls. But then I haven't done a study, so I wouldn't know, and I certainly admit this is within the realm of possibility. > I've read at least one article which suggests that HP is popular > with little boys precisely *because* the traditional gender roles > in the books are much closer to their real-life experiences than > feminist era children's fiction full of impossibly capable and > assertive little girls. Very interesting. Well, having been a little boy myself, I can say that I don't believe this would have been the case for me, and hence I should extend that same benefit of the doubt to current little boys. I, in fact, read some of those books with "impossibly capable and assertive little girls" and do not recall ever feeling intimidated by or uncomfortable with that. I will admit that I am not the ideal test case, having been raised rather blind to gender roles compared to most people (I say this not as a self-compliment, but as what I believe to be a fact- -believe me, it has been every bit as much a detriment as a virtue, though I wouldn't exchange it for the alternative), but really, if all boys were looking for in their books was a "return to tradition" in gender role presentations, then I see no reason why they needed to wait for HP to come out in order to experience this, seeing as how this can be found in a large enough percentage of the much older children's literature. No, I am more inclined to believe that little boys read HP for precisely the same reasons that little girls do, and for the matter of that, many of the same reasons we ourselves do. But it is an interesting theory, and reminds me very much of another theory along these lines, which is sadly off-topic, or I would delve into it here. Please hit back with thoughts, questions, or vehement disagreements! I would love to go into this in a broader sense, as I notice I have thus far only had time to talk about utopian vs. realistic vs. dystopian portrayals in terms of gender roles, when of course these apply to much more, and much more broadly. But I also, frankly, need sleep, and so any further ramblings from this corner will have to wait. (I can taste the anticipation that permeates the air.) -Luke From christi0469 at hotmail.com Mon Jan 14 03:33:23 2002 From: christi0469 at hotmail.com (christi0469) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 03:33:23 -0000 Subject: The Female Students (and other female charcters) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33378 I also find it interesting > that such critics don't mention other groups. We see a few Blacks and > a few kids with ethnic-sounding names; and I half expected to see > some Voodoo, at least, from these kids. But I suppose JKR was right > in sticking to a single system of magic. > > tex23236 Does anyone have a ball-park figure for the ratio of caucasians to minorities in the UK? I know in america the figure varies by region (I have no clue what the numbers here are, but you get a feel for what the mix of an average crowd is). If the UK is more heavily caucasian than america we americans would see an accurate ethnic student population as skewed. Someone from the UK (or a statistician) would have to tell us if the ethnic mix feels right. I do know that the ethnic mix of Hogwarts would be completely off in Texas, given our proximity to Mexico. Christi From christi0469 at hotmail.com Mon Jan 14 03:58:40 2002 From: christi0469 at hotmail.com (christi0469) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 03:58:40 -0000 Subject: Q: why readers love Snape (Was:Draco/ Snape parallels) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33379 > > That's another thing. Dumbledore is scraping the barrel of DADA > teachers, wizard-world-wide("Oh, dear, we do seem to go through > them, don't we?"), while a very good one is available(according to > student scuttlebutt). And in the meantime, Harry is teaching himself > DADA, while most of the students are getting nothing. And this > generation may need it most. Why doesn't Dumbledore offer the post > to Snape? (rather than Lockhart, frex?) > > Tex Let's look at the succession of DADA teachers. Quirrel was "a bit of a joke", but may have had that post before he adopted the stuttering idiot guise. Hagrid did say that he used to have a brilliant mind. Lockhart had an impressive, if completely false, resume. Lupin was just plain good, and it was a pity that he couldn't have stayed on. When the signs that LV was on the rise, Dumbledore lined up a retired Auror. Even though Moody turned out to be Crouch Jr he taught Harry usefull things. Hopefully the next DADA teacher will be even more impressive. Potions teachers might be harder to line up than DADA teachers, which would explain why Dumbledore kept Snape where he was. With LV's return we may see Snape teach DADA by the end of the series, as potions would pale in comparison to DADA. And we don't know yet that Snape actually wants to teach DADA, as the "facts" that students know about their teachers are often off-base. Christi From mrgrrrargh at aol.com Mon Jan 14 05:07:36 2002 From: mrgrrrargh at aol.com (mrgrrrargh at aol.com) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 00:07:36 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Gudgeon Family, Harry's Middle Name Message-ID: <13.4e352b0.2973c198@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33380 Ron Yu: In the states (and I assume britain) middle names are chosen by the parents and can be anything that the parents want. My middle name happens to be a family name, but is not my mother's maiden name... in fact I don't think I know of anyone whose middle name is their mother's maiden name. So, I think that Harry's full name is Harry James Potter... no Evans in there at all. :) -spygamefan > Where I live, at least, the mother's maiden > name is the child's middle name. Just correct me if > I'm wrong somewhere in my reasoning. > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mrgrrrargh at aol.com Mon Jan 14 05:19:16 2002 From: mrgrrrargh at aol.com (mrgrrrargh at aol.com) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 00:19:16 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Draco's redemption/Snape Message-ID: <16.187b094a.2973c454@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33381 In a message dated 01/13/2002 9:16:34 PM Eastern Standard Time, aromano at indiana.edu writes: Aja: > Fratricide is already a recurrent generational theme in the books. Tom > Riddle murdered his father, Barty Crouch murdered his... who's next in > line with a father who might stand in the way of his future plans? *dun > dun dun* Draco Malfoy. What could be more *un-cliche* than having the > once-evil Draco choose to fight for good but end up murdering his father, > possibly out of a need for bitter revenge? I definetley like the idea of Draco having to kill Lucius. I think someone posted something about Draco not wanting to be a slave to Voldie like his dad was/is... which I think would be a good way to make him a non-evil foe to Harry. Because believe it or not.. not all the people who ya hate are evil. And isn't muder of the father patricide? fratricide being muder of the brother? -spygamefan [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jchutney at yahoo.com Mon Jan 14 05:44:51 2002 From: jchutney at yahoo.com (jchutney) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 05:44:51 -0000 Subject: Why do readers love Snape? (and Draco/ Snape comparison) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33382 Great thread! Forcing me to delurk! Eloise wrote: [quote] What really intrigues me, though, and perhaps some of you other Friends of Snape out there can help me out on this one, is just *why* do some of us have sympathy for this horrible man, want to find excuses or reasons for his behaviour, whilst most of us seem to feel nothing but antipathy for Draco, who is after all only a child.... [/quote] I think this is an age thing and a Fanon/Canon thing. I'm older than Draco but younger than Snape so I find I enjoy both characters very much. But they are both different kinds of mean and Draco "seems" to be heading in a darker direction than Snape. By the end of GoF, Draco talks about how sorry Potter will be that he didn't join the Deatheaters whereas Snape seems ready to risk his life to fight them. There are numerous example of Snape's goodness but only one (maybe) of Draco's. In GoF, the trio come across Draco while the Deatheaters are out. Draco is of course nasty to them but he also warns Hermione to keep her bushy head down. If he truly wanted Hermione (and by extension Ron & Harry dead) he wouldn't have warned them. Either he's a very inept villain (which is certainly possible) or he does have some decency deep deep down. Also Fanon! Draco has many "reasons" for his bad behavior. I think it's easier for a 12-year old to understand why someone might behave badly than it is for us. Also Draco seems motivated entirely by envy, a very unattractive quality. We don't know exactly what motivates Snape, so are free to speculate Anavenc replied: [quote] Snape is not only sympathized with, but much, much more. A large part of HP fandom consists of people who are simply infatuated with him. Meanwhile, it seems like JKR so far hasn't planned on readers loving him--at least not yet :). She keeps repeating in interviews that Snape is horrible... So, I guess, my question is: why readers so badly want Snape to be different from the fellow we see in Rowling's books? [quote] Snape is incredibly rude. Maybe this is a British thing ? I don't know. I think in America we have made the mistake of equating rudeness with maverick behavior with coolness. Snape's good qualities do not negate his nasty way of addressing the kids, especially Potter and Longbottom. It is unkind to make people feel stupid when they don't know something. Also reading aloud from Witches Weekly regarding Hermione's "love life" was beyond cruel. In muggle America, you're talking million-dollar lawsuit! Either the fans gloss over this fact of his rudeness or they see it as a symptom of his unhappiness. IRL, I would be enraged by someone that rude but fiction allows us the luxury of looking at the big picture. You realize that you're sophomore Chemistry teacher's teaching method was only one aspect of his person. judyserenity replied: [quote] First, a confession. I developed a huge crush on Snape by Book 2 -- or maybe it was by the end of Book 1. [/quote] I didn't realize I loved Snape until GoF. It was a slow process from loving to hate to just plain loving so I feel like I understand why JKR call him horrible AND why you all think he's so great. Also I love JudySerenity's analysis! Snape does have all the good qualities she mentions. I think what makes him such a great character is that he seems to be struggling with who he is. We really don't know what to expect with Snape whereas we can expect Hagrid to be a cuddly airhead, Dumbledore to be twinkly noble, etc. The more a character surprises us, the more we become interested. Also, I think that Snape has elements of all the kid characters, not just Draco. Brainy and know-it-all like Hermione, picked on like Neville, sarcastic and emotional like Ron, and (IMO) like Harry he sees Dumbledore as a surrogate father. From Lesaja at gmx.de Mon Jan 14 07:38:07 2002 From: Lesaja at gmx.de (Lesaja at gmx.de) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 08:38:07 +0100 (MET) Subject: why readers love Snape Message-ID: <23163.1010993887@www12.gmx.net> No: HPFGUIDX 33383 anavenc schrieb: > So, I guess, my question is: why readers so badly want Snape to be > different from the fellow we see in Rowling's books? Especially that > the original character is so fascinating in his own right? In addition to the other posts, I think there could be another point: I don't know if Snape still needs to be saved or redeemed, because hadn't he already done this by hisself (his decision to leave the DE and turn to Dumbledore's side)? He could stand for that the possibility does exist to overcome ones inner dark side, to successfully start a new life. This does not mean that everythings a pink paradise after that, there will be still things to struggle with, and the things done in the past have scared ones life. Although Snape is not beloved in the books, he shows that it is possible to survive and stand upright after all. For those who have romantic feelings for him but don't belong to the group who wants to "save" him, he could be someone who appreciates the dark inside of someone and perhaps love this person. Although I would not like to see Snape fall in love with a sweet little woman and turn to be a merry man, I think that he is able to love because he does have strong emotions and therefore is not coldhearted. LesAJa -- GMX - Die Kommunikationsplattform im Internet. http://www.gmx.net From sirius_3lack at yahoo.co.uk Mon Jan 14 08:24:04 2002 From: sirius_3lack at yahoo.co.uk (sirius_3lack) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 08:24:04 -0000 Subject: Pronunciation of Little Whinging In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33384 "coriolan_cmc2001" wrote: > Is Little Whinging pronounced without the first "g"? (that is, > as "Little Whining") > > - CMC Nope it is pronounced "win-jing" - but to whinge (winj) is to whine. whinge (hwinj, winj) intr.v. Chiefly British whinged, whing?ing, whing?es To complain or protest, especially in an annoying or persistent manner. Sirius From sirius_3lack at yahoo.co.uk Mon Jan 14 08:45:19 2002 From: sirius_3lack at yahoo.co.uk (sirius_3lack) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 08:45:19 -0000 Subject: Utopian vision vs realism in fiction In-Reply-To: <002b01c19cb7$903c3e60$d150dccb@price> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33385 "Tabouli" wrote: I'm reminded of telling my Honours supervisor (successful young female lecturer of strident feminist convictions) about David Lodge's "Nice Work", in which a strong, highly educated, intelligent, attractive young lecturer in English Literature (female) visits a factory floor with the company's managing director (male), and all of the (male) workers shout out sexist remarks, whistle, etc. For me, as an example of what is essentially a cross-cultural encounter, I thought the situation depicted was very believable. I had exactly the same argument with one of my (young successful feminist) English Literature lecturers regarding this passage. Whilst myself and several others found the scene believable (although somewhat steroetypical of the average Rummidge factory worker!) our lecturer seemed extremely offended - somehow painting Lodge as a sexist/misogynist for daring to portray real life attitudes in his work - as if not to mention the attitudes would deny them existence. Very Odd. But back to the rest of your post. I would agree to some extent that the success of the Potter books is due in part to their depiction of traditional gender roles closer to the *real life* experience of most young readers. But I would also like to borrow the arguments of my erstwhile English Lecturer for a second: Is the Potterverse the way it is in regard to gender roles because that is how the world of the younger reader is percieved by an adult author? Or is it written in this way in order to encourage the perpetuation of these traditional gender roles in the adult lives of the young reader? Any thoughts? Sirius From draconan at optushome.com.au Mon Jan 14 12:44:00 2002 From: draconan at optushome.com.au (isabelle_69au) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 12:44:00 -0000 Subject: Reasons for stereotypes (was Utopian vision vs realism in fiction) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33386 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "sirius_3lack" wrote: > Is the Potterverse the way it is in regard to gender roles because that is how the world of the younger reader is percieved by an adult author? > > Or is it written in this way in order to encourage the perpetuation of these traditional gender roles in the adult lives of the young reader? > Thoughts from a moderately radical feminist (my mother): The decision to make the major character a male would be a combination of audience expectations and a (possibly sub-conscious) marketing ploy. A book with unicorns and magic where the title character was female would attract a mainly female readership. Making Harry male and populating the Potterverse with traditional roles and stereo-types enables it to be marketed to both sexes as boys will not feel confronted and most girls will accept this. NB : Mum hasn't read the books (this synopsis is based on comments in the newspapers, etc.) but I can see some merit in her comments. As it is, the religious extremists have *MANY* issues with the realistic magic portrayed in the books (seemingly a surprise to JKR). Can you imagine the uproar if there was a noticeable slant towards strong magical females pushing *poor* little boys around. The traditionalists would have a field day. In view of the many stereotypes, I find it refreshing that Hermione's sex was a virtual non-issue throughout most of the series. Ron suddenly seems to realise that Hermione is female when she refuses to attend the dance with him in GoF, but even then he has trouble thinking of her as "a real girl" until he realises he's lost out to Krum. Despite all the attempts to efeminate Draco (small, blonde, non- masculin?), whereas "boys will be boys" in the Potterverse, Hermione stands out as a driven and highly talented student, who just happens to be a female. After all, there is absolutely no argument that she is the best student in her year. Also, I can't think of any specific instances of discrimation against any female, much less Hermione herself. Having seen her willingness to fight on behalf of the house elves, I have no doubt that she would be quick to fight for her own (or any other women's) rights, if she thought it was necessary. Isabelle From Joanne0012 at aol.com Mon Jan 14 13:49:36 2002 From: Joanne0012 at aol.com (joanne0012) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 13:49:36 -0000 Subject: The Female Students -- Brit race In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33387 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "christi0469" wrote: > Does anyone have a ball-park figure for the ratio of caucasians to > minorities in the UK? I know in america the figure varies by region > (I have no clue what the numbers here are, but you get a feel for > what the mix of an average crowd is). If the UK is more heavily > caucasian than america we americans would see an accurate ethnic > student population as skewed. According to an article in the Christian Science Monitor (at http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/2001/04/26/fp8s1-csm.shtml ): "About 6.5 percent of Britain's population has a minority ethnic background, with the largest groups drawn from South Asia, the Caribbean, and Africa." This is a much lower percentage than in almost any part of the US (except possibly the Midwest) and since 6.5 percent is about one in 15, it would seem that the minority representation at Hogwarts is reasonable. Please, let's not get into another debate about ht number of students at Hogwarts! The HP Lexicon lists about 80 students, we don't even know the ethnic background of most of them, yet more than 6.5 percent (i.e., 1 per 15) of the kids for whom we KNOW a race are minorities (Patils, Jordan, Chang, et al.). However, as in the Muggle world, integration of faculty lags far behind integration of the student body! From midwife34 at aol.com Mon Jan 14 12:20:58 2002 From: midwife34 at aol.com (jrober4211) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 12:20:58 -0000 Subject: Utopian vision vs realism in fiction In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33388 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "sirius_3lack" wrote: > Is the Potterverse the way it is in regard to gender roles because > that is how the world of the younger reader is percieved by an adult > author? > > Or is it written in this way in order to encourage the perpetuation > of these traditional gender roles in the adult lives of the young > reader? > > Any thoughts? > > Sirius I think its written the way it is because it was based on the author's experience of how she percieved gender roles as a child. I wish I could qoute which interview I read this in, but I remember reading where JKR stated that she based the Hermione character upon herself as a child. I also remember her saying that other characters were also based on exaggerated versions of people she knew , such as the Gilderoy Lockhart character. I doubt seriously that JKR conciously decided while writing the Potter stories " Gee, I think I'll write a series in which traditional gender roles are portrayed." Jo Ellen From pigwidgeon37 at yahoo.it Mon Jan 14 14:10:06 2002 From: pigwidgeon37 at yahoo.it (pigwidgeon37) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 14:10:06 -0000 Subject: Truly horrible, but not bad (WAS: Why do readers love Snape?) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33389 judyserenity wrote I think that this might be the key to the question (and thanks to everybody who brought it up and is discussing it right now, because I simply love to discuss Snape): It's the very clear distinction between a BAD person and a HORRIBLE person. Now, if JKR states that Snape is "truly horrible", OTOH she never says that he is "a bad person", which by exclusion means that he is, if not a second Dumbledore, at least a fundamentally good person. Throughout the books, we come across a lot of "good people": Dumbledore, McGonagall, Sprout, Flitwick, Lupin, Hagrid, (supposedly) Real!Moody, Madam Pomfrey and a lot of others. We know that they are on the side of Good, because Dumbledore trusts them and, more importantly, because they act like good people. Good persons behaving like good persons may be nice, they may even be fascinating, like Dumbledore, but there is no inherent conflict between their character and their behaviour. With Snape, things are quite different: Here we have a character whom the author does her best to present as a bad guy, but who in the end turns out to be quite the contrary. He obviously fulfils the requirement of "having chosen the right way instead of the easy one" and, as Dumbledore rightly observes, it is our choices to tell who we are, not the fact of being a Slytherin or an ex-Death Eater. A repentant sinner might be preferable to somebody who never in his life has been exposed to temptation and therefore has never been in a position to sin. Thus, we've got this strong contradiction between a person who has obviously chosen the right path, maybe even paying a very high price for this decision, but who is acting in a horrible way- bullying students, favouring his own house over Gryffindor (for we don't know anything about his treatment of other houses), being unjust in every possible way, making cutting remarks whenever possible. Then, let's not forget his appearance: In a world where too large front teeth can be shrunk to a reasonable size and bones re-grown within 24 hours, it is simply suspicious that a man who is probably able to brew every imaginable potion under the sun has to run around with greasy hair, yellow teeth and sallow skin. If he really wanted to alter his appearance, not turning himself into another Lockhart, but simply eliminating the aforementioned flaws, he sure as hell could do so. But he doesn't, which leaves a wide range of possibilities and guesses as to WHY he doesn't and certainly makes it seem logical that his slimeball appearance IS an act which makes some of us (including myself) believe that his exaggerated nastiness might be, at least partly, an act as well. And wishful thinking has a field day More so as his positive qualities, eloquently listed by judyserenity, are: 1) brilliant mind 2) powerful wizard 3) accomplished Potions Master + head of house 4) braveness Add a rather weird, but appealing sense of humour (if his "I can't see a difference" were not directed against Hermione, but Draco, I bet we'd all find it hilarious) and you've got excellent crush material. Susanna/pigwidgeon37 From pigwidgeon37 at yahoo.it Mon Jan 14 15:08:13 2002 From: pigwidgeon37 at yahoo.it (pigwidgeon37) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 15:08:13 -0000 Subject: Utopia vs Reality- in HP there's both of it Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33390 Tabouli wrote: Luke wrote: Mmh, so it seems that Luke is a follower of the doctrine brought up (IIRC) during the period of Enlightenment, claiming that literature in general and theatre in particular had to fulfil a moral task: Lessing's "theatre as moral institution" comes to my mind. Though, and this is the tricky point, an author can meet this requirement both by depicting reality and by presenting a world "as it should be". Whichever method he or she chooses, the important point is the message conveyed to the reader: "This is reality as we find it every day, but this or that should be changed" vs. "This is how I think it should be and please participate in creating it". So, basically, what matters is the message, not the method. In JKR's case, I'd say we are confronted with a mix between utopia and reality. And I don't mean that the whole wizarding world is utopia in itself, on the contrary, it contains the same elements as our everyday Muggle world, they have just been shifted into a different reality. There is, however, one utopian element in the wizarding universe: The hope that one day, Good might triumph over Evil, represented by Harry and Dumbledore. Introducing these two characters and presenting them in the way she does, JKR very clearly confers her moral message- no matter whether to children or adult readers. On the "reality level", this essential message is reinforced by certain characters clearly marked as "good persons" whose words and behaviour help the reader to decode it: Dumbledore's "right vs. easy" speech, Lupin's words to Harry about his irresponsible behaviour (sneaking to Hogsmeade), Harry who gives the 1000 galleons price money to Gred and Forge, every decision to bend rules for a higher purpose (use of the Time Turner to rescue Sirius, brewing Polyjuice Potion to detect the Heir of Slytherin etc.etc)- all these words and deeds serve as a means of clarifying the message of "This is reality and this is how we should behave in order to achieve JKR's very personal utopia". Hope that was clear?! Susanna/pigwidgeon37 From ftah3 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 14 15:25:22 2002 From: ftah3 at yahoo.com (ftah3) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 15:25:22 -0000 Subject: The Female Students (and other female charcters) In-Reply-To: <3C42479D.96082C0E@sun.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33391 > > Cindy (thinking the pressure is on to have Mrs. Figg be even better > > than Lupin, Black and Moody put together) I suspect that Mrs. Figg is either extremely powerful or nothing much at all. This is due to the fact that she seems to have been set around the corner from Privet Drive to watch over Harry until he went off to Hogwarts, and my thought is that either Dumbledore had learned from the past mistake of assuming that a hiding/protective spell was infallible (cf the Potter's secret keeper not keeping the secret) and took the precaution of stationing a very powerful witch nearby just in case ~ or Dumbledore felt that the threat to Harry was minimal, but that a watcher would be handy, and stationed someone who was available, but not necessarily powerful. I'm leaning toward the former, because I think Dumbledore *would* have been cautious after the Potters' deaths, and also because Mrs. Figg garnered much mention and much suspiciously underwhelming characterization that now that she's due to return, unmasked as one of Dumbledore's inner circle, I just expect great things from her. Elizabeth Dalton: > Hopefully we'll see McGonnagal get sent on a secret mission, too, or otherwise > do something amazing and impressive. I love McGonnagal, and I think she is awfully discounted by readers. I suppose that, like Molly Weasley, Prof. M seems terribly unexciting by the fact that she 'keeps the home fires burning' in terms of Hogwarts. But the fact is that she continually takes on great responsibility, and as the apparent second in command at Hogwarts is yet three times as accessible an authority figure as Dumbledore. I mean, what does Dumbledore *do*? Other than head up banquets, and possibly do administrative things behind closed doors. He's great, according to all of his fans, but so far his greatness has only been expressed by timeliness and the occasional wise word (granting that great things are implied for him in future books per the end of GoF). McGonnagal is at least as impressive and Dumbledore, but far more busy. She actually teaches, actively watches over her house, is a participative fan of her house Quidditch team, interacts as an authority figure quite a bit with students outside of just teaching, mentors Hermione, teaches a difficult subject as well as uses her power in that arena, is virtually inflappable (though when she *is* shaken, she's able to overcome and act quickly, reliably & effectively), and she's the one to whom Dumbledore entrusts the running of Hogwarts when he's deposed from the Headmaster position. Dude. She rocks! Elizabeth still: > I will agree with Christi that Molly Weasley is a good strong female character. > I'd kind of like to find out she has an interesting past-- it would be cool if > she's a retired Auror. (Not likely, but cool.) Molly Weasley is a fabulous character, and doesn't need some spectacular secret to make her significant. Imho, she's *the* counterpoint to Lucius Malfoy. Sure, the active bad blood exists between the Messrs Weasley and Malfoy, but in every other way ~ symbolically/metaphorically, literally, and in sum total characterization, the Yin & Yang is Lucius & Molly. Lucius and Molly embody the Nurture aspect in the books. Thanks to the elder Potters' deaths and the fact that the Dursleys are less parent-figures than really lousy zoo keepers, there is a huge vacuum in the HP books where the "Home Base" should be. "Home Base" equals family ~ the place where some form of nurturing and moral structure begins, and where close familial ties exist. (This doesn't always occur in RL, but it's an archetype, something that the hero comes from or searches for, in many stories.) In HP, Harry has absolutely no point of reference when it comes to Home Base. He comes to feel that Hogwarts is "home," but imho that is more in the sense of a place of refuge. Rather, he discovers that point of reference in dual form: the relationship between Lucius and Draco, and the relationship between Molly and her children. As spiffy as Arthur Weasley is, he's not the parental force in that family ~ Molly is. As far as the Yin/Yang: Lucius represents, somewhat obviously, the Bad Parent. He teaches his son prejudice, arrogance, misaligned priorities, dependence, and misuse of power. Countering this, Molly Weasley teaches her children about caring, diligence, respectfulness, teamwork, humanity, responsibility. And while we don't see her use her powers to do much more than housework, she is written as a force to be reckoned with ~ not because she relies on flash or power or some superspecialsecret past, but because she has a strong character, strong will, and a strong moral foundation. She's also generally level-headed and right-minded compared to Lucius's rash and hateful nature, and quite frankly, based on character alone, I would put odds on Molly Weasely in a wizard's duel between them. > Susanna/pigwidgeon37 remarked: > > > Frankly, I'd rather prefer a complete absence of strong women to an > > unspoken, yet inherent equation "strong women = bad women". Ditto that. Elizabeth: >It's a good opportunity for Rowling to pull out of the current rut, if > she manages to make Lily's past overshadow James' by the end of the series. and then judyserenity > >But, it still adds up to a pattern of very weak > > female characters. JKR's quite creative, she could have fixed this > > problem if she wanted to. You know, *this* bothers me as much as the former statement in regards strong women=men. A rut of weak female characters to me would be a smattering of simpering fluttering girlie girls which was only broken by a single Evil Woman. I see none of that in HP, and am not at all concerned that neither Harry's nor Lord Voldemort's boat has so far been rocked by some scene-stealing Joan of Arc. And I actually hate these arguments. They are no-win kinds of arguments. On one hand JKR has no strong female characters; on the other hand her strong female characters might as well have been men. And if she had crafted an upstart female to rival the main males, who is both strong and lovely, the character would no doubt be deemed "the token strong female" or criticized for having to be beautiful to be important (unlike, say, McGonnagal and Hermione, who are important without being beautiful) and once again, shame on JKR. Eh. > Debbie (elfundeb) adds: > > > I would add that in my view JKR's treatment of women (and minorities, > > for that matter) doesn't square well with statements she has made > > that prejudice is a major theme of the books. After paying lip > > service to the lack of traditional prejudice in the wizarding world > > by peppering the sidelines with female professors and Quidditch > > players and making sure we're aware that the Hogwarts population has > > a reasonable percentage of minorities... Elizabeth: > And at that, Dean Thomas being Black was added by Scholastic for the American > edition! Piffle. Who, exactly, is at fault, here? We can assume that Parvati and Padma Patil are of Middle Eastern/Indian extraction by their names, but what's to stop any of us from assuming that some other characters are black, or Jewish, any other defined ethnic group? Should JKR call such things out, or force in a whole lot of pointed ethnicity just to be politically correct, or is she allowed to write a book based on her own life experiences containing characters based on people she knew without having to worry about whether or not she's satisfying some sort of "minority quota" in terms of the human characters? Some will say yes to that, I'm sure. But I fully intend to not see sins of omission where they do not exist, current politically correct atmosphere notwithstanding. Especially because the books *are* rife with the theme of rampant prejudice in terms of muggle/magical/squib as well as human/non-human, and even wealthy/poor. Elizabeth: > I won't comment on Michael Goodman's remarks, except to say: you'll either get > used to this kind of discussion or leave, because whatever you may have thought > you'd be getting into on a group like this, this is the kind of thing we talk > about a lot here. (Not exclusively, but a lot.) Harsh. Unless I missed a post by this guy (which is possible, since I only read the posts on the web, and if he deleted a post I won't have seen it), his single post says he finds the argument absurd, and then gives his interpretation of the text to support his own perspective, all in the spirit of commenting on a discussion. And so he oughta get used to 'it' or leave? Then what of myself, who also thinks that this topic and others are absurd, but still enjoys joining in anyway? Mahoney From cindysphynx at home.com Mon Jan 14 15:46:31 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 15:46:31 -0000 Subject: Utopian vision vs realism in fiction In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33392 Luke wrote: > So, regarding HP and the gender presentations therein, what is more > important to me than the statistical representation of non- > stereotypical female characters, or the presence (or lack) of good > female role models, or even the presentation of gender roles in > general, is whether or not the negative effects of those gender roles > are condoned or rejected. In other words, the > biggest question for me is not, "how many this or how much that?", > but straight to the big enchilada of "Does HP endorse sexist views?" > The answer, as best as I can tell, is no. Although I agree with what Luke has written, there seems to be an additional issue that makes the question "how many this and how much that" relevant to me. I'm not sure I agree that asking only (or primarily) the question "Does HP endorse sexist views?" goes far enough. I'm not sure I can articulate this issue well, but I also think it is important to consider the era in which a book was written and the social structure in place at that time. I have read plenty of children's fiction written many years ago (and continue to read it to my kids) in which the women have stereotypical roles. But those roles are entirely consistent with the era in which the books were written. That makes the author's approach to gender both understandable and forgiveable to me. Similarly, members of this list sometimes take up the question of racial diversity at Hogwarts, asking whether it reflects racial diversity in Britain. Clearly, HP does not condone racism (if anything, HP condones equality), so why do people continue to ask the question? I'm not sure exactly, but I think that some people (myself included) do take note of whether a piece of fiction reflects the racial make-up of the subject population. In other words, if HP were set in New York City and had the same racial distribution that we see at Hogwarts, I would raise an eyebrow and wonder why. The answers probably would not be flattering to JKR. Are the issues and my expectations different for a fantasy book? Can someone envision and write a fantasy book in which everyone is male and white and, when criticized for this, shrug it off by saying, "Sorry, but that's the way it is in Fantasyland"? Probably so. What I do know is that authors (and filmmakers) who fail to include diverse characters apparently are not seeking a diverse audience, so I oblige by electing not to be part of the audience for their work. Had JKR included no minority characters, I definitely would have noticed this omission and my enthusiasm for the books would be substantially more muted. The same holds true for female characters. As it stands, the minority characters have almost nothing to do (none of the major characters fighting evil are minority). However, as Luke notes, the books have a theme that prejudice is wrong, and that does go a long way toward helping me accept the limited presence of characters of color. In the end, an author's decision about the gender of certain characters and what they should do is important to me because it implictly says something about what the author considers to be normal. In HP, it seems to me that JKR has given her fantasy world many of the attributes of the real world. Consequently, I think it is reasonable to ask that she also treat issues of gender and race in a way consistent with the real world. That means that there ought to be women in both traditional and non-traditional roles, and that there ought to be racial diversity. Judyserenity wrote (regarding the influence of popular culture on kids): >I'd say that parents who > try to oppose popular culture are usually fighting a losing battle. > A *losing* battle? An uphill battle, perhaps, but I'm not willing to raise the white flag quite so quickly. :-) Regarding gender issues, I actually have few concerns that media perceptions and portrayals of women pose a risk for my own daughters or other young girls growing up today. Young girls are surrounded by women who have made all sorts of choices in what they wish to become. Sure, there are professions and roles in which women are underrepresented, but I'd have to think hard to come up with a profession in which there aren't women who serve as role models. Not too long ago, there were almost no women professionals. Now, my neighborhood is full of them. I think the day-to-day experiences of girls go a long way to help them understand that they have options beyond traditional roles, despite what popular culture says. So (to bring this back on-topic), if the HP books continue to have roles for women that are traditional or stereotypical, I wouldn't think that they were an inappropriate influence for my daughters. I could shrug it off by noting that my daughters already have plenty of positive female role models, and whatever they observe in a fictional book probably won't have a negative influence on them. Score one for the parents in the uphill battle! :-) Cindy From ftah3 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 14 15:51:14 2002 From: ftah3 at yahoo.com (ftah3) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 15:51:14 -0000 Subject: Utopian vision vs realism in fiction In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33393 Luke wrote: > Perhaps part of the reason this is a concern is that, although HP > does not seem to condone sexism, it never has an opportunity to > overtly reject it either, because so far no instance of sexist > treatment has occured in order to be commented upon, either pro or > con. This then makes the lack of "sufficient" good female role > models seem more problematic to some, since the stance on gender > roles is thereby made even more vague. I concede this is a valid > concern. > > But while I would never undermine the importance of role models, I > think the overall stance of the books is much more important, and > therefore I think that while HP may not be *winning* any feminist > battles, with its arguably too-vague stance, it is probably not > *losing* any either. What surprises me is that little has been made of the fact that there is a distinct lack of sexism or inter-human ethnic racism overall in the HP books. Malfoy & Co don't pick on Hermione for being a girl; they pick on her for being a mudblood (and they pick on her looks; but they do that to Ron, as well). And in the wizard world, ethnicity seems to begin and end with magical ability, human v. non- human, and national affiliation (re the comparisons noted between the Hogwarts, Beauxbatons, & Durmstrang students). There's zero need to call out ethnicity of any other kind in the books, because it has nothing to do with the events described, and isn't in fact (apparently) an issue in the HP world. And in so many cases we get so *little* description of named characters that the only thing keeping the reader from imagining ethnic diversity is possibly, dare I say it, our own preconceptions. I mean, we don't need to be led around by the hand in order to envision so many other things; so why do we need ethnicity spelled out in marquee letters for it to become part of the picture? > No, I am more inclined to believe that little boys read HP for > precisely the same reasons that little girls do, and for the matter > of that, many of the same reasons we ourselves do. And I, as a little girl, read both Trixie Belden and The Three Investigators avidly, as well as a mish-mash of other books which had male or female characters. My son is three, and his favorite movie/tv characters are Cowgirl Jesse from "Toy Story 2," the mean Carnotaur from "Dinosaur," and Power Rangers. It has nothing to do with gender roles and everything to do with who is noisiest, most effusive, and runs around madly the most. And I completely understand, because I also like noisy, actiony fun in a lot of my fiction, never mind if it's a male or female doing the exploring/detecting/heroing. Mahoney From jenbea at snail-mail.net Mon Jan 14 15:57:51 2002 From: jenbea at snail-mail.net (jenbe_me) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 15:57:51 -0000 Subject: Rita in Reality Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33394 Am I the only one who supposes that Gilderoy Lockhart wasn't the only character who J.K. Rowling based on some professional she met in her career who she really didn't like? I have a feeling that Rita Skeeter may be someone she knew (or more likely still knows now) who is a very persistant journalist who's constantly bugging her, perhaps someone who reminds her of a bug, or a beetle! Or perhaps, she may be a conglomeration of all the reporters who she really doesn't like. I watched the web broadcast of the world premiere of HPSS movie from Leicester (sp?) Square in London, and JK Rowling was there, of course, and of course she was hassled by media, demanding to know, of course, when book 5 would be out. When asked about book 5, Jo seemed very flustered and almost upset and said, "I really don't know, but of course I should have expected to be asked, everyone is asking." She wasn't rude, just seemed like she was being dogged by the media. I got the feeling that some of Rita's comments may have been paraphrases of comments from other reporters or interviews gone wrong with Ms. Rowling. Of course, this is all speculation, but I get the same sort of feeling when I read the character Lockhart. There are many similarities. Both characters seem to be pretty one dimentional. jenbea From lav at tut.by Mon Jan 14 15:26:59 2002 From: lav at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 17:26:59 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Utopia vs Reality- in HP there's both of it In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <966410380.20020114172659@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 33395 Greetings, Susanna/pigwidgeon37! p> Mmh, so it seems that Luke is a follower of the doctrine brought up p> (IIRC) during the period of Enlightenment, claiming that literature p> in general and theatre in particular had to fulfil a moral task: p> Lessing's "theatre as moral institution" comes to my mind. Though, p> and this is the tricky point, an author can meet this requirement p> both by depicting reality and by presenting a world "as it should p> be". Whichever method he or she chooses, the important point is the p> message conveyed to the reader: "This is reality as we find it every p> day, but this or that should be changed" vs. "This is how I think it p> should be and please participate in creating it". So, basically, what p> matters is the message, not the method. There's the third way, of course: to depict the reality as is _could_ be. The message conveyed to the reader then is as follows: "This is the reality that could be if this and that did (didn't) happen". p> In JKR's case, I'd say we are confronted with a mix between utopia p> and reality. And I don't mean that the whole wizarding world is p> utopia in itself, on the contrary, it contains the same elements as p> our everyday Muggle world, they have just been shifted into a p> different reality. There is, however, one utopian element in the p> wizarding universe: The hope that one day, Good might triumph over p> Evil, represented by Harry and Dumbledore. Introducing these two p> characters and presenting them in the way she does, JKR very clearly p> confers her moral message- no matter whether to children or adult p> readers. I don't think that there's utopian elements in the JKR's books, though. Remember, one is powerless to depict reality absolutely accurately - there will always be errors, mistakes, gaping holes - which will be filled by author's imagination. It's not the result that determines the utopia style, but the intent of the author. Hence I find JKR's books to be realistic (hmm... from the point of view of character psychologies and reactions - not from the presumption of magic existance :) p> On the "reality level", this essential message is reinforced by p> certain characters clearly marked as "good persons" whose words and p> behaviour help the reader to decode it: Dumbledore's "right vs. easy" p> speech, Lupin's words to Harry about his irresponsible behaviour p> (sneaking to Hogsmeade), Harry who gives the 1000 galleons price p> money to Gred and Forge, every decision to bend rules for a higher p> purpose (use of the Time Turner to rescue Sirius, brewing Polyjuice p> Potion to detect the Heir of Slytherin etc.etc)- all these words and p> deeds serve as a means of clarifying the message of "This is reality p> and this is how we should behave in order to achieve JKR's very p> personal utopia". Characters like Harry/Dumbledore/Hermione/whoever-else are indeed good but their existance is not an attribute of utopia - or an utopia element. Such people exist in real life, too, though they are as rare in RL as they are in the JKR's books. Because either we agree that our world has no such characters (IMHO a _very_ pessimistic idea) or that our world has utopian elements (impossible due to the very definition of utopia) or JKR's world has no utopian elements as well. Only three options again (why there's always three of them? :) p> Hope that was clear?! p> Susanna/pigwidgeon37 Hope always dies last... ;) Sincerely yours Alexander Lomski (Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed) From bluebellblaze at yahoo.com Mon Jan 14 15:33:46 2002 From: bluebellblaze at yahoo.com (bluebellblaze) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 15:33:46 -0000 Subject: Snape & Lupin Loose Cannons? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33396 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "judyserenity" wrote: > "cindysphynx" wrote: > > As for the Cross-Dressing Snape incident, I don't see that as > > unprofessional on Lupin's part. He didn't suggest that Neville > > envision Snape; Neville did. Snape, of course, helped Neville make > > that association by belittling Neville in the staff room. Lupin > > gave Neville ideas on how to make Snape look ridiculous. There are > > far more humiliating ways to make Snape look ridiculous than the one > > Lupin suggested, and we have no way of knowing that Snape ever even > > learned about Neville's boggart battle.... > (snip) > > Snape *did* find out about this incident -- it says the story "spread > like wildfire", and there are several mentions of Snape being angry > about it. > And I would add, in case no one else has, that the episode at a subsequent dinner (Ch 11), where IIRC, Dumbledore has Snape pull the other end of the Christmas cracker and out pops a wizard's hat topped with a stuffed vulture (just like Neville's boggart grandma/Madame Snape wears), is meant to reference this humiliating event for Snape. I find it also interesting that this little reminder is created by Dumbledore, at a very public event (the Christmas feast), and that Snape does nothing more than push the offending hat away toward D in disgust. I like that touch. :) From feycat at feycat.net Mon Jan 14 16:45:37 2002 From: feycat at feycat.net (Gabriel Edson) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 11:45:37 -0500 Subject: Why "Lord"? / Weasley Clock / Draco / Middle Name References: Message-ID: <03c301c19d1a$e56fbb60$0b01a8c0@enet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33397 Carrie Wrote: >>The Tom thing was sort of a joke. I know that it would be highly unlikely, albeit vey funny, that anyone would call him Tom (even if his common name was well known throughout the wizarding world. He would deserve to be called by his name, butI for one wouldn't be brave enough to do it! ; )<< Here's something I've been wondering... Dumbledore is one of the few people who knows that LV is TR. He says in the very beginning of PS/SS that you should call him by his name, because not naming him properly increases the fear around him. So why doesn't Dumbledore call him TR? What's the big secret to be kept by keeping his real name out of circulation? And how is it that people know LV was a Slytherin if no one knows who LV really is? Christi Wrote: >>I also suspect that Ron may have so many brothers to set him up as a seventh son (Molly and Arthur would have only have had to lose one child, and it would explain the "mortal peril" clock).<< Anyone remember whether Bill and Charlie are still listed on the clock, even though they don't live at home any more? Didn't it mention "all" the Weasleys being on it? David wrote: >>The question is, how can it be satisfying? If Draco is redeemed, it seems like a literary cliche. He has been set up as the bully who has nuisance value, the foil for Harry who so far manages to be absent whenever adventure really gets going.<< I don't think that's true - I think that Draco is a cliche NOW, and there are lots of ways to "redeem" him without making him suddenly become their nicey-poo best friend! Personally, I'd like to see more dimension in Draco as either a bad guy OR a good guy! Ron Yu wrote: >>This one's not exactly discussion material, but I just want to point out that unless I am mistaken and middle names mean a different thing in Britain, or Lily and Petunia's maiden name is James, I think what JKR intends to tell us when she said that 'James' is Harry's middle name, is that 'James' is part of Harry's given name -- a second-name or whatchamacallit.<< Well, here in the U.S., a mother's maiden name isn't any part of a child's name unless their parent gives it to them as a middle name. A middle name is just another name - usually either named after a dead/loved relative or the second-choice name that the parents wanted to give you. Gabriel Pack House Quidditch Team Keeper "Twitchy little ferret, aren't you Malfoy?" Isn't having a smoking section in a restaurant like having a peeing section in a pool? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cindysphynx at home.com Mon Jan 14 17:03:41 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 17:03:41 -0000 Subject: Snape & Lupin Loose Cannons?/Is Dumbledore Great? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33398 I hate to pick nits, but I will if I have to: :-) *********** Judy wrote (about whether Snape learned of the cross-dressing boggart incident): > > Snape *did* find out about this incident -- it says the > story "spread > > like wildfire", and there are several mentions of Snape being angry > > about it. I don't think we can be certain that Snape knows about the boggart cross-dressing episode, although Harry certainly thinks he does. The text says: "Snape was in a particularly vindictive mood these days, and no one was in any doubt why. The story of the boggart assuming Snape's shape, and the way that Neville had dressed it in his grandmother's clothes, had traveled throught he school like wildfire. Snape didn't seem to find it funny. His eyes flashed menacingly at the very mention of Professor Lupin's name, and he was bullying Neville worse than ever." Yes, Harry and the students believe that Snape is angry because he heard the rumor, but the students might not be correct about that (like the way the rumor that Snape wants the DADA job is suspect). The fact that the rumor spread doesn't necessarily mean it made it all the way to Snape, or that Snape is even angry about it. We later learn the real reason why Snape hates Lupin. As for Snape bullying Neville, who knows what is going on there? Snape bullied Neville a great deal before and after the boggart incident. He obviously has his reasons, so I'm not ready to attribute the bullying to knowledge of the boggart incident. The assumption might be correct, but maybe not. Mahoney wrote (in the feminism debate): >I > mean, what does Dumbledore *do*? Other than head up banquets, and > possibly do administrative things behind closed doors. He's great, > according to all of his fans, but so far his greatness has only been > expressed by timeliness and the occasional wise word (granting that > great things are implied for him in future books per the end of > GoF). > If we're trying to make McGonagall's contribution seem significant by comparing it to Dumbledore's, this will not be an easy task. Dumbledore has a number of honors, has defeated a great dark wizard, and has the ear of the Minister of Magic. Equally important, he is a leader, as shown by the fact that he, not McGonagall, is calling the shots at the end of GoF. McGonagall, on the other hand, is reduced to standing guard over Barty Crouch, and we all know how that turned out. Nah, McGonagall is underutilized. But there's still time to make things better. Maybe McGonagall will have to volunteer for some hideously dangerous mission and perish bravely in the attempt. She would die because no one would dare attempt to rescue her for fear of turning her into a damsel in distress. :-) Cindy From laoisecronin at yahoo.com Mon Jan 14 17:25:08 2002 From: laoisecronin at yahoo.com (laoisecronin) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 17:25:08 -0000 Subject: Rita in Reality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33399 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jenbe_me" wrote: > > Am I the only one who supposes that Gilderoy Lockhart wasn't the > only character who J.K. Rowling based on some professional she met in > her career who she really didn't like? I have a feeling that Rita > Skeeter may be someone she knew (or more likely still knows now) who > is a very persistant journalist who's constantly bugging her, perhaps > someone who reminds her of a bug, or a beetle! Or perhaps, she may be > a conglomeration of all the reporters who she really doesn't like. > > I watched the web broadcast of the world premiere of HPSS movie from > Leicester (sp?) Square in London, and JK Rowling was there, of > course, and of course she was hassled by media, demanding to know, of > course, when book 5 would be out. When asked about book 5, Jo seemed > very flustered and almost upset and said, "I really don't know, but > of course I should have expected to be asked, everyone is asking." > She wasn't rude, just seemed like she was being dogged by the media. > > I got the feeling that some of Rita's comments may have been > paraphrases of comments from other reporters or interviews gone wrong > with Ms. Rowling. Of course, this is all speculation, but I get the > same sort of feeling when I read the character Lockhart. There are > many similarities. Both characters seem to be pretty one dimentional. > > jenbea i saw an interview with JK Rowling (harry potter and me) where she said that she had thought of Rita Skeeter before she became famous and that RS wasn't based on any of the reporters she came in contact with.She even said that she had to imagine what it was like to be Harry in that situation and then she really was in that situation,so i think she had already written Rita Sketter before she knew what it was like to be famous From tabouli at unite.com.au Mon Jan 14 17:30:40 2002 From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 04:30:40 +1100 Subject: Gender roles, u/dystopia and realism Message-ID: <006e01c19d21$50a5a880$8e2adccb@price> No: HPFGUIDX 33400 Literary Luke: > I think it would be a great disservice to the literary form if publishers were to suddenly declare that, from here on out, they will only accept works that present a utopian worldview. Or only works with a realistic worldview. Or, for that matter, a dystopian worldview, which I notice you left out either intentionally or by accident, but which, I think, also has the ability to promote social change just like these other two.< As writer and a card-carrying member of "keep your politics out of my art, whether I agree with them or not!" who suspects that novels self-righteously written to the fashionable progressive views of the time will date embarrassingly, I agree. However, as social observer and psychologist, I have to wonder about books and so forth that reinforce attitudes which I find oppressive and counter-productive. I'm inclined to hedge my bets between these reactions and differentiate between significant players, like Molly Weasley, whose "female" behaviour serves a definite plot-related purpose, and throwaway characters like the "girls" who always seem to be the ones squealing and crying and screaming. Those tearful Beauxbatons girls, for example, are irrelevant. Cutting out their stereotypically feminine behaviour or de-genderising it would improve her ideological score for almost zero artistic cost. (Thin end of the wedge?) I did contemplate including the dystopian vision as well (portraying the world as it might but must never become, for cautionary purpose, a la 1984?), but my post was already long enough! (What do you thing are the comparative measures of realism, utopianism and dystopianism in HP?) And, as one of these "HP is children's literature" types, I thought I'd restrict my comments to the two categories to which this genre mostly restricts itself. Though now I say this, it occurs to me that Robert C O'Brien did quite a line in dystopian children's books... "The Silver Crown" and "Z for Zachariah", for example, are utterly chilling (far more so than anything I've ever seen issuing from JKR's pen, graveyard scene in GoF and all). The latter, which is more firmly dystopian, is probably YA, but the former is definitely for children, and dares to start the novel on the heroine's 10th birthday when her entire house and family are burnt to the ground (HP parallel but much darker), and follows her through to the discovery of a world domination plot beyond V's most evil dreams (though that's a matter for further discussion on OT). >Tabouli implies (probably unintentionally) that by choosing the "warts and >all" realistic portrayal, an author is choosing to not educate. Quite unintentionally. Or rather, intentionally, in sarcastic parody of the moral crusader types who feel that all literature should be a vehicle for (their own) socio-political views, and that any book which *isn't* is by definition sending the wrong messages and Not Educational (me, I find education in everything). One of my main objections to such types is that they tend to underestimate the intelligence of their audience to an insulting degree. It's like the HP detractors who think that unless Right And Wrong are spelled out in capital letters in words of one syllable without any ambiguity whatsoever, children might get the Wrong Idea and think that it pays to be Evil (after all, look what a stint with the Death Eaters got Snape! A senior post at a prestigious institution at the side of the greatest wizard alive). Or that the presence of "magic" alone is enough to render a series Evil. More Luke: >I believe that what is ultimately important is not the type of portrayal itself, or even the individual elements of that portrayal, but whether those elements are apparently rejected or condoned by the work (...) A good author will rarely take an explicit stance, but even without the explicit stance, an implicit stance is, well, implied.< Is it possible for the author to present a scene neutrally enough to conceal his/her hand and let the readers make up their own minds? Sometimes in my own writing I honestly don't have a definite agenda to incorporate: my aim is to make my readers think. Demonstrate to readers that if they explore the subject deeply enough, it is so complex and contradictory that there can never be a clear-cut judgment one way or the other. Though this *so* obviously ties in with my bicultural, fence-sitting, cross-cultural training ways... In some ways, "Nice Work" (which you should read, Luke - very entertaining, especially for anyone who's dabbled in academia) has elements of this approach... Robyn is a strongly left-wing idealistic type who's anti-racism, pro-gay rights, all for the emancipation of the oppressed worker, etc.etc. but, amusingly, when confronted with some real-life working class factory workers it throws her completely and shows her just how sheltered and middle-class she really is. Lodge's own politics are readily discernible, but nonetheless, he does present an interesting quandary to the middle-class left wing reader (and the majority of people who read David Lodge are likely to be middle class and tertiary educated, though I don't know about wingedness). > The point is that that scene could have > been written from an utopian, realistic, or dystopian viewpoint and > still ultimately take the same stance on the issue. It's getting too late to get into this properly (I could devote a long post to almost any point in Luke's post), but reading this it occurs to me that the most important thing for me is that a scene is presented in a convincing and well-written way, regardless of viewpoint. The only problem with the utopian angle is that it tends to be the angle of choice for moral vehicle drivers who are really writing sermons rather than novels. > if all boys were looking for in their books was a "return to tradition" in gender role presentations, then I see no reason why they needed to wait for HP to come out in order to experience this, seeing as how this can be found in a large enough percentage of the much older children's literature.< I'm sure there was more to it in that article I mentioned, but anyway. My feeling is that it's not so much the traditional gender roles per se as the "able to relate to it personally" factor. At 11, my brother was a very immediate sort of boy with little inclination to read anything he "couldn't relate to", including books with a female protagonist (or male protagonist too far from his own age), books set too far before or after his era (mid eighties), anything in the fantasy genre (sci-fi was marginally more acceptable), anything without enough action or implausible dialogue... you get the picture. He devoured "Adrian Mole" and "A Boy and his Bike", but anything further removed than that would drive him back to the joystick. I suspect it may be *this* style of male child that is warming unexpectedly to HP. HP is, after all, set in modern times, and has things they can relate to directly in it, like contemporary slang (at least for UK kids), Playstations, snappy, pacy action, accessible language, school, friends and foes, trouble with teachers. In which case, "older children's literature" would be the last thing they'd want, and it's possible that hordes of feisty females might also turn them off. Pure speculation, of course... Tabouli. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tabouli at unite.com.au Mon Jan 14 15:49:14 2002 From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 02:49:14 +1100 Subject: Literary? DWELLING, LOLLing about on SHIP again (this time with timeline evidence!) Message-ID: <006d01c19d21$4eb74600$8e2adccb@price> No: HPFGUIDX 33401 Ana: > > I almost started answering to Eloise's post, but finally thought I'd > better leave it to people who are knowledgeable in literature and > theory of writing. Maybe Tabouli, Elisabeth Dalton, Cindy(sphinx) and > all you other literary experts, whose thought-provoking posts never > fail to impress me, would like to reply to this one.< I second Elizabeth's "I'm a literary expert????" High praise! Aside from high school English classes, I've never studied literary analysis at all: most of my comments on this list reflect my musings from a perspective of being (a) a writer, and (b) obsessively analytical (some might blame my psychology degree for this, but this is chicken/egg stuff... I was obsessively analytical long before that! That's why I chose psychology in the first place). My impression is that Luke and Ebony are the English Lit specialists among us, though more may be lurking... Rycar: >Is there an acronym for not being able to stand all this Draco-angst stuff? He's a jerk, and the worst kind; I can't stand him, and don't see him ever being "redeemed" or whatnot.< D.W.E.L.L.I.N.G. (Draco Won't Ever Let Lucius' Insufferable Nastiness Go)? judyserenity: > JKR may have *intended* Snape to be a horrible person, but what she has actually written (so far) is a character who has a very unfriendly, sarcastic manner, but loads of positive qualities. Just what positive qualities?< There's one more I'd add: Snape is, undeniably, eloquent. Take out the "dunderheads" part, and his opening speech in Potions was almost poetic. Tex quoting david_p: > > In PoA we are told that a spy within He Who Must Not Be Named's >> organization had revealed the plan to attack James and Lily - my bet >> is that it was our friend Severus. > >Yes, likely, although that should have "evened the score" in the >life-saving column. ...except that he didn't actually succeed in saving their lives, not in the end, anyway! Come now, all ye landlubbers disdaining to board the Good Ship LOLLIPOPS: isn't this a tad suspicious? Think about it. Lily, James and Severus leave school. Lily and James marry almost straight away, Severus joins Voldemort and rises to the rank of Death Eater (are all V followers DEs? I'm assuming they're an elite group, but I could be wrong), which gives him an outlet for years of spite and resentment. Nine months later, Harry is born. Something about him alarms V so much, he starts plotting to kill him and James. About three months later, Wormtail swaps sides and starts giving V information, and, judging by the fact that the Potters survived another year, Snape probably swapped sides as well at around the same time (otherwise surely V would have polished off the Potters much sooner) and been a much better spy (to no-one's surprise), leading to Dumbledore setting up the Fidelius charm, etc.etc. (The weak point of this is that we don't have any concrete evidence of when exactly Snape swapped sides, but on the basis of a not-much-younger Dumbledore's comment in the Pensieve that it happened "before Voldemort's downfall" does make "not long before V's downfall" reasonably likely) Doesn't this rather suggest that the motivation behind Snape's change of heart had something to do with the plot to kill the Potters? *Especially* when we that there's some as yet unrevealed dark secret behind Snape's unprovoked, James-projection hatred of Harry, one strong enough to make the indiscreet Hagrid go evasive in front of 11yo Harry, yet overcome by a still stronger motivation for protecting him? Let's add love of Lily into the equation and briefly spell out the LOLLIPOPS theory yet again, for the benefit of the squeamish anti-shippers and the unbelievers. Say the wedding of Lily and James is the last straw for jealous Snape, driving him to V not long after graduation. He works off his anguish wreaking death and destruction. Then something happens which shocks him into realising how despicable this is: a plot which will kill James (all for it, serves him right), kill the son of James and Lily (mixed feelings: loathing that he should exist at all, but recognising his death will deeply upset Lily, a distressing thought) and very likely also put Lily in mortal danger (this thought is unthinkable and horrifying to Snape, even after she chose James, even after two years of murder and torture)... and he's fighting on the side which imperils her! There's only one effective thing he can do to protect Lily... turn spy for Dumbledore. So he does. He manages to keep them safe, just, for about another year, but then V finds them with Wormtail's help, kills James (good riddance), and, to Snape's deep devastation, Lily, because she loves her son so much she is prepared to die protecting him. Hence Harry is doubly to blame for his mother's death: it was he who motivated V to murder (for some undisclosed reason: perhaps Trelawney's first prediction), and it was he for whom Lily died. Yet he is also all that remains of the woman Snape loved, and her eyes stare at him out of Harry's face in every Potions class... Fits quite well with current evidence, doesn't it? -Rycar, proud member of L.O.L.L.I.P.O.P.S. Welcome aboard! Tabouli (reminding listmembers that berths are still available on the Good Ship...) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From heidit at netbox.com Mon Jan 14 17:33:51 2002 From: heidit at netbox.com (heiditandy) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 17:33:51 -0000 Subject: Why do readers love Draco?(Was Why do readers Love Snape (& Draco/ Snape...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33402 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Aja wrote: > Actually, we don't know that at all, IIRC. The only *real* exchange we > ever see between Draco and his father--real as in, completely private (so > they think)--is in the scene at Knockturn Alley. There, Lucius is nothing > but abusive and critical. Furthermore, when we see Draco and Lucius in public, like at Flourish & Blotts or at the Quidditch World Cup, Draco doesn't say a *word* when Lucius is there. He does speak to him in front of Mr Borgin, granted, but there is, to ther knowlege, nobody else there. It's not really "public", is it? Aja also wrote: > And JKR never explicitly *says* > that Malfoy knows his father is a Death-Eater. At the Quidditch Cup he > neither admits nor denies it--a clever Malfoy tactic when you don't know > the answer to the question, imo. Furthermore, not all the people on the field may've been the Death Eaters who were at Voldemort's gathering. We don't hear Narcissa's name mentioned as among the Death Eaters in the circle, but if she's not on the field, then why isn't Draco with her at the World Cup? I wouldn't presume that participation in the levitation of the Muggle means that one is a Death Eater. Serendust > > Things would have to take a big turn for the worse at chez > > Malfoy, before Draco would have any reason to feel hateful toward > > Lucius. Not necessarily. If Lucius has been lying to Draco over the years, and it's clear that at a minimum he hasn't been telling him everything, that, compounded with pressures about school and quidditch, could be very reasonable camel-back-breakers. JChutney wrote: > I think this is an age thing and a Fanon/Canon thing. I'm older > than Draco but younger than Snape so I find I enjoy both characters > very much. Yes and no. Another listie, I know, is hunting for a poll from about a year ago - the older the person was, the more likely thy were to either have sympathy for Draco or see that there is the prospect of redeption. >But they are both different kinds of mean and > Draco "seems" to be heading in a darker direction than Snape. I dont really see how Draco can be heading in a darker direction than Snape. I mean, Snape became a death eater while he was in his early 20s, he showed up at school knowig more Dark curses than the 7th years (as Sirius says in GoF) - I don't really see the propect for Draco being darker than that, at least not now. > Also Draco seems motivated entirely by envy, a very unattractive > quality. We don't know exactly what motivates Snape, so are free to > speculate Well, his motivations regarding Ron aren't motivated by envy, although I think he is envois of Hermione in academia a bit, and any envy by Draco of Harry is as misplaced s that emotion in Hermione - what does harry have that Draco doesn't, other than perhaps friends? And if he's envious of Harry's friendships with his housemates,etc., which I think is entirely possible, then isn't that just so pathetic and sad? I'm likely to sympathize with someone who has no real friends, just hangers-on. > By > the end of GoF, Draco talks about how sorry Potter will be that he > didn't join the Deatheaters whereas Snape seems ready to risk his > life to fight them. There are numerous example of Snape's goodness > but only one (maybe) of Draco's. But Snape has 20+ years on Draco! We're led to belive that he's already seen the worst sorts of things in the world - murder, people turning on friends and family, nobody knowiing who to trust. Draco has never seen bottom - at least not yet - and I want him to because I want to know what effect hitting it will have on him. How do we know that there were any examples of Snape's goodness before the age of 15? We don't. Furthermore, every time that Draco's reported Harry, other than the time he sorta tricked him out of the dorms for the duel (which I think would've been less than an expulsion-level offense anyway), harry was breaking school rules - being in Hogsmeade without a permission slip, posession of an illegal dragon, etc. I also disagree with JChutney that the fanon draco is a construct of 12 year olds. Many of the novel-length fics in which Draco is Not A Bad Guy are by grownups who post to FictionAlley.org - including but not limited to Cassie, Lori, Ebony, Alex, John Walton, Barb (although her curent fic is an AU, which doesn't count when appraising canon! draco in the same way) ( : also adds self to list) - yes, many of the early, pre-Goblet of Fire fics which include a NotEvil!Draco are by teenagers, including AliciaSue's wonderfully funny An Unlikely Coven, which I think included the first Draco/Ginny pairing in a novel- length fanfic, but given the large number of over-17s writing HP fanfic, I just don't see, or perhaps it's that I don't pay as much attention to, the fanfic effortsof those under 13. . And IMHO, Fanon! Draco as described in Ali Wildgoose's primer for the newbie to the HP fanfic side of the forum - "a vaguely effeminate, devastatingly handsome sex symbol with silver blonde hair and an angst-ridden inner life. Depending on who you ask, he's in love with Hermione, Ginny, Harry...even Ron, though most agree that they hate each other. Draco is a basically good person who has been near hopelessly corrupted by his upbringing, using his razor wit, regal arrogance and bitter sarcasm as mask his inner loneliness and despair. He is abused, both mentally and physically, by his father; and though his mother loves him, she's helpless to protect him from Lucius' cold wrath. Draco is the anti-hero, the rogue, the "bad boy" all the women (or men) fall for") http://homepages.nyu.edu/~amw243/resources/newbie.html - is really the Draco created by those who write Harry Potter slash. That's not the Draco I see in canon. It's not the Draco that I write fanfic about, and it's not really the Draco I read fanfic about, although in modding FictionAlley I do rea a lot of stuff for "the job." That's more a "catchy sum-up" rather than a perfectly realistic description of Draco depictions. Donna wrote: > Since we mostly see things in the books through Harry's perspective, we > don't know if Dumbledore or anyone else has tried to talk to him about this. True. And 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 would like to think that his relationship with Snape might give the professo a chance to influence Draco's perspectives on this issue at some point, when Snape thinks it's necessary and not dangerous to do so. Or at least not immediately fatal for either or both of them. One of the things I think is useful about Draco is that he *has the potential* to be the character who changes his attitudes the most. I think that if JKR makes him evil and keeps him that way, it will be troubling, at least for me, to see a character who we've "known" since he was 10 or 11 move lockstep towards Evil and Darkness just because his parents are - in a series where an underlying theme has been "choices" I see Draco, at present in canon, as a character who's never had to make one - and possibly never really been in a position where he could. He's been indoctrinated and given the fact that we know that Lucius is a homicidal (to Draco's classmates, in giving the book to Ginny) abusive (to Dobby) git (to Hagrid and Dumbledore), it may not even be safe for him to break out of his programming yet. But I hope he will - even if it's not safe, even if it's dangerous - even if he has to give up every little bit of his to-date sheltered upbringing. Because it will make an impression on the readers, and I, for one, am really hoping it will happen. heidi, wondering if there's high proportion of Joseph fans among Draco supporters? I mean, it just goes to show that when you expose a spoiled rich child to angst and difficult hurdles, he might turn out to be a Really Good Guy. http://www.fictionalley.org From ftah3 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 14 17:39:23 2002 From: ftah3 at yahoo.com (ftah3) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 17:39:23 -0000 Subject: Is Dumbledore Great? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33404 cindysphynx wrote: > I don't think we can be certain that Snape knows about the boggart > cross-dressing episode, although Harry certainly thinks he does. > > The text says: > > "Snape was in a particularly vindictive mood these days, and no one > was in any doubt why. The story of the boggart assuming Snape's > shape, and the way that Neville had dressed it in his grandmother's > clothes, had traveled throught he school like wildfire. Snape didn't > seem to find it funny. His eyes flashed menacingly at the very > mention of Professor Lupin's name, and he was bullying Neville worse > than ever." If a lot of kids are talking about it, and if it can be assumed that Dumbledore's giving Snape a cracker containing a vulture-topped hat at Christmas is not wild coincidence, Snape would probably be the *only* person in school who doesn't know. > If we're trying to make McGonagall's contribution seem significant by > comparing it to Dumbledore's, this will not be an easy task. > Dumbledore has a number of honors, has defeated a great dark wizard, > and has the ear of the Minister of Magic. Equally important, he is a > leader, as shown by the fact that he, not McGonagall, is calling the > shots at the end of GoF. McGonagall, on the other hand, is reduced > to standing guard over Barty Crouch, and we all know how that turned > out. Of course Dumbledore is a Great Wizard who is calling the shots at Hogwarts. Certainly he defeated Grindewald back in the day, and has no doubt done many great things in his life. My point was to show that McGonnagal is, despite general opinion, an active, busy, and significant member of the story, and that her worth can be measured not by the fact that she hasn't defeated a big dark wizard in the past and isn't vague and mysterious and Obi-Wanish, but by the fact that she physically, actually *does* a lot, as a teacher and administrator, as an active participant in the lives of her students, and as someone who is trusted by the great Albus Dumbledore himself. > Nah, McGonagall is underutilized. But there's still time to make > things better. Maybe McGonagall will have to volunteer for some > hideously dangerous mission and perish bravely in the attempt. She > would die because no one would dare attempt to rescue her for fear of > turning her into a damsel in distress. :-) On one hand, I don't see that the worth of McGonnagal as a character would be heightened by her turning into McXenagal. But, be that as it may, my own previous point was based on 'current' events (i.e. what characters actually do in the books, as opposed to what they are reported to have done in the past). My opinion has always been that Dumbledore is aging, and fast, and shows it in the books. His power, along with his youth, is waning. He may have defeated Grindewald back in the day, and he may strike fear in the anti-heart of Voldemort (based on, imho, a carry over from Riddle's Hogwart's days, when Dumbledore was the Professor who scared him and saw through him ~ but not, as far as we've been told, by any actual wizard duel which *proved* Dumbeldore's greater strength). On the other hand, I think Dumbledore knows he's no match for Voldemort these days. So, fine, dandy, that's my opinion of him. On the other hand, I'm not trying to say that McGonnagal is better, or even equal to Dumbledore in magical power. What I'm trying to say is that she's *does* stuff. Meaning, she's active, daily, teaching, administering, practicing magic, in the trenches of real life, so to speak. However, based on what both of them actually do in the stories, if McGonnagal needs to go off and do something exciting and dramatic to prove that in the current time frame she's worthwhile, then so does Dumbledore, who has done little more than be the Hogwarts figurehead and Harry's idol, and hand out a few wise words. (To be clear, I like both characters. A lot, actually, and for different reasons. I'm just of the opinion that a character doesn't have to partake in melodrama and kicko-fighto stuff in order to be interesting/significant/well-used. I mean, I like action-adventure as much as the next person, but I also see a great deal of value in people who bring other attributes and talents to a tale than the outrightly slam-bangin' kind.) Blibbidy-blah. I'm rambling, and becoming tiresome. So, shutting up now. Mahoney From lucy at luphen.co.uk Mon Jan 14 17:13:10 2002 From: lucy at luphen.co.uk (Lucy Austin) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 17:13:10 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Rita in Reality References: Message-ID: <00b301c19d1e$be3e05c0$11ae1e3e@stephen> No: HPFGUIDX 33405 >jenbea said: >Am I the only one who supposes that Gilderoy Lockhart wasn't the only character who J.K. Rowling based on some professional she met in her career who she really didn't like? I have a feeling that Rita Skeeter may be someone she knew (or more likely still knows now) who is a very persistant journalist who's constantly bugging her, perhaps someone who reminds her of a bug, or a beetle! Or perhaps, she may be a conglomeration of all the reporters who she really doesn't like. In the BBC interview after Christmas, JKR said that lots of people would think that, but in fact Rita was originally going to be in Book 1, before all the media stuff started up of course, so I would say probably she is nothing much to do with the reporters. Lucy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From pennylin at swbell.net Mon Jan 14 17:46:20 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny & Bryce) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 11:46:20 -0600 Subject: McGonagall -- Molly References: Message-ID: <3C43196C.3030801@swbell.net> No: HPFGUIDX 33406 Hi all -- ftah3 wrote: > Elizabeth Dalton: > > Hopefully we'll see McGonnagal get sent on a secret mission, too, > or otherwise > > do something amazing and impressive. > > I love McGonnagal, and I think she is awfully discounted by readers. > I suppose that, like Molly Weasley, Prof. M seems terribly unexciting > by the fact that she 'keeps the home fires burning' in terms of > Hogwarts. But the fact is that she continually takes on great > responsibility, and as the apparent second in command at Hogwarts is > yet three times as accessible an authority figure as Dumbledore. I > mean, what does Dumbledore *do*? Other than head up banquets, and > possibly do administrative things behind closed doors. He's great, > according to all of his fans, but so far his greatness has only been > expressed by timeliness and the occasional wise word (granting that > great things are implied for him in future books per the end of > GoF). > > McGonnagal is at least as impressive and Dumbledore, but far more > busy. She actually teaches, actively watches over her house, is a > participative fan of her house Quidditch team, interacts as an > authority figure quite a bit with students outside of just teaching, > mentors Hermione, teaches a difficult subject as well as uses her > power in that arena, is virtually inflappable (though when she *is* > shaken, she's able to overcome and act quickly, reliably & > effectively), and she's the one to whom Dumbledore entrusts the > running of Hogwarts when he's deposed from the Headmaster position. > > Dude. She rocks! Yes, absolutely! I've been searching off & on for several days in vain for a long-ish post I did on McGonagall awhile back. There's no message # for it in the McGonagall FAQ either, sadly. But, I think Mahoney hits the high points of what I said in McGonagall's defense in one of the "gender roles/are there strong women in HP" HP4GU debates of yesteryear. McGonagall *does* ALOT more than Dumbledore, and she *does* AS MUCH AS (if not more than) Snape .... and all the other professors. She is the Deputy Headmistress, which suggests that she leap-frogged over Snape & anyone else in her way to be 2nd-in-command. She is obviously being groomed to take over from Dumbledore. As many of us know from first-hand experience, being "2nd in command" often involves a fair bit of grunt work, admin work, etc. So, I'm not surprised to see McGonagall portrayed as a bit of an administrator. She also, however, teaches one of the core subjects (just like Snape and the ever-changing array of DADA profs!), and many of us have the impression that transfiguration might well be one of (or *the*) most complex or difficult subjects taught at Hogwarts. She is one of *7* registered animagi in the last *century.* She is head of one of the four Hogwarts houses. She has recreational interests (Quidditch!). She is perceived as *fair,* though strict. She is obviously a well-rounded person with a human side. I'm going to make a very brief Movie reference in that I think Maggie Smith captured McGonagall perfectly when the audience (*not* Harry) glimpses a barely-suppressed smile on her face as she is marching just-caught-flying Harry off to the castle. I *love* McGonagall, and I think she's an incredibly strong female character within the Potterverse. She is clearly an accomplished witch, who is a very strong role model for all students, but maybe especially those like Hermione. I'm amazed that people lump her in with the likes of the minor female professors. :::shakes head::: And, No, I don't think that she should be blamed for what happened with Crouch, Jr. I recall we had a debate about that subject a few mths back, and sorry Cindy, but I agree with the folks who pointed out that *Snape* was equally culpable in that affair in that he should have put his foot down *outside* the castle (refused to allow Fudge to bring a dementor into the castle at all). What exactly was McGonagall supposed to do? The Dementor probably acted so quickly that she didn't have time to react. I might also add that Snape also didn't react to stop the dementor from administering the Kiss, and he was standing right there with McGonagall & Fudge presumably. MOLLY -- I think it's great to have a positive portrayal of a stay-at-home mom within the series; I am one myself. However, I note that we don't know what Molly did before she had her family -- she might have been any number of things. And, she might, for all we know, *still* be working. There's nothing in canon, AFAIK, that suggests that Molly runs the Weasley household & nothing more (not that running the Weasley household is anything to sniff at of course). But, maybe she has a part-time job, consults from her house or maybe she's a teacher at a wizarding primary school & thus has the summers off on holiday (hence is seemingly a SAHM when we see her in the summer holidays). NOT that there's anything amiss if she is a SAHM ... I just note that we're making an assumption that I don't think is necessarily supportable in full by canon so far. I am (ostensibly!) working part-time (very part-time at the moment) from my house.....it would be perfectly plausible for Molly to also be doing this. Maybe she writes columns for Witch Weekly??! :--) Penny From cindysphynx at home.com Mon Jan 14 17:59:29 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 17:59:29 -0000 Subject: Is Dumbledore Great? & Dumbledore's Successor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33407 Mahoney wrote (about the boggart cross-dressing): > If a lot of kids are talking about it, and if it can be assumed that > Dumbledore's giving Snape a cracker containing a vulture-topped hat > at Christmas is not wild coincidence, Snape would probably be the > *only* person in school who doesn't know. > Actually, it makes some sense to me that the rumor would not have made it to Snape. Someone would have to walk up and tell him, or be so indiscreet as to mention it in his presence. I doubt any student at Hogwarts is *that* brave or careless. I'll bet Trelawney is pretty clueless, too. Snape and Trelawney both seem fairly isolated, with her in the North Tower and him in the dungeon. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if there is something going on between Snape and Trelawney in the North Tower, and it has nothing to do with Trelawney's Inner Eye. ;-) Mahoney again: >My opinion has always been that > Dumbledore is aging, and fast, and shows it in the books. His power, > along with his youth, is waning. Given that Dumbledore is fading, I was wondering who is positioned right now to take over the fight against Voldemort should something happen to Dumbledore soon, like in Chapter Two of OoP. Harry is clearly not ready; his magical skills are still quite limited, and he doesn't even know basic things like why Voldemort wants to kill him. The candidates for Dumbledore's successor are (off the top of my head) Lupin, Black, Snape, McGonagall, Moody, Arthur/Molly Weasley and Fudge. Without getting into a great deal of detail, all of these adults sound like middling to dreadful candidates for Commander in Chief of the Forces of Good. I guess I'd have to pick McGonagall, but I don't feel very good about that choice. Cindy (stating the obvious by mentioning that she is no literary expert, no way, no how, uh-uh, not in this lifetime) From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Mon Jan 14 18:29:50 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 18:29:50 -0000 Subject: McGonagall, Fudge's Dementor In-Reply-To: <3C43196C.3030801@swbell.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33408 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Penny & Bryce wrote: > Hi all -- > > ftah3 wrote: > > > > Dude. She rocks! > > McGonagall *does* ALOT more than Dumbledore, and she *does* AS MUCH AS (if not more than) Snape .... and all the other professors. She is the Deputy Headmistress, which suggests that she leap-frogged over Snape & anyone else in her way to be 2nd-in-command. She is obviously being groomed to take over from Dumbledore. I basically agree with the views expressed by Mahoney and Penny. However, I'm unclear about the above snippet. McGonagall is a whole lot older than Snape, indeed may have taught him at Hogwarts. So I'm not sure about the 'leap-frogging'. Binns, yes; Snape, no. How is it 'obvious' that she is being groomed to take over from Dumbledore? My own suspicion is that nobody is being groomed. That may reflect on Dumbledore's sense of responsibility, though I suspect he would justify it by saying it's not for him to prejudge the governers' decisions. But I don't believe my view is 'obvious' either - just saying that the inner workings of the Hogwarts staff room are pretty murky on the whole. But please put forward your obviosities. FWIW, my recollection of the Dementor debate was that the conclusion is that neither McGonagall nor Snape were in a position to do anything about Fudge's actions. It turned on whether Fudge could be expected to know where the DADA office is. I also reckon that we have yet to see what *any* of the teachers are really about - JKR has dropped some pretty broad hints that there is a lot more when answering questions about their marital status. David From vencloviene at hotmail.com Mon Jan 14 18:53:57 2002 From: vencloviene at hotmail.com (anavenc) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 18:53:57 -0000 Subject: why readres love Snape Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33409 Judy wrote: "JKR may have *intended* Snape to be a horrible person, but what she has actually written (so far) is a character who has a very unfriendly, sarcastic manner, but loads of positive qualities." Thanks, Judy! That answers my question about what is so mysterious about Snape's characterization that fans read this character differently than the author (it seems to me) intended them to, at least at this stage in the series. Snape is not only interesting, complex and multi-dimensional character, he is so alive that seems to get from under his creator's control. That's why I find him so fascinating. Ana. From blpurdom at yahoo.com Mon Jan 14 19:08:16 2002 From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 19:08:16 -0000 Subject: Draco's Unlikely Redemption (was: Why do readers love Draco?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33410 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "heiditandy" wrote: > > Donna wrote: > > Since we mostly see things in the books through Harry's > > perspective, we don't know if Dumbledore or anyone else has > > tried to talk to him about this. Heidi wrote: > 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. This is why in my fic, I had Moody talking to the students in DADA about why people turn dark. This was something I felt was absent in canon: REALLY addressing the fact that we don't make our decisions in a vacuum. While Dumbledore did say to Harry that it is our choices that make us who we are (rather than heredity), those choices are made in response to the circumstances around us, which are out of our control much of the time. I would love to know whether Lupin also had the third year Slytherins study boggarts, and if so, what Draco Malfoy's boggart turned into (many of us might speculate that it would be his father). I would think he'd have a very hard time laughing at his really deep-seated fears. Draco Malfoy will also need to make some difficult choices, and he was trying to influence some of Harry's at the end of GoF, but it is clear that thus far, he is making his choices based on 1) his father's influence and 2) wanting to be on the winning side (although his assessment of which side will win is obviously also influenced by his father). Heidi said: > One of the things I think is useful about Draco is that he *has > the potential* to be the character who changes his attitudes the > most. I think that if JKR makes him evil and keeps him that way, > it will be troubling, at least for me, to see a character who > we've "known" since he was 10 or 11 move lockstep towards Evil and > Darkness just because his parents are - in a series where an > underlying theme has been "choices" I see Draco, at present in > canon, as a character who's never had to make one - and possibly > never really been in a position where he could. On the contrary: he made the choice to help Rita Skeeter get information when she was banned at the school. He chose to call Hermione "Mudblood." He made the choice to feign a greater injury than he really had when he had his run-in with Buckbeak, knowing that it would get Hagrid in trouble and also thus distress the Trio. He chose to attempt to curse Harry and the curse bounced onto Hermione, making her teeth grow. He chose to make those comments about Cedric on the train at the end of GoF, and he chose not to stand when the rest of the school was paying tribute to Harry in the Great Hall. While it's possible that many of these events--if not all--are the result of his father's indoctrination, there were times when he could have chosen to fight against that indoctrination. If one wants to see him as someone who is basically under Imperius all the time, one could also see him as someone too weak too break through that curse and defy the orders he's being fed (in stark contrast to Harry, who from the first was able to fight the curse). Of course, most of the people in the wizarding world seem too weak to resist Imperius, or the Ministry wouldn't have had such a difficult time with it. (Although many people could have just been using it as an excuse.) In this way, Draco could be thought of as an 'everywizard,' althought the same could be said of Ron, who also cannot fight Imperius. Oddly enough, today Draco reminded me of the character of Rolf in "The Sound of Music." (No, I'm not getting into WWII.) He started off as a boyfriend for the eldest daughter, although she knew nothing about him. He may already have been evil; we don't know either. It may have been perfectly in character for him to join the army, and equally in character for him to betray his former girlfriend's family to people trying to kill them. He had a chance to make a choice too, and he chose betrayal. Why did we want to think he'd let the family go? We had absolutely no basis for this, except the assumption that his previous attachment to the daughter would by extension mean an attachment to the whole family and the courage to defy orders and risk his own life. Despite what I and others have written in fanfic (admittedly wishful thinking on my part--I can't speak for others), we really have no basis in canon for wanting Draco to be good. If Draco is redeemed at all, the catalyst will have to be an earth-shattering event for him, perhaps Harry saving his life (as James saved Snape). But remember--even James saving Snape didn't change him immediately. It was after that event that he became a Death Eater. We don't know what made Snape turn spy, but you never know; maybe it was finding out that the man who saved his life was being targeted, along with his wife and son. That was years after school ended for them. So the question is whether Draco will have sufficient time for redemption, given that the books will only chronicle their lives through the seventh year. Right now Draco acts chiefly out of fear: fear of his father, fear of Voldemort, fear for his life and reputation. He has yet to do anything that shows the least bit of bravery. Survival instincts are natural, but if he's ever going to be more than he is now, he has to find some courage somewhere. It's possible that by doing something cowardly, Draco Malfoy will inadvertantly do something to assist the good guys, but I don't see it being intentional at this point. --Barb Get Psyched Out! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HP_Psych http://schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb From terrilyn at ameritech.net Mon Jan 14 17:07:44 2002 From: terrilyn at ameritech.net (Terri Lyn Layman) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 12:07:44 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's Middle Name In-Reply-To: <000901c19c61$5b78f8e0$0200a8c0@Nshare> Message-ID: <000201c19d1d$fc0ff080$af3ffea9@c8b5v1> No: HPFGUIDX 33411 a.. ----Original Message----- From: Liessa [mailto:harper_liessa at yahoo.co.uk] Ron Yu wrote: >This one's not exactly discussion material, but I just >want to point out that unless I am mistaken and middle >names mean a different thing in Britain, or Lily and >Petunia's maiden name is James, I think what JKR >intends to tell us when she said that 'James' is >Harry's middle name, is that 'James' is part of >Harry's given name -- a second-name or >whatchamacallit. Harry's full name is clearly Harry >James Evans Potter, with Evans as his middle name, not >James. Where I live, at least, the mother's maiden >name is the child's middle name. Just correct me if >I'm wrong somewhere in my reasoning. . Its not usually the case in the UK that the mothers maiden name appears anywhere in a childs name, at least I've never heard of it. My 'middle name' for instance is my grandmothers name (Dorothy), my brothers is James after my father. There are cases where the mothers maiden name is hyphenated onto the surname (eg Evans-Potter), but as far as I know over here thats as far as the maiden name usage goes. I could be wrong though. Liessa I know that not all places practice the same naming conventions. It's been mentioned that several Asian cultures have the family name/names then the given name. I know hispanic culture has several family names in the full name. I myself, could have followed the normal American custom of simply dropping my last name when I married, then taking his. However, I just added his name to my own. I didn't see any point in completely changing things. My first (given) name is of religous orgin (in context with my father's family's tradition), and my middle name is from a beloved family member (as was my mother's custom). My step-sister has her families tradition of the mother/father's first name being their middle name. It all varies. This may not directly address issues in HP. However, it is key in realizing that just because there's a "Layman" mentioned in two different houses, that it may not be a misprint, or even a relation. I just think that when there's the discrepancy over "Fawcett", that it could be two different girls discussed entirely. I'd not worry over it too much. -TerriLyn [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From margdean at erols.com Mon Jan 14 20:05:45 2002 From: margdean at erols.com (Margaret Dean) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 15:05:45 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Is Dumbledore Great? & Dumbledore's Successor References: Message-ID: <3C433A19.A14D8113@erols.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33412 cindysphynx wrote: > The candidates for Dumbledore's successor are (off the top of my head) > Lupin, Black, Snape, McGonagall, Moody, Arthur/Molly Weasley and > Fudge. Without getting into a great deal of detail, all of these > adults sound like middling to dreadful candidates for Commander in > Chief of the Forces of Good. I guess I'd have to pick McGonagall, > but I don't feel very good about that choice. Personally, I'd pick Snape, especially if you're talking about Dumbledore's successor as Hogwarts Headmaster. (With McGonagall continuing to back him up.) Just for the story value -- it would throw the Trio for a loop, and also might throw useful dust in the eyes of Voldy, L. Malfoy, and Company. --Margaret Dean From bonnie at niche-associates.com Mon Jan 14 18:29:14 2002 From: bonnie at niche-associates.com (dicentra_spectabilis_alba) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 18:29:14 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore "wrote" Book 1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33413 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" wrote: > When I first read the message subject, I thought you might mean > it literally. The narrative voice in PS/SS does skip ahead, and > back. And then I thought, what if the narrative voice *is* > Dumbledore? > > It goes outside Harry's POV to follow Hermione's attack on > Snape, and it tells us that "Snape would never know what > happened." Who'd know that, really, except Dumbledore? The > finality of it gives me pause, though. If my theory's right, then > Dumbledore will survive the series but Snapey(sob!) won't. Now, I hadn't thought of that. I wasn't referring to the POV of the narrator, but rather to which agent is manipulating events from within the story. I need to go back and see how often the narrator quits Harry's head and if there's something to be learned from it. > > On a point that *is* related to your post...we've speculated that > McGonagall's The Stone Is Impossible To Steal comment is the > literal truth. Well, what if what everyone, Hagrid, Sirius, Hermione > and Voldemort himself, is telling the truth when they say No One > Can Harm Harry At Hogwarts While Dumbledore Is There? > From a wizard's point of view broken bones are a minor > inconvenience...in which case Harry's only ever been hurt by > accident, falling off his broom or being de-boned unintentionally. > That makes me wonder about the time when Quirrell was trying to knock Harry off his broom. If Dumbledore is Harry's ultimate protector, how is it that Snape was the one uttering the countercurse? Or if falling off a broom is no big deal, why was Snape protecting him at all? I DON'T KNOW! Is there an acronym that expresses the idea "it's that way because the exigencies of writing a novel demand it, verisimilitude be damned"? --Dicentra, who figures that most of the questions asked in this forum belong in that category From ftah3 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 14 19:53:23 2002 From: ftah3 at yahoo.com (ftah3) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 19:53:23 -0000 Subject: Draco's fear?? (was: Draco's Unlikely Redemption) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33414 Barb wrote: > Right now Draco acts chiefly out of fear: fear of his father... I've seen this mentioned before, and I just keep wondering, where on earth in the canon texts does anyone see evidence that Draco is afraid of his father? Also, where is any evidence at all that Draco acts primarily out of fear? I see neither of these. In every reading of each book, I see Draco Malfoy, mean-spirited arrogant brat, self-assured snob, his father's biggest fan. He's been afraid, certainly ~ in the Forbidden Forest, and when being messed with by Crouch/Moody, for instance. But never as a result of his father; and never has fear been implied as a motivating factor for him. And I really am asking for text examples; obviously, one could theorize that Draco is mean to Harry because, I don't know, he's afraid of not being the big cheese because maybe his father beats him when he's anything but the best ~ but as far as I know, none of that exists anywhere but in theory, i.e. not in text (not spelled out nor implied, imho). So, text examples, anyone? Or is this complete fanon? Mahoney ready to be enlightened From CRSunrise at aol.com Mon Jan 14 19:41:46 2002 From: CRSunrise at aol.com (CRSunrise at aol.com) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 14:41:46 EST Subject: Ban on Magic for the Summer Message-ID: <8a.126d9282.29748e7a@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33415 Hiya folks Over the weekend, I was thinking about something. Why do you suppose they banned the students from using their magic during the summer except under a dire emergency? Is it because they haven't learned enough magic yet? Or maybe because it's considered an adult thing, and shouldn't be used until they are adults? And doing adult things meant you had to responsible for your actions. Or it could be that most of the students lived in the Muggle world during the summer, and they aren't supposed to let the Muggle world know they exist. I think it could be a combination of all three, but I'd go with the fact that they're not adults yet. No point in rushing to have too much responsibilty. Let kids be kids. Any other opinions? Crystal AIM/AOL=CRSunrise, OneLastW1sh Hotmail=CRSunrise_98 at hotmail.com ~~Life's a constant roadway. There are many twists and turns. You also have to watch out for the potholes~~ ~~Take one step at a time or you'll fall flat on your face~~ ~~A life lived in chaos is an impossibility...~~Madeleine L'Engle A League of Their Own -- This is my fanfiction site http://members.tripod.com/~CRSunrise_98/ Join my Mailing Lists A League of Their Own Updates-for updates and such on the above site leagueupdates-subscribe at yahoogroups.com For the Newsie Lover out there newsie-lovers-subscribe at yahoogroups.com Want to gets Cards year round? Join my card list Cards_Etc-subscribe at yahoogroups.com From scrapbook at holmes.net Mon Jan 14 20:13:54 2002 From: scrapbook at holmes.net (Delenne) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 12:13:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Accidental injuries & protectors Message-ID: <20020114121355.2383.c000-h012.c000.wm@mail.holmes.net.criticalpath.net> No: HPFGUIDX 33416 Dicentra wrote in response: > > From a wizard's point of view broken bones are a minor > > inconvenience...in which case Harry's only ever been hurt by > > accident, falling off his broom or being de-boned unintentionally. > > > That makes me wonder about the time when Quirrell was trying to knock > Harry off his broom. If Dumbledore is Harry's ultimate protector, how > is it that Snape was the one uttering the countercurse? Or if falling > off a broom is no big deal, why was Snape protecting him at all? To the first question, I'd answer "delegation". If Dumbledore wants to keep Harry largely in the dark at this point, it mightn't do for him to be noticed by anyone while muttering a counter-curse. OTOH, and more plausibly, if Snape didn't feel he owed anything to James' son, maybe Dumbledor set him the task of protecting Harry as a slightly ironic form of payment for his deeds while working for Voldemort. As for falling off the broom, Harry might have been beyond help to fall off at that height. If broken bones are no big deal, death from a broken neck or severe concussion might very well be what Quirrel was aiming for. Since this is my first post from lurkdom, please criticise gently. Delenne aka An Unexpected Caller aka Shari Thornton mailto:scrapbook at holmes.net From blenberry at altavista.com Mon Jan 14 19:48:22 2002 From: blenberry at altavista.com (blenberry) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 19:48:22 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore; McGonagall & Dementor In-Reply-To: <3C43196C.3030801@swbell.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33417 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Penny & Bryce wrote: > > I mean, what does Dumbledore *do*? Other than head up banquets, > > and possibly do administrative things behind closed doors. I'm hoping we find out that Dumbledore teaches a few classes of the most advanced students... specialized conjuring, or something. Or perhaps he does private coaching. Otherwise, I do think it is a waste to have a great wizard be *just* a figurehead and administrator. > > And, No, I don't think that {McGonagall} should be blamed for what > > happened with Crouch, Jr. I recall we had a debate about that subject > > a few mths back, and sorry Cindy, but I agree with the folks who pointed > > out that *Snape* was equally culpable in that affair in that he should > > have put his foot down *outside* the castle (refused to allow Fudge to > > bring a dementor into the castle at all). What exactly was McGonagall > > supposed to do? The Dementor probably acted so quickly that she didn't > > have time to react. I might also add that Snape also didn't react to > > stop the dementor from administering the Kiss, and he was standing right > > there with McGonagall & Fudge presumably. This probably came up in your previous debate, but couldn't McGonagall have conjured a Patronus? We see Lupin and Dumbledore doing it at different times in PoA, and I hate that it makes McGonagall look bad that she couldn't stop the dementor. Barbara From mjollner at yahoo.com Mon Jan 14 20:06:06 2002 From: mjollner at yahoo.com (mjollner) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 20:06:06 -0000 Subject: Ron is the *sixth* son Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33418 >From christi0469: <> Ron is the *sixth* son (and *sixth* child), not the seventh. 1)Bill, 2)Charlie, 3)Percy, 4) and 5)Gred and Feorge (we've not been told which one came out first), 6)Ron. 7), of course, is Ginny. It will be interesting to see if there is a sacrifice connected to being number seven in the birth order; could she be it? mjollner From mlfrasher at aol.com Mon Jan 14 20:07:04 2002 From: mlfrasher at aol.com (mlfrasher at aol.com) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 15:07:04 EST Subject: Why readers love Snape Message-ID: <96.205c99f1.29749468@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33419 Hello all! Honestly, I didn't know how much I actually liked Snape until this discussion hit. It's my first post, so don't be gentle. :> LesAJa wrote [edited]: >I don't know if Snape still needs to be saved or redeemed, >because hadn't he already done this by hisself? He could stand >for that the possibility does exist to overcome ones inner dark >side, to successfully start a new life. This does not mean that >everything's a pink paradise after that, there will be still things >to struggle with, and the things done in the past have scared ones >life. Although Snape is not beloved in the books, he shows that it is >possible to survive and stand upright after all. I was so relieved to see this commentary, as I have a slightly different view of the good vs. evil philosophy. I tend to lean towards ppl who aren't afraid of their "dark sides". I don't think that ppl who understand it, recognize it, and use it are bad. That's too much of a black and white analysis. I do, however, think that ppl who revel in it and define themselves by it are weak. This is why strictly two dimensional characters in literature and life, are boring, predictable, and usually get the axe. Which is why I think this is key to Snape, and incidentally the existence of the whole Slytherin House. Snape, as many of you have stated here, is indeed a powerful wizard and is intelligent to say the least. I believe he recognizes his power, is proud of it, and is strong enough to have 'learned' to control it. That to me, is strength, and you can have it with the dark undertones, just as a completely good wizard could perceivably be blinded by goodness and fall victim to it. Snape is complex and introverted. I don't excuse his rudeness and obvious Schadenfreude in torturing some students, but if he wasn't at least a bit of an arrogant bastard, much of his character would be gone. Being a former DE, and carrying the type of baggage he obviously has, Snape has a heavy load on his shoulders. He's probably killed and maimed ppl, and now he's on the 'to be killed' list of Voldemort (or at least suspects this at the end of GoF). If he was bubbly and happy, I'd be concerned. How many ppl in the HP universe could understand what he's done, and is going through? Dumbledore does comprehend this complexity and that's why I think there's a mutual respect there. Although, I think Snape has a disgust for being in debt to anyone and that's his ego and proud nature coming through. However, I also think he's smart enough not to let that get in the way of his friendships with ppl who he does respect (Dumbledore, again.) Heck, if I were Snape, I'd be surly too, and probably have little patience for a lot of things. Not an excuse, but it does explain much. Which leads into the existence of Slytherin House. This has been discussed here and in other forums, and through JKR. Members of SH are said to be smart and powerful and we have already been told in CoS that personal decisions play a definite part in one's destiny. This might suggest that Slytherins are Gryffindors who use the dark to their advantage, but the best Slytherins know how much and when to use it. It almost seems that Gryffindors turn their noses up at DADA or fear it. (Just a general impression I'm getting as I think about this at this second -- discuss.) I mean someone posted that Harry is the only one who actually seeks out DADA lessons and perfects it. (OK, so he *has* to because he is HP and all, but shouldn't all wizards get to know this part of their powers well?) Just my two Galleons (I'm too high maintenance for knuts ;)) on why Slytherin is so important and why Hogwarts has the House. Sure, a lot of them go "bad", but it's interesting that Snape, with the above commentary in mind, is head of SH. >For those who have romantic feelings for him but don't belong to the group >who wants to "save" him, he could be someone who appreciates the dark inside >of someone and perhaps love this person. Although I would not like to see >Snape fall in love with a sweet little woman and turn to be a merry man, I >think that he is able to love because he does have strong emotions and >therefore is not coldhearted. Yes! Personally, this is they type of person I'd like to get to know. I would imagine one could learn a lot from him and he would be a test to the intellect and the senses. If you were lucky enough to be an 'equal' it would be a mutually beneficial relationship (platonic, which would be more interesting, I think, or otherwise). 'Saving' this man? I don't think he needs to be saved. If a woman approached him with that attitude, I believe that she would fail to get even a simple response. He doesn't need to be saved. Relationship wise, he probably hasn't found anyone worth the effort. Like any person, or any character, you'd need to identify and appreciate their experiences to have any kind of relationship. Perhaps debunking this notion that dark sides have no other use than to be hated and destroyed is the 'lesson', dare I say it, that Snape and SH are there to suggest. That's about all I could come up with for now. Hope this makes sense. garaeta From hollydaze at btinternet.com Mon Jan 14 20:05:34 2002 From: hollydaze at btinternet.com (Hollydaze) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 20:05:34 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Female Students (and other female charcters) References: Message-ID: <000201c19d3b$f15fc020$4b4c7bd5@j0dhe> No: HPFGUIDX 33420 Aja wrote: > --Madame Maxine and the Beauxbatons students: presented more ? > positively, but there is a very unflattering moment when all the > members of the girl's school summarily burst into tears after not > being chosen by the goblet to compete in the TWT. Actually only two of them did, and it is not a girls school it is mixed as harry notices both Boys and girls when they get out of the carriage. > --Fleur: beautiful, but she comes across as a bit manipulative > because of her Veela looks and ancestry. She is also presented as > the worst of the four tri-wizard competitors. but as has been pointed out before most of this was not her fault. All of the champions made mistakes in the first task. I think someone pointed out that JK has mentioned Grindylows as being native ONLY to the UK (hence why she got into trouble with them) (she performed the Bubble head charm pretty well, while Krum messed up his transfiguration) and in the 3rd task she was attacked by the Imperio Krum before she could do anything so we don't know how she would have done. HOLLYDAZE!!! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From hollydaze at btinternet.com Mon Jan 14 20:41:01 2002 From: hollydaze at btinternet.com (Hollydaze) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 20:41:01 -0000 Subject: Back to the Fawcett (WAS Harry's Middle Name) References: <000201c19d1d$fc0ff080$af3ffea9@c8b5v1> Message-ID: <000301c19d3b$f1de6600$4b4c7bd5@j0dhe> No: HPFGUIDX 33421 TerriLyn wrote: > I just think that when there's the discrepancy over "Fawcett", > that it could be two different girls discussed entirely. I'd not worry over it too much. Actually when I mentioned the Fawcetts, I was trying to say that i thought they might be two different people (perhaps related) and to see what others thought. i just got confused on the houses (saying they were both in H when one was in H and the other R) because I couldn't find the other quote I was looking for. I wasn't at all trying to say they were the same person:) HOLLYDAZE!!! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com Mon Jan 14 20:50:30 2002 From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 14:50:30 -0600 Subject: Dumbledore's Successor References: Message-ID: <3C434496.77D4BBB6@kingwoodcable.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33422 cindysphynx wrote: > Given that Dumbledore is fading, I was wondering who is positioned > right now to take over the fight against Voldemort should something > happen to Dumbledore soon, like in Chapter Two of OoP. Harry is > clearly not ready; his magical skills are still quite limited, and he > doesn't even know basic things like why Voldemort wants to kill him. > > The candidates for Dumbledore's successor are (off the top of my head) > Lupin, Black, Snape, McGonagall, Moody, Arthur/Molly Weasley and > Fudge. Without getting into a great deal of detail, all of these > adults sound like middling to dreadful candidates for Commander in > Chief of the Forces of Good. I guess I'd have to pick McGonagall, > but I don't feel very good about that choice. I'm a believer that D will die, in book 7. I also believe the great battle between Harry and V will happen in book 7 (the book ends on the climax?). I see D dying just before Harry is about to go to wonderland and kill V (maybe D tries to take out V himself, and V ends up killing D). Harry will need D most at this moment, but D won't be there. This will be the final push that Harry needs to really discover just what he really is, and his destiny will become clear (the green eyed boy will be the death of the red eyed man?). Perhaps it's D's death that causes Harry to search out V. With that said, I believe the next "Dumbledore" will be Harry (provided he survives the series), but there will be other people taking over before Harry. After the final battle, V will be gone, goodness will be established and there will be no need for a "commander in chief" like Dumbledore until the next evil wizard comes around. Until that happens, the wizarding world will have to deal with various DE's & troublemakers but nothing like V and his crew. Lupin & Black (maybe even Snape? Nah...) would make an excellent team controlling the troublemakers in the meantime, while Harry's off getting some life experience and discovering more of his world. When the next evil wizard comes around, Harry will have established himself as the official CIC and maybe make a new Order of the Phoenix (I also believe that Harry will have a new pet named Fawkes at the end of book 7. Won't Hedwig have fun!). Maybe the epilogue will be a quick reference or timeline following the rest of the Harry's life. -Katze From ftah3 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 14 20:45:37 2002 From: ftah3 at yahoo.com (ftah3) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 20:45:37 -0000 Subject: McGonagall (and Snape) & Dementor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33423 Barb quoted: > > > And, No, I don't think that {McGonagall} should be blamed for what > > > happened with Crouch, Jr. I recall we had a debate about that subject > > > a few mths back, and sorry Cindy, but I agree with the folks who pointed > > > out that *Snape* was equally culpable in that affair in that he should > > > have put his foot down *outside* the castle (refused to allow Fudge to > > > bring a dementor into the castle at all). What exactly was McGonagall > > > supposed to do? The Dementor probably acted so quickly that she didn't > > > have time to react. I might also add that Snape also didn't react to > > > stop the dementor from administering the Kiss, and he was standing right > > > there with McGonagall & Fudge presumably. and then Barb said: > This probably came up in your previous debate, but couldn't > McGonagall have conjured a Patronus? We see Lupin and Dumbledore > doing it at different times in PoA, and I hate that it makes > McGonagall look bad that she couldn't stop the dementor. I disagree with all'ya'll! :-) Imho, what happened to Crouch Jr. has nothing to do with magical ability and everything to do with chain of authority. I mean, Fudge brought the Dementor to Kiss Crouch Jr., and if he refused to disallow it despite arguments against it, for McGonnagal or Snape to toss a Patronus at it would be like your favorite high school teacher picking a fight with the executioner when the President/Prime Minister is standing there saying "kill the prisoner asap!" As significant to the HP story as are McGonnagal and Snape, they are low on the totem pole in the wizarding world as a whole compared to MoM Fudge (unfortunately). Perhaps they *should* have tried to intervene magically to stop the Dementor, but honestly, I doubt they expected Fudge to do something so rash, stupid and premature. And in the time it would take for either of them to argue with Fudge, and for it to dawn on them that he will not listen to reason and seriously means to go through with it ~ it's done. So if we are going to assign fault, it's all Fudge's, for ordering it to be done and for not listening to reason. Both McGonnagal's and Snape's hands were tied, in terms of authority. Mahoney still wondering if Fudge was in his right mind ~ or in complete control of his mind ~ when he pulled that *unbelievably* blockheaded move From heidit at netbox.com Mon Jan 14 20:52:35 2002 From: heidit at netbox.com (heidit at netbox.com) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 15:52:35 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ron is the *sixth* son In-Reply-To: b Message-ID: <16600678.2068858868@imcingular.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33424 There are many HP readers who believe that because of the age gap between Percy and Charlie, there may've been another son there who died before being old enough to go to Hogwarts. 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: "mjollner" Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ron is the *sixth* son Real-To: "mjollner" >From christi0469: <> Ron is the *sixth* son (and *sixth* child), not the seventh. 1)Bill, 2)Charlie, 3)Percy, 4) and 5)Gred and Feorge (we've not been told which one came out first), 6)Ron. 7), of course, is Ginny. It will be interesting to see if there is a sacrifice connected to being number seven in the birth order; could she be it? mjollner ________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 hollydaze at btinternet.com Mon Jan 14 20:55:56 2002 From: hollydaze at btinternet.com (Hollydaze) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 20:55:56 -0000 Subject: McGonagall/Snape & Dementor References: Message-ID: <001a01c19d3e$60f840e0$4b4c7bd5@j0dhe> No: HPFGUIDX 33425 Unknown wrote: > > And, No, I don't think that {McGonagall} should be blamed for > > what happened with Crouch, Jr. I recall we had a debate about > > that subject a few mths back, and sorry Cindy, but I agree with > > the folks who pointedout that *Snape* was equally culpable in > > that affair in that he should have put his foot down *outside* > > the castle (refused to allow Fudge to bring a dementor into the > > castle at all). What exactly was McGonagall supposed to do? The > > Dementor probably acted so quickly that she didn't have time to > > react. I might also add that Snape also didn't react to stop > > the dementor from administering the Kiss, and he was standing > > right there with McGonagall & Fudge presumably. Barbara wrote: > This probably came up in your previous debate, but couldn't > McGonagall have conjured a Patronus? We see Lupin and Dumbledore > doing it at different times in PoA, and I hate that it makes > McGonagall look bad that she couldn't stop the dementor. In defence of Both McGonagall and Snape: The thing that always gets me with this argument is that in POA, Dumbledore says that he doesn't have the power to over-rule the MOM, and I suppose he can not over rule Fudge either. If Dumbledore can not over-rule them, the Snape and McGonagall certainly can't. Becuase of this I feel they could have done whatever they wanted to do to keep Fudge and the Dementor away from Crouch (Patronus/Argued till blue in the face etc) and it wouldn't have done any good (infact they would have ended up in MORE trouble) I think they did try something but that in the end it had no effect because they can not order Fudge to do anything. HOLLYDAZE!!! ________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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cindysphynx at home.com Mon Jan 14 20:59:25 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 20:59:25 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore; McGonagall & Dementor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33426 Penny wrote: >>I recall we had a debate about that subject > > > a few mths back, and sorry Cindy, but I agree with the folks who pointed > > > out that *Snape* was equally culpable in that affair in that he should > > > have put his foot down *outside* the castle (refused to allow Fudge to > > > bring a dementor into the castle at all). What exactly was McGonagall > > > supposed to do? The Dementor probably acted so quickly that she didn't > > > have time to react. I might also add that Snape also didn't react to > > > stop the dementor from administering the Kiss, and he was standing right > > > there with McGonagall & Fudge presumably. I think we're on the same team on this one, Penny. I was a proponent of the idea that Snape brought the dementor into the castle, so the whole debacle was mostly Snape's fault. (The theory didn't garner much support back then, but it's good to see that there might be some support now). I'll admit that my support for the idea was mostly based on an intense and irrational dislike of Snape rather than a desire to bolster McGonagall, although I probably said something different at the time. :-) But the fact remains that McGonagall was given the task to stand guard over the prisoner, so I guess she has to take some of the blame. I guess my disappointment with McGonagall is she doesn't often behave like the second in command. I was trying to think of examples, and the only one that comes to mind right now is Star Trek. The second in command is always a pivotal role, and he/she is capable of running the ship when the captain is imprisoned by aliens or whatever. He/she often brings personality traits to the table that the captain doesn't possess (say, having an analytical mind compared to the captain's more impulsive nature). In HP, McGonagall doesn't seem to bring anything to the table to compliment Dumbledore's skills. (Ironically, they both seem to have taught the same subject -- Transfiguration). Her one chance to run things was when Dumbledore was relieved of his position in CoS, and I don't recall her being placed in charge or being allowed to step up. It isn't McGonagall's fault, of course. It is JKR's decision, and a missed opportunity to show us why McGonagall is Deputy Headmistress, IMHO. David makes a good point that we can't blame Snape for bringing the dementor unless we know for sure that Fudge didn't know how to get to the office where Crouch was being held. Well, OK. But that requires us to assume that Fudge (who might or might not be a Hogwarts alum) could navigate the shifting stairwells well enough to find Moody's office (which might or might not be the same office as the DADA professor in Fudge's time), despite the many years that have passed. Cindy From pigwidgeon37 at yahoo.it Mon Jan 14 21:22:40 2002 From: pigwidgeon37 at yahoo.it (pigwidgeon37) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 21:22:40 -0000 Subject: The Vulture Hat- Disgusting SHIP of the Millennium- McGonagall the Born Deputy Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33427 Cindysphinx wrote: I'd like to contradict you on this: For one thing, the Hogwarts faculty is so small (there can't be more than 20 teachers, counting the subjects we already know and allowing for some we don't) that news has to travel very fast. For another, we know that the story of vulture-crowned Snape spread like wildfire among the students, and there's no way that the prefects or Head Boy and Girl (or other students who are a bit closer with the teachers than the average student) didn't tell at least one of the teachers. Given that Snape doesn't seem the most popular member of the faculty, three guesses whether that wasn't just putting oil into the fire! So I have to agree with whoever wrote this: It's a bit strange that Dumbledore makes Snape pull the cracker with the vulture hat- he of all persons should know that this is not the right way to make Snape discover self-irony. still Cindysphinx: Now if you wanted to submit this as your entry for the most un-erotic fantasy of the millennium, I'll vote for you! Still Cindysphinx: David wrote: I don't think that Dumbledore is seriously pondering the question of who might be his successor. And if he was, I seriously doubt that he's thinking of McGonagall. Why? Just my very own personal feeling: There are people (regardless whether male or female, so don't flame me) who are just born deputies- I should know, because I'm one of them. And it's not about playing the little woman who takes all the major worries off a man's shoulders so that he is able to stand in the limelight. It's about liking to do the actual work instead of being onstage, having to deal with the more tedious aspects of being the no.1. Remember the scene in the anteroom after Harry's name came out of the GoF? I'm sure that Dumbledore would have liked nothing better than to tell Karkaroff and Mme. Maxime what he really thought of their comments- but he has to be diplomatic, whereas McGonagall speaks her mind freely. If she were Headmaster, she could never have allowed herself to attack Fudge the way she does after the Dementor has sucked out Crouch Jr.'s soul- again, Dumbledore remains calm, though I'd take any bet he wants to jump into Fudge's face. I suppose McGonagall likes her position as Head of House and Deputy Headmistress and I daresay she would decline if she were offered the position of Headmistress. Susanna/pigwidgeon37 From blpurdom at yahoo.com Mon Jan 14 21:49:26 2002 From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 21:49:26 -0000 Subject: Draco's fear?? (was: Draco's Unlikely Redemption) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33428 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ftah3" wrote: > Barb wrote: > > Right now Draco acts chiefly out of fear: fear of his father... > > I've seen this mentioned before, and I just keep wondering, where > on earth in the canon texts does anyone see evidence that Draco is > afraid of his father? When Harry overhears Draco and Lucius Malfoy in Borgin and Burkes (Chapter 4 of Chamber of Secrets), several times Lucius reprimands Draco. He desists each time. It could just be that he is being a good, obedient son, or it could be that he has a fear of punishment (or loss of a privilege) if he does not comply. This is admittedly open to interpretation. First instance: -------------------------------------------------------------------- "...everyone thinks he's so *smart*, wonderful *Potter* with his *scar* and his *broomstick*--" "You have told me this at least a dozen times already," said Mr. Malfoy, with a quelling look at his son. "And I would remind you that it is not--prudent--to appear less than fond of Harry Potter, not when most of our kind regard him as the hero who made the Dark Lord disappear..." --------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Malfoy is obviously smarter than Draco about keeping up appearances, but there is also an undercurrent to his speech that is somewhat chilling. Second instance: --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 though you'd be ashamed that a girl of no wizard family beat you in every exam," snapped Mr. Malfoy. --------------------------------------------------------------------- I think it's clear here that Draco has some fear of his father or he wouldn't be making excuses about his grades. Again, it's an undercurrent. He isn't quaking in his boots; he's blustering, trying to shift blame for something he knows has displeased his father (that's not undercurrent--Lucius says as much). And Draco is supposedly Snape's favorite, after all, which would mean--if this is completely accurate--that Snape gave Hermione higher marks than Draco. IMO, Draco would not be making excuses if he didn't fear Lucius. We also see Lucius Malfoy lunge at Harry in anger when he accidentally frees Dobby, so although this isn't Draco at whom he's lashing out, we see a possible demonstration of what Draco could experience if he really infuriated his father. He's not someone to mess with, and Draco probably knows that. He could very well be in complete agreement with his father on everything. Or it may never have occurred to him to disagree because he knows that would not be "prudent." This is less clear, but his making excuses about his grades IS pretty clear. > He's been afraid, certainly ~ in the Forbidden Forest, and when > being messed with by Crouch/Moody, for instance. But never as a > result of his father; and never has fear been implied as a > motivating factor for him. Back to CoS, when Ron and Harry are talking to him about the attacks (disguised with Polyjuice Potion) Draco expresses the wish that Hermione will be one of the victims. I believe this goes deeper than his simply disliking her as a person or disliking "Mudbloods" in general; if we hark back to his complaint about her and his father's response, we see that life would clearly be simpler for Draco without Hermione around as academic competition. Which takes us back to his making excuses because he fears his father. As for other fears, early on in PoA, Malfoy et al come to the Trio's train compartment, which also contains Lupin, ready to make trouble, and succeeds in riling Ron. But then he notices Lupin... --------------------------------------------------------------------- Chapter Five: The Dementor "Who's that?" said Malfoy, taking an automatic step backward as he spotted Lupin. "New teacher," said Harry, who go to his feet, too, in case he needed to hold Ron back. "What were you saying, Malfoy?" Malfoy's pale eyes narrowed; he wasn't fool enough to pick a fight right under a teacher's nose. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Whereas Ron WAS fool enough, evidently, since he was the one who needed to be held back. But we already knew Ron was brave from the chess scene in the first book. (And he's gotten a howler from his mother, too, in CoS.) We also see in Chapter six that he's not physically brave when he is wounded by Buckbeak: --------------------------------------------------------------------- "I'm dying!" Malfoy yelled as the class panicked. "I'm dying, look at me! It's killed me!" --------------------------------------------------------------------- Good grief. How much physical pain has Harry had to withstand? Broken arm, growing all the bones back in said arm, broken leg, Cruciatus Curse...And think about it: if Malfoy can blame Buckbeak and Hagrid for this, aside from the satisfaction of distressing Hagrid and the Trio, he can avoid his father blaming him for this (even though it WAS all his fault). In my experience, people who tend to shift blame don't do it for no reason. No one at the school, even Hagrid, would probably have done anything much to Draco for the hippogriff incident (assuming he'd already been punished enough by being wounded) so the only motivation he has for shifting blame is if his father would come down on him otherwise. It might not even be more drastic than denying Draco a new toy (it doesn't have to be physical punishment), but any potential punishment seems to be too much to Draco, based on this behavior. --Barb From bluebellblaze at yahoo.com Mon Jan 14 21:49:56 2002 From: bluebellblaze at yahoo.com (bluebellblaze) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 21:49:56 -0000 Subject: The Vulture Hat- Disgusting SHIP of the Millennium- McGonagall the Born Deputy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33429 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pigwidgeon37" wrote: .....For another, we know that the story of > vulture-crowned Snape spread like wildfire among the students, and > there's no way that the prefects or Head Boy and Girl (or other > students who are a bit closer with the teachers than the average > student) didn't tell at least one of the teachers. Given that Snape > doesn't seem the most popular member of the faculty, three guesses > whether that wasn't just putting oil into the fire! So I have to > agree with whoever wrote this: It's a bit strange that Dumbledore > makes Snape pull the cracker with the vulture hat- he of all persons > should know that this is not the right way to make Snape discover > self-irony. > > That would've been me. :) After i posted that this morning, in fact, I went and read the actual passage, and it's as if Dumby is gently mocking Snape with the hat -- Dumbledore immediately puts on the Vulture Hat after Snape pushes it away from himself -- and all Snape can do is sit there and try to remain dignified. so Dumby, at least, has heard of the Madame Snape boggart spectacle. And I would be $$ that everyone else has as well. Remember at the end of PS/SS when Dumby is telling Harry that what happened b/t harry and Quirrell in the dungeon was (paraphrasing here) "a complete secret; therefore, the entire school knows all about it"? Same here and then some, IMO. Working in a school setting meself, I think the faculty at Hogwarts typically enjoy nothing better than a good old gossip about one another, but particularly about their more peculiar colleagues! ;) And as for the Snape and Trelawny SHIP suggestion, eeewwww... "bluebellblaze" From lav at tut.by Mon Jan 14 21:24:36 2002 From: lav at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 23:24:36 +0200 Subject: About Slytherin House Message-ID: <19827870928.20020114232436@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 33430 Greetings! > Garaeta wrote to us in his wisdom: > Which leads into the existence of Slytherin House. This has been discussed > here and in other forums, and through JKR. Members of SH are said to be > smart and powerful and we have already been told in CoS that personal > decisions play a definite part in one's destiny. This might suggest that > Slytherins are Gryffindors who use the dark to their advantage, but the best > Slytherins know how much and when to use it. It almost seems that > Gryffindors turn their noses up at DADA or fear it. (Just a general > impression I'm getting as I think about this at this second -- discuss.) I > mean someone posted that Harry is the only one who actually seeks out DADA > lessons and perfects it. (OK, so he *has* to because he is HP and all, but > shouldn't all wizards get to know this part of their powers well?) For me to say that Slytherins are Gryffindors is a little embarassing. Difference between a Slytherin and a Gryffindor IMHO lies not in their like/dislike of DA and DADA, but in their inner motivations. For a Slytherin, ambition is perhaps the most important quality (as was stated quite clearly by the Sorting Hat many times). For Gryffindors, this may be courage or loyalty (though the latter is also a quality of Hufflepuff). A Slytherin may easily hate the Dark Arts - it's not important, as many spells that are not DA can be easily used for "evil" purpose. A Gryffindor could possibly use even the darkest Unforgivable curses for noble ends (it's unlikely that Crucio can be used this way, but Imperio definitely can be used to save one's life). For example, I'm extremely interested in older Crouch house... I would bet it was Slytherin. Again I repeat, this is all my IMHO. Ah, and a question springs up to my mind. What if we have a magic-wielding, ambitious, treachery, evil-inspired, cowardly, etc etc, *muggle-born*? Would he be sorted into Slytherin despite Salazar's ideas? And if not, what house would he hit then? Sincerely yours Alexander Lomski From lav at tut.by Mon Jan 14 21:09:19 2002 From: lav at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 23:09:19 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ban on Magic for the Summer In-Reply-To: <8a.126d9282.29748e7a@aol.com> References: <8a.126d9282.29748e7a@aol.com> Message-ID: <2126954048.20020114230919@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 33431 Greetings, CRSunrise! Cac> Crystal wrote: Cac> Hiya folks Cac> Over the weekend, I was thinking about something. Why do you suppose they Cac> banned the students from using their magic during the summer except under a Cac> dire emergency? Is it because they haven't learned enough magic yet? Or Cac> maybe because it's considered an adult thing, and shouldn't be used until Cac> they are adults? And doing adult things meant you had to responsible for your Cac> actions. Or it could be that most of the students lived in the Muggle world Cac> during the summer, and they aren't supposed to let the Muggle world know they Cac> exist. Cac> I think it could be a combination of all three, but I'd go with the fact Cac> that they're not adults yet. No point in rushing to have too much Cac> responsibilty. Let kids be kids. Cac> Any other opinions? Security problems (would be much more difficult to conceal the Wizarding World from muggles if there were teenagers casting spells here and there - Obliviators don't love their job THAT much ;). Upbringing problems (not giving children power over their relatives - may harm their upbringing - especially in muggle families). Consider the example of Harry - put Draco in his boots, remove the ban to cast and imagine the consequences. Being responsible for what one does - I haven't found any example of magic being dangerous to the caster (unless your wand is broken, of course :) - funny results are definitely possible, but even one of the most complicated spells (apparate) does not put the caster in danger of death of physical damage. Thus, disagree on this one. But perhaps everything is simpler: there could been some Ministry official (long time ago, of course) who got his robes inflamed by some adolescent would-be-wizard, so the official did put a lot of effort to forbid the youths to cast spells at home... :) Sincerely yours Alexander Lomski From caliburncy at yahoo.com Mon Jan 14 21:57:07 2002 From: caliburncy at yahoo.com (caliburncy) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 21:57:07 -0000 Subject: Somebody to blame (was re: McGonagall (and Snape) & Dementor) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33432 This whole "who is reponsible for the Kiss of Crouch Jr.?" debate baffled me the first time it came up, and it baffles me now. Every time I see this kind of thing I am reminded of the song "Your fault" from Stephen Sondheim's brilliant musical "Into the Woods". Or even better, the witch's comment that immediately follows in the next song, "Last Midnight": No, of course what really matters is the blame, Somebody to blame. Fine, if that's the thing you enjoy, Placing the blame, If that's the aim, Give me the blame-- Just give me the boy. (You'd understand the last line, if you had seen the musical.) Anyway, I think there's a really interesting (OT-Chatter) psychological discussion to be gleaned from this on why it is that the notion of "blame" so permeates our society. Clearly, it exists primarily because it is a comfortable defense. But it also seems to be basically irrational to attempt to apply blame to any particular quarter. Fudge is culpable for what Fudge did or failed to do. McGonagall is culpable for what McGonagall did or failed to do. Snape likewise for his own actions or inactions. I guess I don't see how these can be "compared" to each other, as if they can be weighed to see who has the most overall culpability. To some extent, we can argue (albeit unfairly, since we will never understand the exact circumstance) whether McGonagall, for example, did all that was in her power to prevent the Kiss . . . but how this "ranks" her compared to Fudge or Snape, I cannot see. The same conundrum, I feel, permeates the long-standing debate on the GOF argument between Harry and Ron. Both Harry and Ron acted in questionable fashion and in some manner contributed to the argument. I don't understand how we can compare the two's contributions and come up with one "greater" contributor, or someone who is more at fault. We might be able to say that Ron did not act as well as he could have, and Harry likewise, but how does this gives us grounds to conclude that either Ron or Harry was more at fault? How can one be "more" at fault, anyway? Isn't fault a black-and-white concept? You either are at fault or you aren't--and while two people can share blame in the sense of both being at fault simultaneously, they do not share blame in the sense that the two might share a pie, taking differently-sized portions: this person with 60% and this person with 40%. Blame, as I see it, just can't work like that. It's not a matter of the mathematics of it--there is no mathematics; that was just a convenient illustration--blame just isn't a "shared" concept in that sense, I don't think. It's a purely personal one. In any case, the consequences of individual actions are simply too hard to measure, and judgment too far beyond mere human wisdom. At least, that's what I believe. Which is why I don't like the concept of blame in the first place, so perhaps I am just being touchy. :-) -Luke From blpurdom at yahoo.com Mon Jan 14 22:01:26 2002 From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 22:01:26 -0000 Subject: Ron is the *sixth* son In-Reply-To: <16600678.2068858868@imcingular.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33433 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., heidit at n... wrote: > There are many HP readers who believe that because of the age gap between Percy and Charlie, there may've been another son there who died before being old enough to go to Hogwarts. > From christi0469: < brothers to set him up as a seventh son (Molly and Arthur would > have only have had to lose one child, and it would explain > the "mortal peril" clock).>> > > Ron is the *sixth* son (and *sixth* child), not the seventh. 1) > Bill, 2)Charlie, 3)Percy, 4) and 5)Gred and Feorge (we've not been > told which one came out first), 6)Ron. 7), of course, is Ginny. > mjollner Although some writers of fanfic (this one included) have postulated that there may have been other Weasley children in the large Percy- Charlie gap, this is not the only possible explanation. Percy was born in 1976, Charlie some time before 1970 (estimates vary) which was about the time of the rise of Voldemort. Given that Voldemort was in power in the early seventies when the Weasleys were not having children for a time, that could be a very good reason by itself for their choosing not to have children at that time (although it wouldn't explain the decision to have the rest of the children, since Voldemort was still in power at that time). Another explanation could be that something happened to Molly or Arthur during the "gap." Perhaps Arthur was on a dangerous mission for Dumbledore and went missing for a while, or perhaps Molly was hospitalized for an extended period, connected or not to Voldemort. Perhaps someone put an infertility curse on them, and it was later circumvented. We really don't know enough about the reign of terror to say for sure. Just the fact that the family lived during that time could explain the "mortal peril" clock. --Barb From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Mon Jan 14 22:23:18 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 22:23:18 -0000 Subject: Draco: I am 14, going on 15 - Draco's Unlikely Redemption In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33434 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "blpurdom" wrote: > Oddly enough, today Draco reminded me of the character of Rolf > in "The Sound of Music." The tears are running down my face. Rolf. But it seems so right. I wonder if he has a goofy smile like that. But, what if Draco isn't redeemed, but doesn't follow Voldemort? How about a scene where Lucius falls back on his last support in the whole world: Draco, and Draco rejects him, and stands by while they take his father to Azkaban. The renunciation of his father could be even more evil than the following of him. It would also illustrate the old saying that you can keep a level of good, but no-one can keep a level of evil. You can start in destroying other people, and end destroying your family. Or to put it another way, there's no honour among thieves. I wonder if the kids could take it, though. Eileen PS Amittedly, I perhaps have in mind Maglor in the Silmarillion, who stands by when they throw his father, Eol, over a cliff. Admittedly, Eol deserved it, but so would Lucius deserve Azkaban. From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Mon Jan 14 22:33:47 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 22:33:47 -0000 Subject: Draco's fear?? (was: Draco's Unlikely Redemption) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33435 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "blpurdom" wrote: [A very good summary of the negative aspects in the Draco-Lucius relationship.] May I add a point? Why isn't Draco at home for Christmas in CoS, only a year after he tells Harry than only people who aren't wanted at home stay at Hogwarts for Christmas. It's a pity, and unnatural, that Harry, or actually, Ron, doesn't pick up on this, and get some indication of an explanation. Eileen From david_p at istop.com Mon Jan 14 22:51:33 2002 From: david_p at istop.com (david_p2002ca) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 22:51:33 -0000 Subject: About Slytherin House In-Reply-To: <19827870928.20020114232436@tut.by> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33436 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Alexander wrote: > Ah, and a question springs up to my mind. What if we have > a magic-wielding, ambitious, treachery, evil-inspired, > cowardly, etc etc, *muggle-born*? Would he be sorted into > Slytherin despite Salazar's ideas? And if not, what house > would he hit then? Well, He Who Must Not Be Named was a halfbreed Slytherin, so I guess Salazar was nothing if not flexible... David P. From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Mon Jan 14 23:09:46 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 23:09:46 -0000 Subject: About Slytherin House In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33437 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "david_p2002ca" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Alexander wrote: > > Ah, and a question springs up to my mind. What if we have > > a magic-wielding, ambitious, treachery, evil-inspired, > > cowardly, etc etc, *muggle-born*? Would he be sorted into > > Slytherin despite Salazar's ideas? And if not, what house > > would he hit then? > > Well, He Who Must Not Be Named was a halfbreed Slytherin, so I guess > Salazar was nothing if not flexible... > BTW, how do we know if the current prejudice against mudbloods is all the way back or recent, or has occured in spurts. At one end, we have Salazar Slytherin who reportedly objected against Hogwarts taking students from non-magical backgrounds (is there anything in the text to show whether his objections were based on any theory of blood, or were they more security-like? i.e. They stick to their world. We stick to ours, and the world goes a whole lot better, Godric.) On the other end, we have a bunch of Slytherins who insult others for not being pure-blood. Nearer to the latter than the former we have Tom Riddle, who was definitely "mudblood", and was a great success in Slytherin. If Slytherin has become more defiantly "pure blood" the last little while, they've also become a whole lot less attractive. "You Know Who" must have made Slytherin look good, for instance. Draco doesn't even try. In fact, the whole current Slytherin lot are almost completely detestable, while the rationale behind the house, and what we know of its history, should actually make it glamorous and attractive. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why people long for some development with Draco - SHIP or otherwise. Eileen, who although she likes to tell herself she's a Gryffindor during the daytime, dreams about being a Slytherin at night, which is frankly nightmarish. From blenberry at altavista.com Tue Jan 15 01:21:12 2002 From: blenberry at altavista.com (blenberry) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 01:21:12 -0000 Subject: Weasley Clock In-Reply-To: <03c301c19d1a$e56fbb60$0b01a8c0@enet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33438 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Gabriel Edson" wrote: > Anyone remember whether Bill and Charlie are still listed on the >clock, even though they don't live at home any more? Didn't it >mention "all" the Weasleys being on it? The clock was described as having *nine* hands, so that would be all the Weasleys. I wonder if the clock considers Charlie to be often in "mortal peril" because of his dragon job... Barbara From ms_superhero at hotmail.com Tue Jan 15 01:42:45 2002 From: ms_superhero at hotmail.com (ms_superhero) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 01:42:45 -0000 Subject: Draco's fear?? (was: Draco's Unlikely Redemption) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33439 Hi, I delurked once before but I don't think I introduced myself. My name's Elise and I've been lurking for a few months now. Anyway, about Draco and his motivations, I agree that Lucius Malfoy is a nasty piece of work, but I'm not entirely convinced that Draco is really afraid of him (or rather, that he's afraid of upsetting him more than any other child is afraid of upsetting their parents). His character appears to be based more on the spoiled brat model than the frightened child. Many of the instances Barb cited to buttress her claim could be interpreted completely differently, for example: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "blpurdom" wrote: >"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 though you'd be ashamed that a girl of no wizard >family beat you in every exam," snapped Mr. Malfoy. >-------------------------------------------------------------------- > >I think it's clear here that Draco has some fear of his father or >he wouldn't be making excuses about his grades. Again, it's an >undercurrent. He isn't quaking in his boots; he's blustering, Draco could very well be making excuses out of pride, not fear. Even the wording seems to suggest it (Draco "retorts", which suggests anger and injured pride). Actually, even the fact that he's answering back at all, instead of mumbling some sort of apology or pretending not to hear his father, leads me to conclude that he is not acting out of fear here. >Back to CoS, when Ron and Harry are talking to him about the >attacks (disguised with Polyjuice Potion) Draco expresses the wish >that Hermione will be one of the victims. I believe this goes >deeper than his simply disliking her as a person or >disliking "Mudbloods" in general; if we hark back to his complaint >about her and his father's response, we see that life would clearly >be simpler for Draco without Hermione around as academic >competition. Which takes us back to his making excuses because he >fears his father. The statement could simply be due to Draco being a rotten little kid who hasn't really thought of the implications of what he says. >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >"I'm dying!" Malfoy yelled as the class panicked. "I'm dying, look >at me! It's killed me!" >-------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > he can avoid his father blaming him for this >(even though it WAS all his fault). In my experience, people who >tend to shift blame don't do it for no reason. No one at the >school, even Hagrid, would probably have done anything much to >Draco for the hippogriff incident (assuming he'd already been >punished enough by being wounded) so the only motivation he has for >shifting blame is if his father would come down on him otherwise. >It might not even be more drastic than denying Draco a new toy (it >doesn't have to be physical punishment), but any potential >punishment seems to be too much to Draco, based on this behavior. You assume his motivation here was shifting the blame. There are a lot of other probable motives: 1) the drama queen factor. Who doesn't love being the center of attention? 2) time off school -- doesn't draco take a couple of days off? and then doesn't he swagger in late to his first class? 3) the chance to use his injury to make people wait on him (remember the root-cutting scene in Snape's class?) 4) simple malice (not only does he create problems for a teacher he doesn't like or respect, but also for said teacher's little friends, who Draco also can't stand?) The rotten little kid explanation works just as easily (if not better) with all of the scenes mentioned in the post. Not picking a fight in front of a teacher is pure common sense, and merely shows that Draco doesn't NEED to be nasty to Harry, Ron & Hermione, he just enjoys it and is willing to postpone the pleasure if doing so spares him some inconvenience (like detention or a reprimand). Unfortunately, though I love fanon's Reformed!Draco as much as many other fanfiction readers, so far canon Draco seems to be an example of the "Your choices are what make you" theme (in a different, less obvious way than Tom Riddle). With a father as cold as Lucius is, Draco can't have had the best childhood, but it hasn't been that bad, either. Like Dudley, he's used to getting his own way. He has a lot of material advantages. He's the leader of his little set (again, by doing it the easy way --associating with dummies like Crabbe and Goyle). As the series progresses, his character becomes progressively worse. Why? He has chosen to take the easy way out, *not* questioning his upbringing, *not* thinking for himself, *not* accepting responsibility (because it's easier and more flattering to his self- image, not because he's afraid). Reducing the motivation for his nastiness to fear makes him (and his possible redemption later in the series) much less interesting. I would love to see Draco reform eventually, but not because he's rebelling against his miserable childhood, or his evil father, or because he's conquered his fears and let his "natural goodness" (or whatever) come out. That would be boring. I'd like to see it come about because Draco makes a hard choice for once, really think for himself and consciously decide to cultivate the good person he could potentially be. Anyway, that's my opinion. Elise From babelfisherperson at yahoo.com Tue Jan 15 02:17:14 2002 From: babelfisherperson at yahoo.com (babelfisherperson) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 02:17:14 -0000 Subject: About Slytherin House In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33440 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lucky_kari" wrote: > BTW, how do we know if the current prejudice against mudbloods is > all the way back or recent, or has occured in spurts. At one end, > we have Salazar Slytherin who reportedly objected against Hogwarts > taking students from non-magical backgrounds (is there anything in > the text to show whether his objections were based on any theory of > blood, or were they more security-like? i.e. They stick to their > world. We stick to ours, and the world goes a whole lot better, > Godric.) On the other end, we have a bunch of Slytherins who insult > others for not being pure-blood. Nearer to the latter than the > former we have Tom Riddle, who was definitely "mudblood", and was a > great success in Slytherin. I tend to think it was, at least initially, a security issue to Salazar. That was over a thousand years ago, in the midst of what we muggles know as the Dark Ages. Think about how muggles reacted to anything they percieved as "magic" in those days. It makes the Dursleys' treatment of Harry seem downright enlightened by comparison. So it's not difficult to see why Salazar would want to make sure no muggles whatsoever knew about Hogwarts. Also, if Salazar really were an evil-hearted bigot from the start, why wouldn't Godric, Rowena, and Helga have just founded the school without him? But apparently he eventually got to the point that he wanted to leave a monster behind that would kill all the "mudbloods". Or did he? We only have legends of unknown accuracy to show that it was really Salazar Slytherin who built the Chamber of Secrets & put the basilisk in it. While I certainly don't like Slytherin as it's seen now, I do try to resist the knee-jerk assumption that simply because Voldemort is pure evil, that his distant ancestor must have been too. Likewise, it's not fair to assume that Salazar was a bigot because the students in his house, a millenium after his death, are bigots. For all we know, his concerns about muggle-born students could've had more to do with having to tell their muggle parents about the wizarding world, at a time when anybody believed to be connected to magic was likely to be burned at the stake, than with not wanting wizards & witches of "impure blood" in his school. Red XIV From jenbea at snail-mail.net Tue Jan 15 02:24:41 2002 From: jenbea at snail-mail.net (jenbe_me) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 02:24:41 -0000 Subject: Ban on Magic for the Summer In-Reply-To: <2126954048.20020114230919@tut.by> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33441 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Alexander wrote: > Greetings, CRSunrise! > > Cac> Crystal wrote: > > Cac> Hiya folks > > Cac> Over the weekend, I was thinking about something. Why do you suppose they > Cac> banned the students from using their magic during the summer except under a > Cac> dire emergency? I agree with all ponderings previously stated, and wish to add one more; fear of injury to students and relatives! We saw what happened to Harry's aunt when he "blew her up!" That was quite a scandal and caused a lot of time and effort to cover up. There's quite a bit of damage that can be done if students are inefficiently using magic all around the country during the holidays. And no Madame Pomfrey to doctor their ailments when they hurt themselves and others. What if one of the students tried what Victor Krum tried in book 4, an incomplete form of human transfiguration, and then couldn't change back? A fine mess that would be. Without an on call doctor or nurse it's pretty dangerous. Especially when some of these "wizards-to-be" and "witches-to-be" are coming from all muggle households. The Dursleys delt with the matter of removing Dudley's curly pig tail, remember, by taking him to hospital. jenbea From margdean at erols.com Tue Jan 15 03:00:44 2002 From: margdean at erols.com (Margaret Dean) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 22:00:44 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco's Unlikely Redemption References: Message-ID: <3C439B5C.9DAC85BE@erols.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33442 lucky_kari wrote: > PS Amittedly, I perhaps have in mind Maglor in the Silmarillion, who > stands by when they throw his father, Eol, over a cliff. Admittedly, > Eol deserved it, but so would Lucius deserve Azkaban. That's Maeglin, and that's a very interesting parallel! Because the crime for which Eol certainly deserved death (throwing him over the cliff was a formal execution) was the attempted murder of Maeglin himself, which turned into the actual murder of Eol's wife/Maeglin's mother Aredhel, when she jumped in front of the spear. Yeah, I can almost see Lucius doing that if sufficiently motivated. Not quite as sure about Narcissa... --Margaret Dean, doubtful that JKR has read the Silmarillion From brewpub44 at earthlink.net Tue Jan 15 02:46:25 2002 From: brewpub44 at earthlink.net (brewpub44) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 02:46:25 -0000 Subject: Q: why readers love Snape (Was:Draco/ Snape parallels) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33443 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "rycar007" wrote: > > Is there an acronym for not being able to stand all this Draco- angst > stuff? He's a jerk, and the worst kind; I can't stand him, and don't > see him ever being "redeemed" or whatnot. Begging for mercy and > saying now, as he dies, he realizes his fault perhaps...but anyway. > > -Rycar, proud member of L.O.L.L.I.P.O.P.S. Well, I just look at it this way: what has Draco done that is really that horrible, I mean compared to what any rotten grade-school kid has done? He's called people names, been a classic "tattle-tale", tried to scare people, been ungraciously obnoxious, etc. But does he deserve death or nasty punishment? I don't think so. I think that's why there so much call for his redemption. Especially because he seems to follow in his father's footsteps. So many of us hate the Dursleys for their treatment of Harry, and want Harry to free himself from their miserable lives, so why can't we wish the same for Draco? His father has given Draco a different sort of child abuse: turning his kid into a prejudicial, rotten, spoiled brat. His father, there's a different story. He deserves whatever is coming to him. A Barkeep in Diagon Alley From mjollner at yahoo.com Mon Jan 14 23:49:44 2002 From: mjollner at yahoo.com (mjollner) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 23:49:44 -0000 Subject: The Female Students (and other female characters) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33444 Liana wrote: > This, for me, was one of the more interesting components to > the "Quidditch through the Ages" book (and to a lesser > degree, "Fantastic Beasts"). There are women leaders (one of whom > outlaws the killing and use of Golden Snidgets), women researchers, > women Quidditch players (according to the book, the only position women > do not usually play is that of Beater, meaning they play all other > positions - and could play a Beater with the appropriate skills), > women adventurers (if I'm right that Jocunda is a woman's name - > she made the first Atlantic broom crossing) and women inventors. I just finished reading these two books, and I too noticed the many women's names included. In fact, it annoyed me - it seemed too aggressively PC when compared to contemporary Muggle periods of history. In modernity, we presume equality of the sexes and enshrine it in law; but this is a very recent development in human history. It didn't seem right to me that witches would be playing Quidditch centuries ago when their Muggle counterparts had no opportunity for sport and would not until relatively recently. Either JKR is commenting on the enlightenment of wizard society with respect to gender issues compared to our own (which I doubt); or she realized she was slighting her female characters and was trying in some way to make up for it (perhaps...); or else since these "charity" books are slight and meant to be strictly humorous, and are in no way comparable in the literary sense to the long, detailed, intricately plotted HP series, she was not restrained by any internal sense of plot or character development or personal intentions for the series and felt free to make them as widely appealing/PC as possible. Liana: > For me, I'll wait until the series is finished before passing > judgement on the goofiness of most female characters. I do think > there'll be more developemnt, and opportunities of proving worth, > bravery, intelligence and character to come. Amen, sister! I'm in the "series is from Harry's viewpoint and must be limited thus" camp, and I'm sure we'll see more and *authentic* development in the remaining books! mjollner From brewpub44 at earthlink.net Tue Jan 15 03:07:37 2002 From: brewpub44 at earthlink.net (brewpub44) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 03:07:37 -0000 Subject: Magical Appearances (Was Re: Truly horrible, but not bad _ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33445 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pigwidgeon37" wrote: > judyserenity wrote > > Then, let's not forget his [Snape's] appearance: In a world where too large > front teeth can be shrunk to a reasonable size and bones re-grown > within 24 hours, it is simply suspicious that a man who is probably > able to brew every imaginable potion under the sun has to run around > with greasy hair, yellow teeth and sallow skin. If he really wanted > to alter his appearance, not turning himself into another Lockhart, > but simply eliminating the aforementioned flaws, he sure as hell > could do so. > > > Susanna/pigwidgeon37 I wonder about this statement, and wanted to start up a new thread. Perhaps not all appearance factors can be changed by any means, magical or non-magical. The most obvious canonical example is Harry's hair. Much ado is given about his messy hair, which even defied the Dursley's attempt to shave off. So, I ask, perhaps some wizardly appearance traits are not controllable by any means? Hermione's front teeth could be the result of Muggle genetics, so yes, they can be altered. Harry's hair is the result of his parents' magic, so it cannot be altered. Then what of the Weasley hair and the other appearance traits of the characters? A Barkeep in Diagon Alley From mjollner at yahoo.com Tue Jan 15 00:19:40 2002 From: mjollner at yahoo.com (mjollner) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 00:19:40 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33446 > > lilahp wrote: > > And for my money, I'd let Our Mentor and Hero Emeritus, > > Dumbledore, have it, too! I know all the reasons he left > > Harry there, and I know about the magic spells, the comic > > relief, and all that, but I still think it's unconscionable! > > > flower_fairy12 wrote: > Yes, I agree! For all the reasoning in the world, I do not think > that Harry should have been left in the care of the Dursleys. > They clearly hate him, and how they have got away with all the > abuse for the past 13 years is weird. JKR has said that Dumbledore is goodness personified; in which case the reason Harry was left there was that Dumbledore knew he would be safe and protected no matter what (with the added protection of his mother's love and sacrifice, undoubtedly instrumental in Harry being as well-adjusted as he is, though Harry himself is not aware of it), and wouldn't grow up full of himself. The Dursleys have fed and clothed and educated Harry, albeit more poorly than Dudley; and should get some credit for that however reprehensible their behavior otherwise. > > lilahp again: > > I think Harry should eventually be angry with Dumbledore, too! > > >Also, who gave Dumbledore the right to risk a child's life over and > > over again (if that is indeed what he is doing)? I know it serves > the story, but they are only kids. How would Ron's and Hermione's > parents > > feel, for example, if they knew the kinds of predicaments that > > Dumbledore perhaps "led" their children to? Their judgment is not > > that of an adult's. Remember, there is more to Harry than what we know or than what Harry himself knows, mainly the reason that Voldemort was trying to kill him in the first place. It is hinted that Dumbledore must know of a prophecy concerning these two, and decided to give Harry some practice in facing LV within the relative safety of Hogwart's (and where Dumbledore could protect him and help him) before Harry has to do it for real and for keeps. Arthur and Molly know what evil is, and trust Dumbledore implicitly. They'd not be likely to criticize him for Ron's "adventures." The Grangers know little about the wizarding world, except what they hear from their daughter. mjollner From midwife34 at aol.com Tue Jan 15 02:12:24 2002 From: midwife34 at aol.com (jrober4211) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 02:12:24 -0000 Subject: petrification and notifying parents Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33447 When the kids in CoS were petrified by the giant snake how long did they stay that way? I assume several weeks since they had to wait for the Mandrakes to mature to return the kids to their natural state. Also, it never says whether any parents were notified and since most of the kids petrified had muggle parents how would you feel knowing you paid tuition just for your child to be petrified by a monster and remain that way for months? I know the Weasley's were notified about Ginny being abducted, but it never mentions the rest of them. Here is how I would react if I were notified that my child was in a petrified state. I would demand a refund of my tuition paid. I would have no choice but to leave the child in the care of Nurse Pomphrey since there would be no cure in muggle medicine. I would seriously reconsider allowing my child to continue their education at Hogwarts. Depending on whatever waivers I had to sign before enrolling my child in Hogwarts, I might even consider a law suit. But no one ever sues Dumbledore or Hogwarts, god knows they certainly would have several cases against them by muggle legal standards. I know, I know....it's just a book and the wizarding world doesn't exist, but all this talk about realism vs. utopia and role models, come on people, it's the minor details that make that whole discussion a moot point at best. Jo Ellen From Rebecca.Allen at turner.com Tue Jan 15 03:23:16 2002 From: Rebecca.Allen at turner.com (Allen, Rebecca) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 22:23:16 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Magical Appearances (Was Re: Truly horrible, but not bad _ Message-ID: <759A085B4DB9AF47AD5BB22098C9172807530D@cnncex01.turner.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33448 brewpub44 wrote: > > I wonder about this statement, and wanted to start up a new thread. > > Perhaps not all appearance factors can be changed by any means, > magical or non-magical. The most obvious canonical example is Harry's > hair. Much ado is given about his messy hair, which even defied the > Dursley's attempt to shave off. So, I ask, perhaps some wizardly > appearance traits are not controllable by any means? > I thought in that episode that Harry's hair grew back due to his own half-intentional magical efforts because he didn't want people gaping at his scar all the time. In other words, he could go around bald if he really wanted to, but this would get him too much unwanted attention. It's a good question overall. Given that Hermione's teeth can be fixed simply and permanently with magic, but her hair takes three hours to straighten for one night (muggle methods would work as well as that potion she used), it does seem like some things are easier to fix than others. /Rebecca (who is hoping Snape could wash his hair if he were properly motivated) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From midwife34 at aol.com Tue Jan 15 02:32:59 2002 From: midwife34 at aol.com (jrober4211) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 02:32:59 -0000 Subject: more on stereotypes( WAs role models and gender typing) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33449 Also, no one has mentioned this lately, and since I am a newby, I want to preface what I say with -No, I have not read every listing regarding Madam Pomphrey. I just want to make this observation about her character. She is a nurse and IMHO is portrayed as hateful, impatient, and bossy. Now working as a nurse in an American hospital ( the role is a bit different from English nurses as I understand it from talking with them), we over here have to literally turn the other cheek with irate visitors and patients. I would never dream of talking to people the way Madam Pomphrey does and expect to keep my job. Plus, I don't see that she does very much. In this case, I think Madam Pomphrey is portrayed more like a stereotypical Nurse Ratchett, and there are no nurses, at least in America ( you might get by with it on a military base here), that could get away with behaving like she does. I can't remember her ever being described, per se, but the image that comes to mind is one of those white uniformed, stockings, and little white caps on their heads starched to the hilt, type nurse one saw in the old soap operas of the 1950's. Now what kind of role model is that for little girls and boys who want to be future nurses ? Jo Ellen From babelfisherperson at yahoo.com Tue Jan 15 03:31:59 2002 From: babelfisherperson at yahoo.com (babelfisherperson) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 03:31:59 -0000 Subject: petrification and notifying parents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33450 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jrober4211" wrote: > Depending on whatever waivers I had to sign before enrolling my > child in Hogwarts, I might even consider a law suit. But no one > ever sues Dumbledore or Hogwarts, god knows they certainly would > have several cases against them by muggle legal standards. I imagine it would be rather difficult to sue Hogwarts. The first obstacle would be convincing any judge in England that the place *exists*. Good luck on that front. Hopefully, all they would do would be to toss the case out, and not recommend that you be committed. Especially given that the suit would be about your son or daughter being turned to stone by a giant snake. :P From brewpub44 at earthlink.net Tue Jan 15 03:49:29 2002 From: brewpub44 at earthlink.net (brewpub44) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 03:49:29 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33451 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "mjollner" wrote: > It is hinted that Dumbledore must know of a > prophecy concerning these two [meaning HP & LV], and decided to give Harry some practice > in facing LV within the relative safety of Hogwart's (and where > Dumbledore could protect him and help him) before Harry has to do it > for real and for keeps. > > > mjollner I really don't agree with the word "prophecy" in your post. Dumbledore seems to be about everything *but* prophecy. He does not respect Trelawney's divination, and always talks about people making their own path. I would be more agreeable with your post if you said "special knowledge" than "prophecy". Special knowledge means that he has studied Lily's spell & LV's powers, and coupled with the wands being 'brothers', he knows that Harry is the only one who can be successful (or something along those lines). I just think prophecies are a cliche JKR is wisely avoiding. Otherwise, I think the rest of your post is pretty interesting. A Barkeep in Diagon Alley. From brewpub44 at earthlink.net Tue Jan 15 03:52:38 2002 From: brewpub44 at earthlink.net (brewpub44) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 03:52:38 -0000 Subject: Magical Appearances (Was Re: Truly horrible, but not bad _ In-Reply-To: <759A085B4DB9AF47AD5BB22098C9172807530D@cnncex01.turner.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33452 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Allen, Rebecca" wrote: >Given that Hermione's teeth can be fixed simply and permanently with >magic, but her hair takes three hours to straighten for one night > (muggle methods would work as well as that potion she used), it does >seem like some things are easier to fix than others. > > /Rebecca (who is hoping Snape could wash his hair if he were properly motivated) > Good point on Hermione's hair, I forgot about that! Perhaps that's a topic for the SHIPpers: what would happen if H & H had kids, what would their hair be like? ;-) A Barkeep in Diagon Alley From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Tue Jan 15 04:28:10 2002 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 04:28:10 -0000 Subject: Summer Whinge (filk) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33453 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "sirius_3lack" wrote: > > it is pronounced "win-jing" - but to whinge (winj) is to whine. > > whinge (hwinj, winj) > intr.v. Chiefly British whinged, whing?ing, whing?es > To complain or protest, especially in an annoying or persistent > manner. > > Sirius Summer Whinge (from CoS, Chap 1) (To the tune of Summer Wine) Hear the original at: http://www.foxlink.net/~bobnbren/1960s.html Dedicated to Sirius_3lack THE SCENE: 4 Privet Drive. HARRY laments his return to Little Whinging. HARRY I came back home with magic things from my first year The Dursleys greeted me with loathing and with fear They seized my wands and robes, on Hedwig they infringed They now inflict on me summer whinge HARRY & THE DURSLEYS Ohh-oh-oh summer whinge HARRY It's hocus pocus and my magic kitchen word My summer in Little Whinging is so absurd I labor at my chores, the sun my neck does singe And so it gives to me summer whinge HARRY & THE DURSLEYS Ohh-oh-oh summer whinge HARRY My owl was locked up and no letter came my way It seemed that Ron and Herm had nothing more to say The Dursley's dinner plans could only make me cringe And so I proceed with summer whinge It's squiggly wiggly and a hedgerow-burning spell My summer in Little Whinging becomes pure hell I'm starved throughout the day while Dudley's on a binge And so I give voice to summer whinge HARRY & THE DURSLEYS Ohh-oh-oh summer whinge HARRY Though it's my birthday I'm to stay within my room Vernon says just one sound, and I'll face certain doom Of kindness and concern he betrays not a twinge He's giving me some more summer whinge HARRY & THE DURSLEYS Ohh-oh-oh summer whinge HARRY It's jiggery-pokery and a flying frying pan A summer in Whinging is worse than Azkaban Why must relations spring from the lunatic fringe? DURSLEYS So we can give to you summer whinge DOBBY (from behind the bushes) Mmm-mm summer whinge .. - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From caralync at hotmail.com Tue Jan 15 04:33:40 2002 From: caralync at hotmail.com (Caralyn Campbell) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 22:33:40 -0600 Subject: utopian vs. realism and Snape stuff Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33454 Hello all. As a children's librarian, I am familiar, as I'm sure most of you are, with a variety of children's lit. The stories that seem to really have an impact on children's lives most are those that resonate something of reality of our world. And let's face it, that's not exactly utopia. But, on the other hand, I don't believe that JKR is writing exclusively for children...obviously. My interest in Snape is basically as the moral and ethical anchor for the entire body of JKR's work to date. And here's a "theory" for you all: what if there was no love aspect to the whole Lily & Snape thing at all? If they were friends, maybe she was the one who convinced Snape to renounce Voldemort & come back to "the good fight"; wouldn't that compel Snape much more to take Harry's protection and best interests to heart? Caralyn _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx From southernscotland at yahoo.com Tue Jan 15 04:27:07 2002 From: southernscotland at yahoo.com (southernscotland) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 04:27:07 -0000 Subject: Why the Malfoys Are This Way, Female Characters, and Sociology Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33455 I have a little theory (please be gentle and use candles instead of flames!) about why the Malfoys might not like muggles. They are afraid of them (us). Perhaps the ancestral Malfoys had a relative, or more than one, who might have been burned at the stake back in the bad old days (could have been here in the U.S.). And to get really non-politically correct, it might explain why some women in the Potterverse aren't maybe as assertive (yet) as women in the muggle world are. Seems to me that since females were often the ones persecuted and even put to death, that would be pretty fearsome (for the women who were left) to deal with. It might take them a few centuries to get over, in a culture. I promise I'm not trying to be sexist here (am a female myself). I'm sure the fear factor has been hashed out much better than I could have put it. Some of it seems to be alluded to in the books, but not a lot. I'd love to find the sociological studies in the Archives. I've been to the Lexicon. Another point I've wondered: why haven't the wizards in the Potterverse simply taken over the muggle world, as they easily could have? Just because they don't like our world and are afraid of it? Instead of retreating, they now could easily run everything in our muggle towns and cities, everywhere, with all their powers. I know they have laws to prevent it, but why? Why haven't they developed into the ruling peoples of the earth? (I have often thought the same things about Elves and Middle-Earth, but that's off-topic.) Anyway, maybe the Malfoys have some deep-seated fears, horrible stories about muggles persecuting and/or killing their wizard family, that they pass on from generation to generation. That would serve to keep their hate and fear of us mudbloods alive. It's kind of flattering, in a perverse sort of way, to think that the Malfoys, and others like them, might fear us more than all the wizard world's monsters and fabulous beasts. lilahp From liana_l_s at yahoo.com Tue Jan 15 04:26:55 2002 From: liana_l_s at yahoo.com (liana_l_s) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 04:26:55 -0000 Subject: The Female Students (and other female characters) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33456 That's interesting, I didn't even think about it that way! I don't think the ideas of enlightenment as concerns gender behaviors in the non-magical world really carry over to the magical world. It's true we've seen a lot of fairly traditional gender roles played out, and I'm not saying that's not there, but as far as I can tell they don't have the baggage attached to them that they do in the non- magical world. The main divide, the main conflict isn't based on gender, race, religion, or anything of that sort. The divide the magic-using community works with is the divide between magic people and non-magic people. Looking at the way wizards and witches tend to treat non-magic users, it's pretty nasty - not necessarily in a malicious way, but just in this condescending, dismissing way, even exploiting them when necessary. Magic-users and non-magical people are both human, but magic-users have retreated so far into their own world that some of them see other humans as "beasts." (And, of course, I imagine that were non-magic users more aware of witches and wizards, there would be a lot of talk like that on the other side!) So I imagine the issue of gender (or race, religion, etc.) in the magical world as not being so important, because the real value of a person is in his or her ability to do magic, and I think so far this is pretty consistent with the books. Then to go on and speculate, there might be levels of magical ability which determine, more than anything else, Where Someone Belongs. (O.W.L.S.? I haven't paid too much attention to them.) Skilled magicians handle dragons or work for banks. Extremely skilled magicians head schools or work in high places at the Ministry of Magic. Unskilled magicians drive the buses. But whether you're stocking shelves or teaching children, as long as you've got that base level of ability, you're in - and the question of gender, or any other traditionally dividing characteristic, is not so important. (Having connections to the other side, on the other hand, would be highly suspect. Connections by birth or upbringing are the most obvious ones, but I think Arthur Weasley's "fondness for muggles" fits. I know we've seen that attitude mostly from Slytherins, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was a little more widespread, though not in such an overt way.) So it's amusing to think of Rowling writing in one female name for every two male names, or at least being sorely tempted to! But I really don't think that's it, nor do I think that it's because wizards and witches are so darn sensitive and enlightened. Rather, they value their powers and form a group of solidarity against the non-magic users - which doesn't seem much more useful than shutting out women. Then again, not really knowing all that much about traditional wizarding society and notions of gender, race, religion, etc. makes this all speculation. So it could be just as likely as a Draco/Mme. Maxine pairing... (And, given that I'm a newbie to the list, it could have been talked to death already. Hope not!) Liana --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "mjollner" wrote: > I just finished reading these two books, and I too noticed the many > women's names included. In fact, it annoyed me - it seemed too > aggressively PC when compared to contemporary Muggle periods > of history. In modernity, we presume equality of the sexes and > enshrine it in law; but this is a very recent development in human > history. It didn't seem right to me that witches would be playing > Quidditch centuries ago when their Muggle counterparts had no > opportunity for sport and would not until relatively recently. > > Either JKR is commenting on the enlightenment of wizard society with > respect to gender issues compared to our own (which I doubt); or she > realized she was slighting her female characters and was trying in > some way to make up for it (perhaps...); or else since these "charity" > books are slight and meant to be strictly humorous, and are in no way > comparable in the literary sense to the long, detailed, intricately > plotted HP series, she was not restrained by any internal sense of > plot or character development or personal intentions for the series > and felt free to make them as widely appealing/PC as possible. > > mjollner From chenml at ruccs.rutgers.edu Tue Jan 15 04:02:44 2002 From: chenml at ruccs.rutgers.edu (marian_chen) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 04:02:44 -0000 Subject: Ban on Magic for the Summer In-Reply-To: <2126954048.20020114230919@tut.by> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33457 Crystal wrote, on why students can't use magic over the summer: >Why do you suppose they banned the students from using their magic L>> >during the summer except under a dire emergency? Is it because they >>haven't learned enough magic yet? Or maybe because it's considered an >adult thing, and shouldn't be used until they are adults? And doing >adult things meant you had to responsible for your actions. Or it >could be that most of the students lived in the Muggle world >during the summer, and they aren't supposed to let the Muggle world > know they exist. Alexander replied: > Being responsible for what one does - I haven't found any > example of magic being dangerous to the caster (unless your > wand is broken, of course :) - funny results are definitely > possible, but even one of the most complicated spells > (apparate) does not put the caster in danger of death of > physical damage. Thus, disagree on this one. Apparition without a license is not only illegal, doing it wrong can result in splinching, so it does put you in some danger of physical damage. I imagine the ban on underage magic is partly to protect the students, and partly to relieve the parents. At Hogwarts, the students already get into enough trouble through the incorrect use of magic (Eloise Midgen cursing her nose off, Ron belching slugs after his wand backfires, Hermione's teeth, etc.). With no Madam Pomfrey around to cure them or professors to unhex them, I imagine things would get hairy for their parents. Infinitely more so for those with Muggle parents, like Hermione. It could also be an issue of control. Harry creates enough problems by blowing up Aunt Marge *unintentionally*. Imagine what he could do if he had the freedom. Marian From david_p at istop.com Tue Jan 15 03:53:09 2002 From: david_p at istop.com (david_p2002ca) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 03:53:09 -0000 Subject: Harry in the care of Dursleys (was Re: Lily (was gender-spiked musings); ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33458 Rosie wrote: > Yes, I agree! For all the reasoning in the world, I do not think that > Harry should have been left in the care of the Dursleys. They clearly > hate him, and how they have got away with all the abuse for the past > 13 years is weird. I don't think they hate so much as fear him and what he could do. Plus, they have seen the result of magic: it killed Petunia's sister and her husband. So magic also cost the Dursleys any chance of ever reconciling with the Potters. Again, as with Snape, Harry is a lightning rod for unresolved emotions and suffers for it. Plus, as JKR alluded in one of the Scholastic chats, Dumbledore did not leave Harry without magical supervision. Remember the old lady who would sometimes care for Harry - Mrs Figg (PS/SS)? At the end of GoF Dumbledore tells Sirius to "...alert Remus Lupin, Arabella Figg, Mundungus Fletcher - the old crowd." So the doddering old neighbour may well turn out to be a powerful witch protecting Harry. Dumbledore isn't perfect, I'll admit. But hiding Harry amongst the muggles (with a magic bodyguard hidden nearby) does make sense, with DEs still on the prowl, torturing and killing. David P From david_p at istop.com Tue Jan 15 03:28:12 2002 From: david_p at istop.com (david_p2002ca) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 03:28:12 -0000 Subject: petrification and notifying parents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33459 Jo-ellen wrote: > When the kids in CoS were petrified by the giant snake how long did > they stay that way? (snip) > Here is how I would react if I were notified that my child was in a > petrified state... (snip again) Of course, depending on the children and what they'd been up to lately, maybe you'd ask Dumbledore to leave them that way for a while ;) David P. From margdean at erols.com Tue Jan 15 05:15:23 2002 From: margdean at erols.com (Margaret Dean) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 00:15:23 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why the Malfoys Are This Way, Female Characters, and Sociology References: Message-ID: <3C43BAEB.33FE77BD@erols.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33460 southernscotland wrote: > Perhaps the ancestral Malfoys had a relative, or more than one, who > might have been burned at the stake back in the bad old days (could > have been here in the U.S.). Well, actually, no it couldn't, not without rewriting history. AFAIK no one was ever burned at the stake in the U.S. The Salem "witches" were hanged. --Margaret Dean From mrgrrrargh at aol.com Tue Jan 15 04:44:10 2002 From: mrgrrrargh at aol.com (mrgrrrargh at aol.com) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 23:44:10 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why the Malfoys Are This Way, Female Characters, and Soci... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33461 lilahp: > Perhaps the ancestral Malfoys had a relative, or more than one, who > might have been burned at the stake back in the bad old That's a really good theory and I would have bought it but it goes against the text which states (POA, I believe -- maybe GOF) that witches would use spells to avoid burning. There was one witch who made it tickle and tried to get burned multiple times. :) -SpyGameFan (I'm only using a match -- not candle, not flame) From IAmLordCassandra at aol.com Tue Jan 15 04:44:31 2002 From: IAmLordCassandra at aol.com (IAmLordCassandra at aol.com) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 23:44:31 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why the Malfoys Are This Way, Female Characters, and Soci... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33462 In a message dated 1/14/2002 11:37:33 PM Eastern Standard Time, southernscotland at yahoo.com writes: > I have a little theory (please be gentle and use candles instead of > flames!) about why the Malfoys might not like muggles. They are > afraid of them (us). > > Perhaps the ancestral Malfoys had a relative, or more than one, who > might have been burned at the stake back in the bad old days (could > have been here in the U.S.). I have to disagree with this theory. I refer you to the story of Wendelin the Weird, who enjoyed being burned at the stake so much that she allowed herself to be caught no less than 47 times in various disguises ^-^ According to Harry's essay on pointless witch burnings, a wizard could do a simple Flame freezing charm and pretend to shriek while enjoying a pleasant tickling sensation. If any of the Malfoy's were burned at the stake, it wouldn't effect them. ~Cassie~ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From blenberry at altavista.com Tue Jan 15 04:49:55 2002 From: blenberry at altavista.com (blenberry) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 04:49:55 -0000 Subject: petrification and lawsuits In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33463 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "babelfisherperson" wrote: > > I imagine it would be rather difficult to sue Hogwarts. The first > obstacle would be convincing any judge in England that the place > *exists*. Good luck on that front. Hopefully, all they would do would > be to toss the case out, and not recommend that you be committed. > Especially given that the suit would be about your son or daughter > being turned to stone by a giant snake. :P Does this mean there is no legal recourse in the wizarding world? Surely there is some kind of judicial system, since we know they have laws. A related question, since the subject came up: I wondered as I read CoS... are mandrakes that rare that no mature ones could be acquired for months, from anywhere? I just wondered why Madame Pomfrey, Snape or Dumbledore didn't send for some from Diagon Alley, so that the stricken students didn't have to spend most of a term petrified. Barbara From mrgrrrargh at aol.com Tue Jan 15 04:55:40 2002 From: mrgrrrargh at aol.com (mrgrrrargh at aol.com) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 23:55:40 EST Subject: Magic Ban/Slytherin/tuition/Dursley Magic Phobia Message-ID: <5a.4efe588.2975104c@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33464 Okay... here we go: Crystal: > I think it could be a combination of all three, but I'd go with the fact > that they're not adults yet. No point in rushing to have too much > responsibilty. Let kids be kids. Well, since Petunia said that Lily did Magic at home... I'd assume that it was a recent-ish law. Wonder what event could have caused it... Alexander Lomski: > For example, I'm extremely interested in older Crouch > house... I would bet it was Slytherin. Probably Fudge's too, if you follow that logic. Jo Ellen: > I would demand a refund of my tuition paid. Does Hogwarts have a tuition? The Weasleys couldn't possibly pay. And imagine asking The Dursleys to cough up money for a magic school. David P: > So magic also cost the Dursleys any chance of ever > reconciling with the Potters. But in chapter 1 of PS/SS Vernon didn't like the Potters because of their magic. Before they were dead, so I don't think that that is the reason. -SpyGameFan (So many rules.. so little time) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From IAmLordCassandra at aol.com Tue Jan 15 04:58:51 2002 From: IAmLordCassandra at aol.com (IAmLordCassandra at aol.com) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 23:58:51 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: petrification and lawsuits Message-ID: <15e.71d44d6.2975110b@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33465 In a message dated 1/14/2002 11:56:45 PM Eastern Standard Time, blenberry at altavista.com writes: > Does this mean there is no legal recourse in the wizarding world? > Surely there is some kind of judicial system, since we know they have > laws. > Remember the pensieve chapter? I think the whole thing with Crouch sr and company was what wizards use as a judicial system. ~Cassie~ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From blenberry at altavista.com Tue Jan 15 05:02:35 2002 From: blenberry at altavista.com (blenberry) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 05:02:35 -0000 Subject: more on stereotypes( WAs role models and gender typing) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33466 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jrober4211" wrote: > regarding Madam Pomphrey. > I just want to make this observation about her character. She is a > nurse and IMHO is portrayed as hateful, impatient, and bossy. Hmmm, that's interesting. I always liked Madam Pomfrey. Whenever she seemed impatient or bossy, it was because she had her patients' welfare in mind... too many visitors, not enough quiet, bringing dangerous creatures like dementors and dragons to the school, etc. I don't really see her being *hateful* though. Barbara From jchutney at yahoo.com Tue Jan 15 05:38:00 2002 From: jchutney at yahoo.com (jchutney) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 05:38:00 -0000 Subject: Why the Malfoys Are This Way, Female Characters, and Sociology In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33467 Southernscotland wrote: ***I have a little theory (please be gentle and use candles instead of flames!) about why the Malfoys might not like muggles. They are afraid of them (us).*** I totally agree with this theory. Even though we're told fire did not work on real witches, it's still possible to "attack" a wizard or witch if they're sleeping, etc. Also, anyone with magical ability would be met by great fear and predjudice. Wizards like the Malfoys hatred of muggles is clearly a reaction to the hatred muggles have of wizards. Obviously prejudice is a two-way street. The Dursleys and the Malfoys are both prejudiced. And as powerful as Lucius might be, ANYONE can be taken down if you have the right plan of attack. ***And to get really non-politically correct, it might explain why some women in the Potterverse aren't maybe as assertive (yet) as women in the muggle world are. Seems to me that since females were often the ones persecuted and even put to death, that would be pretty fearsome (for the women who were left) to deal with. It might take them a few centuries to get over, in a culture. *** But are women in the muggle world really different from women in the wizard world? Sure America and Europe are "feminist" but in most parts of the world, women are second-class citizens. And honestly, even though I love America, I can not deny that there is definite prejudice against women. The only fields in which women make more money than money are prostitution and modeling. Most of the top executives, politicians, sports stars are men. And an incredibly high percentage of "successful" women graduated from all-female high schools and colleges. Sadly, many otherwise bright girls go the way of Lavendar and Parvati (boy-crazy and silly) than the way of Hermione in a co-ed environment. What do we know about Pansy except that she shadows Draco? And yet, isn't she "realistic" according to our own life experiences? ***Another point I've wondered: why haven't the wizards in the Potterverse simply taken over the muggle world, as they easily could have? Just because they don't like our world and are afraid of it? *** Look at the disunity in the wizarding world. There is too much in- fighting for that to work. Besides, if they did they would be a visible but tiny minority ? quite vulnerable to the muggle majority. If you've got 10,000 muggles to 1 wizard, eventually the muggles will figure a way to win out. Besides, muggles can be quite brilliant and inventive. From saraqael2000 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 15 05:55:18 2002 From: saraqael2000 at yahoo.com (saraqael2000) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 05:55:18 -0000 Subject: The Vulture Hat- Disgusting SHIP of the Millennium- McGonagall the Born Deputy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33468 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pigwidgeon37" wrote: > Cindysphinx wrote: So I have to > agree with whoever wrote this: It's a bit strange that Dumbledore > makes Snape pull the cracker with the vulture hat- he of all persons > should know that this is not the right way to make Snape discover > self-irony. Actually, that's always been close to my take on this scene. I'm sure that the entire faculty, including Snape, heard about the story within hours of the DADA class. I can easily imagine McGonnagall telling Snape about it, even if no one else on the faculty was brave enough. Dumbledore frequently diffuses a tense moment with humor. When I read that scene with the party cracker, I assumed that Dumbledore was trying to make the subtle point to Snape that he considered the matter to be little more than a harmless joke. Also, I think that Dumbedore was hoping that the students would all have one last laugh about the matter and then drop it. For the students, much of the fun in spreading the story would have been imagining how steamed Snape would get if he heard about it. Well, now the joke is over. In a very subtle way, Dumbledore even ends up drawing attention away from Snape because he puts the hat on himself. From lav at tut.by Tue Jan 15 05:16:17 2002 From: lav at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 07:16:17 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: About Slytherin House In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1782142465.20020115071617@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 33469 Greetings! > I wrote some day long ago: > Ah, and a question springs up to my mind. What if we have > a magic-wielding, ambitious, treachery, evil-inspired, > cowardly, etc etc, *muggle-born*? Would he be sorted into > Slytherin despite Salazar's ideas? And if not, what house > would he hit then? > David P. wrote in response: > Well, He Who Must Not Be Named was a halfbreed Slytherin, so I guess > Salazar was nothing if not flexible... Voldie was also a Slytherin heir, don't forget about that, too. He was not mudblood - only half-blood. For him, rules could easily be bent (if there were any - read below). But what I'm trying to say is that it doesn't prove anything - and we are still free to assume that no mudbloods are sorted into Slytherin (or the other way around). Even more, there are still no examples of a Slytherin mudblood - I think a boy/girl of this ancestry would be oppressed enough in current Slytherin atmosphere, and it would be definitely worth noting somewhere during 4 years... > Red XIV has put his 10 cents, too: > I tend to think it was, at least initially, a security > issue to Salazar. (...) Also, if Salazar really were an > evil-hearted bigot from the start, why wouldn't Godric, > Rowena, and Helga have just founded the school without > him? How many answers do you want? They could invite him even though they didn't like him and his views, for the sake of completeness. Or because they wanted to keep an eye on him. Or because he wasn't such jerk _at the start_. Also, remember that there were medieval times then, and children were _not_ returning home for summer holidays. They were given away to the school that was damn long away - what security issues are you talking about? Muggle-parents could be easily left uninformed about their children "satanic" meddlings... :) Another reason is that if it was security issue, Salazar would definitely bring it into debate on whether mudbloods should be accepted - he was debating against "goodies", and it would be a much stronger argument than mudbloods general inability/stupidity/anything-else. Still the legends tell us nothing about that (and they are not the legends, as magic society seems to have much more accurate recordings of that time). > But apparently he eventually got to the point that he wanted to leave > a monster behind that would kill all the "mudbloods". Or did he? We > only have legends of unknown accuracy to show that it was really > Salazar Slytherin who built the Chamber of Secrets & put the basilisk > in it. And only a parseltongue can tame basilisk, and we know Salazar being parseltongue for sure. And the monster is hiding in Salazar's statue. I would say that if not Salazar, then at least one of his heirs (this is even more probable, as building his own statue is more like in Lockhart's style, but not Salazar, Voldemort or anybody else I know from Slytherin). > While I certainly don't like Slytherin as it's seen now, I do try to > resist the knee-jerk assumption that simply because Voldemort is pure > evil, that his distant ancestor must have been too. Likewise, it's > not fair to assume that Salazar was a bigot because the students in > his house, a millenium after his death, are bigots. (...) Why do you think Voldemort is pure evil? I would love to see him change his views by the end of 7th book, and there are definitely ways to do so (they always are). We can judge Salazar quite effectively by the students of his House. Don't forget that the Sorting Hat only sorts those to Slytherin who deserve that from the point of view of Salazar - it was he among the other three who put some of his thinking and personality into the Hat. That's all cool and good, of course, but there's still ambiguity. Can a mudblood be sorted into Slytherin is still unknown. Sincerely yours Alexander Lomski From Lesaja at gmx.de Tue Jan 15 08:10:39 2002 From: Lesaja at gmx.de (Lesaja at gmx.de) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 09:10:39 +0100 (MET) Subject: Magical Appearances / Hair Message-ID: <13749.1011082239@www13.gmx.net> No: HPFGUIDX 33470 > brewpub44 wrote: > > > > Perhaps not all appearance factors can be changed by any means, > > magical or non-magical. > > > > So, I ask, perhaps some wizardly > > appearance traits are not controllable by any means? Allen, Rebecca answered: > I thought in that episode that Harry's hair grew back due to his own half-intentional > magical efforts because he didn't want people gaping at his scar all the time. In other > words, he could go around bald if he really wanted to, but this would get him too much > unwanted attention. I agree that Harry's hair grew back because he wanted to, but the _look_ of his hair is not controlled by him - there are some occasions when he wants to cover his scar with his hair and is not complete successfully, as I remember. Allen, Rebecca again: > It's a good question overall. Given that Hermione's teeth can be fixed simply and > permanently with magic, but her hair takes three hours to straighten for one night > (muggle methods would work as well as that potion she used), it does seem like some > things are easier to fix than others. It a bit funny that it seems that the look of someone's hair cannot be altered so easily as someones teeth. (BTW, hair is thought to contain somehow some magic, like cutting of would take the powers of a person - don't know if this has something to with that.) When Hagrid tried to alter his hair it looked not very well, so it seems that you have to make a big effort if you want to recieve a satisfying result as Hermione. > /Rebecca (who is hoping Snape could wash his hair if he were properly motivated) This is the right moment for me to post a thought that came to me a long time ago and that I don't take really serious myself: If you would deadly wish to alter the look of your hair but would not want to spend several hours every day to do so, perhaps the only solution could be to grease it... *g* can anybody else see Snape _wash his hair every night_ before he goes to bed to get rid of the grease, and then his hair while drying becomes ... curly or bushy or something like that? LesAJa -- GMX - Die Kommunikationsplattform im Internet. http://www.gmx.net From sirius_3lack at yahoo.co.uk Tue Jan 15 09:35:20 2002 From: sirius_3lack at yahoo.co.uk (sirius_3lack) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 09:35:20 -0000 Subject: Utopian vision vs realism in fiction In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33471 "jrober4211" wrote: I doubt seriously that JKR > conciously decided while writing the Potter stories " Gee, I think > I'll write a series in which traditional gender roles are portrayed." > > Jo Ellen I disagree. Of course the text isn't just what the author intended (it also reflects her cultural background, assumptions, and biases - known or unknown) However I think there must have been a concious choice involved in making the hero (Harry), the side kick (Ron), The most senior "good" figure (Dumbledore), the most senior "evil" figure (You-know-who) and the higest ranked wizard (Fudge) all male characters. But this could be for a number of reasons: 1. This is the way JKR believes young readers view the world (possible) 2. This is the way JKR wishes the world to be (unlikely) 3. This is the simplest and least contentious option - the line of least resistance and most readers (most likely) The idea that JKR is unaware of the gender role issue within the text, or to suggest they were decided on unconciously can I think be proved false by looking at a specific gender issues raised by JKR in the texts. For example, the point is made that no girls are chosen to play Quidditch for Syltherin. Within the books the attitudes of the Slytherins are often depicted as being unacceptable or "wrong" - conservative, old fashioned even discriminatory (eg the pure blood/mud blood debate). The association is that not giving girls an equal presence on the team is equally "wrong". There are however countless posts on this board (particulary from the excellent judyserenity) about the lack of positive / strong female characters. I think there seems to be some agreement that whether intended or not - conciously or unconciously there is a gender imbalance in the potterverse. Perhaps this will be corrected with the revelations regarding Lily over the next 3 books - perhaps not. Perhaps we are expecting too much complexity/moral direction from what is essentially a story simple enough to be enjoyed by readers of all ages. Imagine if groups such as this had been around when Blyton was publishing childrens fiction. Now there is a gender imbalance. Sirius From lav at tut.by Tue Jan 15 09:33:02 2002 From: lav at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 11:33:02 +0200 Subject: Muggle vs Wizard - Any Chance? Message-ID: <9217549071.20020115113302@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 33472 Greetings! I want to start a discussion about wizard's strengths and weaknesses. While reading HP books, a thought doesn't leave my head - just how vulnerable a wizard is to a trained muggle? I mean with all that spellpower, ability to fly, levitate things, kill creatures with a few words spells can be easily _dodged_. There are countless examples of pupils dodging the spells. Neville on the 4th year is missing his pillow with his banishing charm. Harry dodges his own spell that rebounds from Skrewt's armour. Harry dodges _lots_ of spells while running from Death Eaters in GoF... I come to the conclusion that in magic, aim and dodge are at least as important as magic power is, and probably even more. What use will you have of Avada Kedavra if your opponent is too fast for you to hit? And then a question of muggle vs. wizard arises. If we have a trained muggle who is not panicked by wizard's presence and knows about wizard's powers, I would say the muggle has good chances to survive, if not to win (all wizard's protection against physical damage cannot help when he's got a knife inserted into his chest). Just what speed a spell has? How fast does it travel? Thrown knife? Crossbow bolt? Rifle bullet? The last is highly unlikely - Avada Kedavra is much slower, because pupils at DADA lesson notice not a green flash of light, but something green moving fast in the direction of the spider. All this means that wizards at Hogwarts _should_ have some kind of physical training (to increase accuracy, agility and reaction), and this training will be similar to that of modern policeman training. Another question is the usefullness of physical protection against magic. Spells tend to rebound from thick armour of some beasts (Skrewt), yet they are not rebounded from dragon's scales (instead, spells dissipate, reduce their power, but not rebound). Spells rebound from walls - but destroy the marble angel at the graveyard (GoF34). There is probably some system (this is a big assumption, I know, but...). And this in turn means that it is theoretically possible to devise some kind of physical protection, if only from the weaker spells (like Stunners). Everything above is only my IMHO, of course. Any comments? Ideas? Flammables? Waiting for them with my new Skrewt-hide shield... ;) Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, (Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed), always loving to throw weird ideas into community... P.S. To keep house-elves informed: this is my 6th post here. From judyshapiro at earthlink.net Tue Jan 15 09:40:54 2002 From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 09:40:54 -0000 Subject: About Slytherin House and Muggle-borns In-Reply-To: <1782142465.20020115071617@tut.by> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33473 I *think* it was Alexander Lomski who said: > > Ah, and a question springs up to my mind. What if we have > > a magic-wielding, ambitious, treachery, evil-inspired, > > cowardly, etc etc, *muggle-born*? Would he be sorted into > > Slytherin despite Salazar's ideas? And if not, what house > > would he hit then? There have been a number of interesting replies -- too many for me to quote here. My opinion is that Muggle-born students can *not* be sorted into Slytherin House. They would have to go to the house that was the "next best fit." The Sorting Hat reflects the preferences of the four founding wizards, and Slytherin seemed quite adamant that he didn't want Muggle-borns at Hogwarts *at all*, let alone in his own house. I think the story that Slytherin left Hogwarts because he objected to having muggle-borns there is supposed to be a true part of Hogwart's history. Binns says it happened that way, Tom Riddle says it happened that way, and Dumbledore doesn't contradict the story. Well, that raises the obvious question of why half-blood Tom Riddle was in Slytherin House. One possibility is that half-bloods are generally allowed in Slytherin House. Slytherin's objections to muggle-borns may have been related to his fears of exposing the wizarding world to unknown muggle families whose responses could not be predicted. This would not be an issue with children from mixed wizard-muggle families. Also, there may just not be enough ambitious pure-bloods to fill up Slytherin House. It's also possible that Tom Riddle was a special case. He wasn't just any old half-blood; he was Slytherin's own descendent. Also, he was a parselmouth. And boy, was he ambitious! So, perhaps he was an exception. By the way, I can't resist putting in a comment about my favorite character, Snape. People have speculated on his parentage. I'm convinced he could not be muggle-born, because I'm convinced there are no muggle-borns in Slytherin. And how can I be sure Snape was in Slytherin? (Other than that he's head of Slytherin House, of course.) Well, Sirius describes Snape as having been "part of a gang of Slytherins" as a student. If the gang were all Slytherins, and Snape was a part of it, then Snape was a Slytherin. From judyshapiro at earthlink.net Tue Jan 15 09:56:13 2002 From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 09:56:13 -0000 Subject: Magical Appearances / Hair In-Reply-To: <13749.1011082239@www13.gmx.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33474 Well, the "quote trail" in to complex for me to follow here, so I won't quote anyone. The question is, "If Hermione got her teeth permanently fixed, why can't wizards just fix any part of their appearance that they don't like? Why aren't they all gorgeous?" We've often seen magic in the story that is really too powerful and probably should have been left out. For example, there are all sorts of places in the story where characters could solve their problems by using Accio or a Portkey, but don't. I think Hermione having her teeth fixed is another example of this "overly powerful magic" problem. One could try to plug this plothole, perhaps by saying that only a few specially trained medical wizards (like Madame Pomfrey) are capable of doing permament body alteration, and that they charge too much or that people are too embarassed to use their services (like plastic surgery in the real world), but it's a stretch. Alternatively, perhaps they like looking less than perfect. Students who would like to alter their appearance can be explained by saying that they haven't learned the neccessary magic yet. -- Judy From judyshapiro at earthlink.net Tue Jan 15 10:04:13 2002 From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 10:04:13 -0000 Subject: Is Draco afraid of Lucius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33475 "ms_superhero" (Elise) wrote: > Anyway, about Draco and his motivations, I agree that Lucius Malfoy > is a nasty piece of work, but I'm not entirely convinced that Draco > is really afraid of him (or rather, that he's afraid of upsetting > him more than any other child is afraid of upsetting their > parents). His character appears to be based more on the spoiled > brat model than the frightened child.... Great post, Elise! I agree completely with what you said. I want to add that when we first meet Draco (in Madam Malkin's Robe Shop) he says something like "I'm going to bully my father into buying me a racing broom." Now, we don't know for a fact that he has to "bully" Lucius to get a broom, but he does in fact get the broom out of his father; in fact, he gets 7 of the best brooms on the market, and with them a place on the Slytherin Quidditch team. This definitely sounds like Draco is spoiled, not scared. If Draco was supposed to be scared of Lucius, I don't think JKR would have started off with Draco saying he planned to bully Lucius, in his very first scene. -- Judy From barry at penrallt.clara.co.uk Tue Jan 15 11:44:56 2002 From: barry at penrallt.clara.co.uk (Barry Hill) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 11:44:56 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Muggle vs Wizard - Any Chance? In-Reply-To: <9217549071.20020115113302@tut.by> References: <9217549071.20020115113302@tut.by> Message-ID: <182585201695.20020115114456@penrallt.clara.co.uk> No: HPFGUIDX 33476 Hi, Tuesday, January 15, 2002, 9:33:02 AM, Alexander wrote: A> all wizard's protection against physical damage cannot help when A> he's got a knife inserted into his chest). Maybe that's not even a limit for the more powerful wizard ... LV/TR survived (in a manner of speaking) without his body (although he had Quirrel's). Regards, Timerider From Edblanning at aol.com Tue Jan 15 11:55:33 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 06:55:33 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Wizarding culture ( was Classical knowledge/ cultural ) Message-ID: <8b.122e8e29.297572b5@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33477 I Eloise > > << recreational > pusuits taking place at Hogwarts. I see it as part of this. There seems to > be a whole cultural dimension missing or at least not mentioned in the > curriculum: literature, music, art, language, (other) sports, dance . The > one thing they do have is History. I suppose we could see a parallel with > kids > going off to a specialist music or stage school, but in the muggle world, > there is generally an attempt to keep up a general education alongside the > specialist one. I just can't see very rounded characters coming out if all > they ever learn is magic.>>> > Ev vy replies > If we assume a complete separation of the two worlds (and I think that it's > indeed so and it's taken place long ago), then these cultural pursuits may > be considered as Muggle and not worth learning. E.g. literature. Let's take > literature in the Middle ages: adventures of knights fighting against > mythical beasts ('Beowulf'), romances, quest stories, lives of saints (I > know it's not all, but at 2.30 a.m. I can't think of more examples). If the > separation of the worlds goes back in time as far as middle ages (or > further), I do see wizards completely ignoring literature, or most of it as > not entirely applicable in their world (Merlin is legendary in our world, > but in the wizarding world he's a part of history, and what about Circe? > She's not Medieval, but the reasons apply to her, IMHO). And contemporary > wizards would ignore those writings for the same reason. We don't know if > anything like a notion of being a saint exists in the wizarding world. I, > as a Muggle, had to read excerpts from lives of saints, but it was abstract > for me (not that I didn't enjoy reading them). I love 'Beowulf', but how > many people in Poland know it (I'm Polish, BTW)? Not many, as it's a part > of British culture. So all these writings may have for wizards the same > value as for Muggles (even in Britain, how many people read 'Beowulf' or > lives of saints and remember exactly what it was about; I don't remember a > single thing from the lives of saints; I can't refer to 'Beowulf' in the > same manner as I still remember it quite well), or even less. Muggles would > read and forget, wizards wouldn't read at all, why bother? And maybe those > talents that Muggles have for literature, music (wizards can dance - Yule > ball) were somehow substituted with the talent for magic. Just a thought, > not re-considered. > > Bit late replying as I've been trying to get on with some work. I take a lot of your points, but I feel as if I'm being branded as a bit of a cultural fascist. As we have both said, characters like eg Merlin are mythical to us and real to wizards and I agree, they may have their own texts about these and so disregard ours ( except perhaps in Muggle Studies). I am very surprised though if they don't have literature. I am not expecting them to sit around reading Jane Austen, or whatever, but 1) they seem to be very literate. Books figure prominently. 2) we know they read for pleasure ( Witch Weekly, for example) 3) from the little we know of the contents of both the Daily Prophet and Witch Weekly, there are certainly witches/ wizards with enough imagination to write fiction! therefore I would expect them to have developed their own literary tradition. I don't know enough anthropology, but can anyone give me an example of a literate society which does not have literature? Regarding music Yes, we have some examples,of music, on the Wizarding Wireless Service (?) and the Weird Sisters, but I recall no incident of a student playing music (Fluffy incident excepted). Even if all their tuition happens at home, you would expect musically inclined students to bring their instruments with them. And , incidentally, western muggle music (both serious and popular) does seem to cross cultural barriers: think of Japan, Korea, China. And what about art? All those pictures. We have one incident of a student who is artistically inclined designing banners (sorry, not sure where this is). The bottom line for me is that the arts are a vehicle for self expression, a route to greater self-awareness, an outlet for the emotions etc etc. I find it difficult, from my mugglecentric view of the universe to imagine that the wizarding world (which seems to act emotionally on the same plane as the muggle one) doesn't have the same need for similar artistic outlets. Given that we do know that music, art and sport do exist in the Wizarding world, I can't imagine why they don't (apparently) have more emphasis, even if extra-curricular, at Hogwarts: all those young people ( and hormones) wandering around. Isn't it *essential* in a boarding school to make sure that students have adequate outlets for their energies and emotions? Whenever Snape or McGonagall catch our heroes wandering around, the response seems to be 'you should be outside' or 'go to the tower'. To do what, precisely? It's like they're primary school kids who can just be 'sent out to play'. No wonder there was so much excitement at the setting up of the duelling club. Eloise 'You shouldn't be inside on a day like this,' he said, with an odd, twisted smile. 'We were just on our way to choir practice, Professor.' ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From pennylin at swbell.net Tue Jan 15 13:11:33 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny & Bryce) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 07:11:33 -0600 Subject: Utopian vision vs realism in fiction References: Message-ID: <3C442A85.30200@swbell.net> No: HPFGUIDX 33478 Hi -- > "jrober4211" wrote: > > I doubt seriously that JKR > > conciously decided while writing the Potter stories " Gee, I think > > I'll write a series in which traditional gender roles are > portrayed." Sirius responded: > > I disagree. > > Of course the text isn't just what the author intended (it also > reflects her cultural background, assumptions, and biases - known or > unknown) > > However I think there must have been a concious choice involved in > making the hero (Harry), the side kick (Ron), The most senior "good" > figure (Dumbledore), the most senior "evil" figure (You-know-who) and > the higest ranked wizard (Fudge) all male characters. > > But this could be for a number of reasons: > > 1. This is the way JKR believes young readers view the world > (possible) > 2. This is the way JKR wishes the world to be (unlikely) > 3. This is the simplest and least contentious option - the line of > least resistance and most readers (most likely) JKR wasn't writing with a target audience in mind, so I doubt that it's (1). Given what we know of her social & political beliefs, I think it's unlikely to be (2) either. As for (3), I'm not sure, but are you suggesting that JKR wrote this entire series with marketing considerations in mind? That's *very* unlikely in mind. She didn't even know whether it would be published, let alone whether having male characters in some of the major roles would result in greater overall readership. I think that view attributes a great deal more foresight & planning (not to mention commercial savvy & ambitions) to JKR than is likely to be the case. I write non-fiction as a general rule, but in writing a bit of fanfiction, I found that characters often do just come into your head with their basic characteristics in place (gender, ethnicity, etc.). I can certainly believe JKR when she says that Harry just strolled into her head, and that it would have been difficult for her to change him into Harriet. I don't think it's at all unreasonable that JKR just wrote the characters as they came to her. While this does probably reflect unconscious cultural biases & experiences to an extent, I don't think, from what I've heard of JKR, that she believes the world should operate along "traditional" gender role lines or that she should attempt to promote that social order in her books. It just doesn't square with what we know about her. IMO. Hoping to have more time later to comment on some of the issues on this subject that Tabouli, Luke & others were discussing yesterday -- Penny From aiz24 at hotmail.com Tue Jan 15 13:45:56 2002 From: aiz24 at hotmail.com (Amy Z) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 08:45:56 -0500 Subject: Ginny Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33479 Cindy tried to get on my good side by writing: > (who will offer up Ginny if it will spare the lives of Sirius > or Lupin) but I can't agree with: >Part of the trouble with Ginny is that she doesn't seem to have a very close relationship with Ron. Oh, sure, he gives a "strangled cheer" when he learns she is not dead, but that's about it. >Perhaps if he acted like he cared about his kid sister, then maybe I could, too. I don't feel as if Ron needs to be close with Ginny for me to know and like her, and I'm rather surprised to hear that Penny, founder of Percy Lovers Unite!, does . But in any case, I always find the scene where Ron first hears Ginny has been taken into the chamber very moving. "Who is it?" said Madam Hooch, who had sunk, weak-kneed into a chair. "Which student?" "Ginny Weasley," said Professor McGonagall. Harry felt Ron slide silently down onto the wardrobe floor beside him. (16) Then, later: "What about my sister?" said Ron jerkily [to Lockhart] (16) and "Ron!" Harry yelled, speeding up. "Ginny's OK! I've got her!" He heard Ron give a strangled cheer and they turned the next bend to see his eager face staring through the sizeable gap he had managed to make in the rock fall. "*Ginny!*" Ron thrust an arm through the gap in the rock to pull her through first. "You're alive! I don't believe it! What happened?" He tried to hug her but Ginny held him off, sobbing. "But you're okay, Ginny," said Ron, beaming at her . . . . (17) The everyday interactions between them leave so many holes that we can only fill them in with our (fortunately hyperactive) imaginations, but some suggest they really get on each other's nerves ("Go away, Ginny"/"Oh, that's nice," PA 5) while others make it clear they band together in tough moments (above passages in CS, Ginny returning to the compartment when the lights go out in PA 5, The Unexpected Task in GF 22). Then there are just the neutral, these-people-share-a-family bits like their joint explanation of F&G's doings in GF 5. I like the way JKR creates a realistic, if not fleshed-out, sister/brother relationship with just a few touches of the pen. The same is true about Ginny individually; the pickings are slim, but they are varied enough to establish a picture of someone who is clearly more than a whiny little girl with a crush. I'll add to Catherine's detailed post a reminder that Ginny is not shy (CS 3--though I don't know why readers despise her for being shy), and that she has a sharp tongue when she wants to (GF 22). And, of course, she loves cats. Some L.O.O.N. should compile a list of every single Ginny moment, but it ain't gonna be me. Penny wrote: >Her development, book by book, is consistently that of a younger child than >just one year younger than Ron. and >I still think too that if you contrast how Ginny is depicted in each book >with how Ron is depicted in the previous book, there are some glaring >differences. She is, IMHO, depicted much, much younger than just one year >off from Ron. Examples? After her first scene in PS/SS, which always makes me think JKR had pictured her as 7 at the time of that writing, she seems right on target to me. She's pretty much absent from PA, so it's hard to judge 12-year-old Ginny. But 13-year-old Ginny seems just as mature as 13-year-old Ron--insofar as it's possible to compare them considering how much more JKR develops Ron's character. Eric wrote: >Ginny Weasley's behavior toward Harry in the first two books is admittedly >immature for a girl of about 10 I'm still not seeing this in book 2. Everything she does is perfectly consistent with an 11-year-old girl with a crush. Even putting one's elbow in the butter dish, while being a bit farcical, doesn't say anything condemnatory of one's character. Is it JKR's description of her as "small" that makes everyone think she's so immature? As for the literary convention of pairing the hero with the first girl he sees, however: Meg wrote: >Just a thought, but who says that Ginny is neccessarily the first girl in >the WW that Harry sees. No doubt he sees lots of girls in Diagon Alley. But the first one he has a real encounter with, the first one into whose wide eyes he gazes, so to speak, is Hedwig. Simon, are you out there? Amy Z --------------------------------------------- Professor Trelawney kept predicting Harry's death, which he found extremely annoying. -HP and the Goblet of Fire --------------------------------------------- _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com From aiz24 at hotmail.com Tue Jan 15 13:59:46 2002 From: aiz24 at hotmail.com (Amy Z) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 08:59:46 -0500 Subject: Omnioculars - spells - Lily - gender - virginity- S.P.E.W. - Appearance Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33480 Can you tell I'm catching up? blenberry wrote: >Having just learned the exchange rate for galleons, it struck me that the >Omnioculars at the World Cup, at ten galleons each, were the equivalent of >$70... pricey! (but supposedly a "bargain"). And Harry forks over three >times that much. I must say, I'm shocked... I would've thought Omnioculars >would be in the $15-25 range. He says that Ron shouldn't expect a Christmas present for about ten years. I know he's trying to alleviate Ron's discomfort, and that their typical gifts for each other are pretty inexpensive (candy, Dungbombs, the Chudley Cannons hat), but it seems as if Omnioculars are a fairly lavish gift. Ben wrote: >I was wondering where spells come >from. Is there something intrinsic about the word "Accio" embedded into >the >magical fabric of the universe that causes things to be brought to the >speaker (imagine the poor prehistoric wizard who discovers this as he >sneezes, his wand inadvertently pointing at a woolly mammoth). Or perhaps, >are the spells created somehow (wizard R&D) and magically assigned a magic >word upon their creation. Or something else entirely? Any ideas? Ooh, I wonder! Care to spin out these theories some more for us? I love nature of magic stuff... Jewish mysticism puts a heavy emphasis on the power of words in themselves (letters, also). The word is more than just a summary of what you're trying to do; it has a unique power. Susanna wrote: >Anyway, I've always had the feeling (and it's no more than just some >gut-feeling) that Lily was >*not* a nice person, at least not in her school days and maybe not even >afterwards. Being >capable of dying for your own child doesn't automatically make you a nice >person. Very good point. The only testimony we have about Lily's character besides Petunia's is Hagrid's, who says she and James were superlatively nice. What you think about Hagrid's judgment of such things is up to you . . . Pippin made me ROTFL with this: >hello, Mary Sue, goodbye art. I hear a filk striving to be born! Re: gender balance, female characters, etc., I've waxed eloquent on this before so y'all can search the archives if you're dying to know my opinion; I'll spare those who have already read it a repeat. I would suggest a simple test, however. Close your eyes and imagine that all of the male characters are female and all of the female characters are male. Dumbledore, Snape, Neville, etc. etc.--female. Hermione, Winky, the stunning Irish Chasers, etc. etc.--male. How does it look? Do the male characters have equal prominence with the female? Do they seem as well-developed (as characters) and worthy of respect (as people)? (I'll permit a correction for the tendency, which I mentioned in my previous posts on the subject, for us to see female characters as dominant even when they take up well under 50% of the space.) tex23236 wrote: >There's a lot of tradition about magic powers and virginity. Is it just me, or is JKR slyly informing us about Professor Grubbly-Plank's sexual history when she has Lavender say about the unicorn, "How did she get it? They're supposed to be really hard to catch!" (Medieval tradition had it that only a female virgin could tame a unicorn.) Red XIV wrote: >Ron certainly seemed that way; he was openly disdainful of S.P.E.W. >Harry, on the other hand, seemed to have no problem with it; he >didn't share Hermione's passion for house-elf rights, but he wasn't >against her on the subject either. He was on one occasion: "You know, maybe I should try and get some of the villagers involved in S.P.E.W.," Hermione said thoughtfully, looking around the pub. "Yeah, right," said Harry. He took a swig of Butterbeer under his Cloak. "Hermione, when are you going to give up on this S.P.E.W. stuff?" This is the moment I like Harry least. I forgive him because he's in a really bad state at the time, and he does at least call it S.P.E.W., but he's so dismissive and rude I want to slap him. Ana wrote re: Lupin: >He is the only main character about whose, say, facial features JKR writes >nothing. We know a lot about appearance of others, especially Dumbledore >and Snape, whose looks are described to the smallest detail. >Why not Lupin? Perhaps she is allowing our imaginations their maximum range . . . I don't actually think the difference is that striking. Some main characters get quite a detailed description, e.g. with Dumbledore we know the color of his eyes, the shape of his nose, the style of his glasses, his height and build, etc. His clothes are described at various times as well. Then there's Draco, about whom we know only that he has a pale, pointed face and cold gray eyes; we finally learn his hair color midway through PA. (I think many of us filled in that he had light hair because of the repetition of "pale," just as, as Marianne pointed out, we envision Sirius with black hair--BTW, I think we get that from "Black" as well as from the Grim. I think of Sirius as having dark eyes even though his Animagus form has light eyes...hmm.) Many writers seem to think that readers need a detailed physical description of a character in order to be able to picture him/her. This is clearly not the case, as JKR demonstrates with her much subtler way of evoking character and appearance. Amy Z who knows exactly what Lupin looks like ----------------------------------------------------- [Quidditch] is, of course, an entirely fictional sport and nobody really plays it. May I also take this opportunity to wish Puddlemere United the best of luck next season. -Foreword, Quidditch Through the Ages ----------------------------------------------------- _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com From Joanne0012 at aol.com Tue Jan 15 14:01:37 2002 From: Joanne0012 at aol.com (joanne0012) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 14:01:37 -0000 Subject: Magical Appearances / Hair In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33481 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "judyserenity" wrote: > We've often seen magic in the story that is really too powerful and > probably should have been left out. . . . I think Hermione having her teeth > fixed is another example of this "overly powerful magic" problem. > > One could try to plug this plothole, perhaps by saying that only a few > specially trained medical wizards (like Madame Pomfrey) are capable of > doing permament body alteration, and that they charge too much or that > people are too embarassed to use their services (like plastic surgery > in the real world), but it's a stretch. Alternatively, perhaps they > like looking less than perfect. Like, or perhaps are oblivious to the notion of wanting to achieve a certain standard of appearance. The only two students who seem discontent with their appearance are Harry and Hermione, who were both raised in the muggle world. And Harry's discontent with his hair is really just a desire to shush Uncle Vernon. Perhaps the wizarding world just isn't very concerned with appearance. Consider Fudge's propensity for vivid colors, or the fact that robes haven't changed styles in centuries. Madame Pomfrey hasn't done any cosmetic surgery, only restorative -- she even believed that her correction of Hernmione's teeth was just a restoration. If wizards aren't concerned with cosmetic changes, they might not even have developed spells to implement them. From Joanne0012 at aol.com Tue Jan 15 14:07:49 2002 From: Joanne0012 at aol.com (joanne0012) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 14:07:49 -0000 Subject: Harry in the care of Dursleys -- Petrification -- notification/mandrake In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33482 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "david_p2002ca" wrote: > Rosie wrote: > > > Yes, I agree! For all the reasoning in the world, I do not think > > that Harry should have been left in the care of the Dursleys. They > > clearly hate him, and how they have got away with all the abuse for the > > past 13 years is weird. > > I don't think they hate so much as fear him and what he could do. > Plus, they have seen the result of magic: it killed Petunia's sister > and her husband. So magic also cost the Dursleys any chance of ever > reconciling with the Potters. Again, as with Snape, Harry is a > lightning rod for unresolved emotions and suffers for it. > > Plus, as JKR alluded in one of the Scholastic chats, Dumbledore did > not leave Harry without magical supervision. Remember the old lady > who would sometimes care for Harry - Mrs Figg (PS/SS)? At the end of > GoF Dumbledore tells Sirius to "...alert Remus Lupin, Arabella Figg, > Mundungus Fletcher - the old crowd." So the doddering old neighbour > may well turn out to be a powerful witch protecting Harry. In another interview, JKR confirmed that Mrs. Figg and Arabella Figg are one and the same. Or at least, when someone asked whether they were, she said, "Well spotted!" http://www.scholastic.com/harrypotter/author/transcript2.htm But Mrs. Figg lives "two streets away" and only sees Harry when she watches him on Dudley's birthday. So how closely COULD she be keeping an eye on things? If she's an animagus (registered in the 1800s so she wouldn't be on the list Hermione saw -- she is apparently elderly, after all) she could be spying on them Rita-style but it's just not evident HOW she could be helping Harry on an ongoing basis. Still, as a local ally of Dumbledore, she could be providing periodic reports on Harry or serve as a local contact in a wizarding emergency. > > Dumbledore isn't perfect, I'll admit. But hiding Harry amongst the > muggles (with a magic bodyguard hidden nearby) does make sense, with > DEs still on the prowl, torturing and killing. Yes, exactly. Even if Dumbledore knows how badly the Dursleys treat Harry, he really has no other choice -- as he explains to McGonagall before leaving Harry there. Harry must have the protection of living with blood relatives. --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jrober4211" wrote: > Here is how I would react if I were notified that my child was in a > petrified state. I would demand a refund of my tuition paid. I would > have no choice but to leave the child in the care of Nurse Pomphrey > since there would be no cure in muggle medicine. I would seriously > reconsider allowing my child to continue their education at Hogwarts. > Depending on whatever waivers I had to sign before enrolling my child > in Hogwarts, I might even consider a law suit. But no one ever sues > Dumbledore or Hogwarts, god knows they certainly would have several > cases against them by muggle legal standards. Wizard standards for risk and liability are clearly different from Muggles'. No waivers were presented for the Dursleys to sign. Kids at Hogwarts are routinely exposed to hazards that would be unthinkable in current Muggle schools -- boils from accidents in potions class, actually getting killed in Quidditch matches, troll in the dungeon, moving staircases. The only parental response we've seen is Malfoy's reaction to Draco's encounter with Buckbeak, and he's not doing that because Draco was injured, buit rather to get at Hagrid. We also have no evidence that Hogwarts charges tuition, though Uncle Vernon assumes that they do. --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "blenberry" wrote: ... are mandrakes that rare that no mature ones could be acquired > for months, from anywhere? I just wondered why Madame Pomfrey, Snape > or Dumbledore didn't send for some from Diagon Alley, so that the > stricken students didn't have to spend most of a term petrified. Perhaps they must be live or fresh for making the potion, and it would be extremely hazardous for a merchant to keep live ones -- no magical creature is more lethal. Also, even though Hogwarts must have notified the parents of the petrified students, they wouldn't want to show up in Hogsmeade or Diagon Alley advertising that they needed quite a large quantity of an unusual ingredient. How is it that the wizarding world doesn't seem to hear about all the various goings-on at Hogwarts over the years -- surely the students are writing home to their parents about this stuff. Rita digs up lots of material, but the parents of Hogwarts students seem very clsoe-mouthed. Or perhaps the students are NOT telling tales out of school, even to their parents. From lav at tut.by Tue Jan 15 13:41:02 2002 From: lav at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 15:41:02 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Muggle vs Wizard - Any Chance? In-Reply-To: <182585201695.20020115114456@penrallt.clara.co.uk> References: <9217549071.20020115113302@tut.by> <182585201695.20020115114456@penrallt.clara.co.uk> Message-ID: <18532431489.20020115154102@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 33483 Greetings! BH> Tuesday, January 15, 2002, 9:33:02 AM, Alexander wrote: A>> all wizard's protection against physical damage cannot help when A>> he's got a knife inserted into his chest). > And then Timemaster replied in his wisdom: BH> Hi, BH> Maybe that's not even a limit for the more powerful wizard ... BH> LV/TR survived (in a manner of speaking) without his body (although he BH> had Quirrel's). From the point of view of the muggle, he was effectively dead. After all, to disembody the greatest dark wizard of the century - isn't it a really heroic deed for a muggle? But I was not talking about Voldie specifically - I was just exploring Potterverse from purely technical point of view (by my standard method of asking "what if" questions). And anyway Voldemort is an exception - he's gone too far on the road to immortality, so to say. That's not so with all other wizards in the world. Interesting, that my post hit almost simultaneously with some other thread with "Is Lucius afraid of muggles?" topic. P.S. Why doesn't anybody bother to teach HP some martial arts (of whatever origin)? He would become a real fighting machine - even without special physical training and with a hurt leg he managed to escape from Voldemort and a damn lot of Death Eaters. Imagine what could he do when trained properly... Poor, poor Voldemort... :) Writing that, I have stumbled at an idea: "But then, who would be the best DADA teacher but a retired army fighting instructor? Muggle, of course? Imagine Snape face..." 8-P Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, (Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed), always happy to throw weird ideas into the community. From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Tue Jan 15 14:40:45 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 14:40:45 -0000 Subject: Draco's Unlikely Redemption In-Reply-To: <3C439B5C.9DAC85BE@erols.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33484 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Margaret Dean wrote: > lucky_kari wrote: > > > PS Amittedly, I perhaps have in mind Maglor in the Silmarillion, who > > stands by when they throw his father, Eol, over a cliff. Admittedly, > > Eol deserved it, but so would Lucius deserve Azkaban. > > That's Maeglin, Oh yeah, of course. :-) Maglor was the last of Feanor's sons left standing right? > and that's a very interesting parallel! Because > the crime for which Eol certainly deserved death (throwing him > over the cliff was a formal execution) was the attempted murder > of Maeglin himself, which turned into the actual murder of Eol's > wife/Maeglin's mother Aredhel, when she jumped in front of the > spear. > > Yeah, I can almost see Lucius doing that if sufficiently > motivated. Not quite as sure about Narcissa... Narcissa seems, from all textual evidence (which isn't much) to be very concerned over her son. The mileage one could get from this story is pretty good, actually. Draco would be redeemed, but not really. After all, Maeglin ends up betraying Gondolin and making life not so pleasant for the woman he falls for, Idril. Draco, Maeglin? Hermione, Idril? Ron or Harry, Tuor? But as you said, it's unlikely JKR has read the Silmarillion! Eileen (slapping herself over the Maglor/Maeglin mistake) From southernscotland at yahoo.com Tue Jan 15 14:33:09 2002 From: southernscotland at yahoo.com (southernscotland) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 14:33:09 -0000 Subject: Why the Malfoys Are This Way and Sociology In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33485 > >Cassie quite rightfully stated: > I have to disagree with this theory. I refer you to the story of Wendelin the > Weird, who enjoyed being burned at the stake so much that she allowed herself > to be caught no less than 47 times in various disguises ^-^ > > According to Harry's essay on pointless witch burnings, a wizard could do a > simple Flame freezing charm and pretend to shriek while enjoying a pleasant > tickling sensation. If any of the Malfoy's were burned at the stake, it > wouldn't effect them. > > ~Cassie~ Okay, so that little theory went down in deserved flames! But I still don't understand why the wizards didn't just take over instead of retreating and creating their own little world - which takes quite a lot of time and energy to keep secret. If they couldn't have back then, they certainly could have by now. Survival of the fittest and all that. Maybe they could run things better than us. Maybe they are fearful of absolute power corrupting absolutely, but it somehow seems to work in their own society. I can handle more flaming - just a slow burn or simmer, if you please. Chastened and correctly so lilahp From mrgrrrargh at aol.com Tue Jan 15 14:41:55 2002 From: mrgrrrargh at aol.com (mrgrrrargh at aol.com) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 09:41:55 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Muggle vs Wizard/Snape's Childhood/Hair-Looks/ Message-ID: <61.19477077.297599b3@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33486 Alexander Lomski: > Just what speed a spell has? How fast does it travel? I imagine that it depends on how skilled the wizard is. judy: > I'm > convinced he could not be muggle-born, because I'm convinced there are > no muggle-borns in Slytherin Wasn't it stated that 1st year Snape knew more about poisons (or something similar) than most 7th years? That would imply that he had a magical childhood. > "If Hermione got her teeth permanently fixed, why > can't wizards just fix any part of their appearance that they don't > like? Why aren't they all gorgeous?" > We muggles have plastic surgery... yet the majority of us aren't that good looking. So perhaps there are wizards who choose not to get enhancements done. Timerider: > Maybe that's not even a limit for the more powerful wizard ... > LV/TR survived (in a manner of speaking) without his body (although he > had Quirrel's). Didn't Hagrid say that LV didn't have enough human in him to die? And now that he has Harry's blood, one might assume that he does now. -SpyGameFan [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Tue Jan 15 14:50:04 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 14:50:04 -0000 Subject: Why the Malfoys Are This Way, Female Characters, and Sociology In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33487 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "southernscotland" wrote: > I have a little theory (please be gentle and use candles instead of > flames!) about why the Malfoys might not like muggles. They are > afraid of them (us). I think that's pretty much correct. > Another point I've wondered: why haven't the wizards in the > Potterverse simply taken over the muggle world, as they easily could > have? Just because they don't like our world and are afraid of it? > > Instead of retreating, they now could easily run everything in our > muggle towns and cities, everywhere, with all their powers. I know > they have laws to prevent it, but why? Why haven't they developed > into the ruling peoples of the earth? > > (I have often thought the same things about Elves and Middle-Earth, > but that's off-topic.) Well, read the Silmarilion for the answer. > > Anyway, maybe the Malfoys have some deep-seated fears, horrible > stories about muggles persecuting and/or killing their wizard family, > that they pass on from generation to generation. That would serve to > keep their hate and fear of us mudbloods alive. > > It's kind of flattering, in a perverse sort of way, to think that the > Malfoys, and others like them, might fear us more than all the wizard > world's monsters and fabulous beasts. And, right they would be. Once, magic got out of the bag, we'd figure out how to cope with it, better it, and probably use it. I mean, look at all our posters who are searching for the magical gene. It must exist in this sceneario. If Muggle scientists got to work, who knows what they could do? Would this be a completely bad idea? No. But it would be pretty cataclysmic for the magical world. So, no wonder, they stick to their own right now. Eileen From ftah3 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 15 14:57:57 2002 From: ftah3 at yahoo.com (ftah3) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 14:57:57 -0000 Subject: spells - Lily - gender - S.P.E.W. - Appearance In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33488 > Ben wrote: > > >I was wondering where spells come > >from. Is there something intrinsic about the word "Accio" embedded into > >the > >magical fabric of the universe that causes things to be brought to the > >speaker (imagine the poor prehistoric wizard who discovers this as he > >sneezes, his wand inadvertently pointing at a woolly mammoth). Or perhaps, > >are the spells created somehow (wizard R&D) and magically assigned a magic > >word upon their creation. Or something else entirely? Any ideas? Amy Z: > Ooh, I wonder! Care to spin out these theories some more for us? I love > nature of magic stuff... > > Jewish mysticism puts a heavy emphasis on the power of words in themselves > (letters, also). The word is more than just a summary of what you're trying > to do; it has a unique power. I still rather like the idea that Arithmancy is the science of spell- crafting. As in, a combination of numerology, straight grammar, and the magic inherent in words. I.e., Fred and George blew off Arithmancy and thus the spell they made up and gave to Ron to turn Scabbers yellow didn't work, because it's not just words, but the *right* words, determined through a scientificish process, that matter. Amy Z: > Pippin made me ROTFL with this: > > >hello, Mary Sue, goodbye art. LOL. And darn straight. Amy Z: > Re: gender balance, female characters, etc., I would suggest a > simple test, however. Close your eyes and imagine that all of the male > characters are female and all of the female characters are male. > Dumbledore, Snape, Neville, etc. etc.--female. Hermione, Winky, the > stunning Irish Chasers, etc. etc.--male. How does it look? Do the male > characters have equal prominence with the female? Do they seem as > well-developed (as characters) and worthy of respect (as people)? Along these lines, I would bet that if Dumbledore and McGonnagal were to switch genders, the complaint would not be that Mr. McGonnagal wasn't a strong enough character, rather it would be that Ms. Dumbledore was being pidgeonholed in the 'typical' mystical-wise- woman-who-actually-does-squat-of-any-importance. [/gritch] Amy Z re Harry being rude to Hermy about S.P.E.W.: > He was on one occasion: > > "You know, maybe I should try and get some of the villagers involved in > S.P.E.W.," Hermione said thoughtfully, looking around the pub. > "Yeah, right," said Harry. He took a swig of Butterbeer under his Cloak. > "Hermione, when are you going to give up on this S.P.E.W. stuff?" > > This is the moment I like Harry least. I forgive him because he's in a > really bad state at the time, and he does at least call it S.P.E.W., but > he's so dismissive and rude I want to slap him. I loved the moment, because he *is* so rude and dismissive. Actually, that's one of the aspects I enjoy about the books ~ the kids, including the Hero, frequently act as I would expect boys and girls of those ages to act, glaring flaws and all. Actually, I like the whole S.P.E.W. thing for that reason. Hermione is being abjectly annoying & premature despite her good intentions (ah the memories she calls up), and the reactions of her peers, including Ron and Harry, are fairly as I would expect (erg, yeah, and those memories too... [blush]). Amy Z: > Many writers seem to think that readers need a detailed physical description > of a character in order to be able to picture him/her. This is clearly not > the case, as JKR demonstrates with her much subtler way of evoking character > and appearance. Agreed on the subtle. I like the way that JKR uses character/appearance almost interchangeably ~ i.e., both generally suggest the other, though without seeming to. Er. The funny thing about that ~ I couldn't have told you before, and I couldn't tell you now, which characters' appearances are described in great detail and which are not. And I only really have a visual idea of what the characters look like because of the film; I never really filled that aspect in before. On the other hand, I still felt as though I would know them if I saw them, you know? As in, they must look (appearance) exactly as they seem (character). I wonder if this is because each character is at it's basis a familiar archetype? Or if it's because each character is a familiar real-life-type of person? At any rate, I've always been impressed with the fact that I didn't have to conjure in my mind exactly how her characters looked because even without a mental picture the world was fully formed in my mind. Mahoney From aiz24 at hotmail.com Tue Jan 15 15:09:43 2002 From: aiz24 at hotmail.com (lupinesque) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 15:09:43 -0000 Subject: Harry on S.P.E.W. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33489 Mahoney wrote: > I loved the moment, because he *is* so rude and dismissive. > Actually, that's one of the aspects I enjoy about the books ~ the > kids, including the Hero, frequently act as I would expect boys and > girls of those ages to act, glaring flaws and all. Actually, I like > the whole S.P.E.W. thing for that reason. Hermione is being abjectly > annoying & premature despite her good intentions (ah the memories she > calls up), and the reactions of her peers, including Ron and Harry, > are fairly as I would expect Oh, absolutely! I didn't say I don't like the moment; I said I don't much like Harry at that moment. Like you, I love the fact that JKR does not make her heroes perfect little angels. Amy Z ----------------------------------------------------- Ron had failed his driving test twice, the first time for hitting the kerb whilst reversing round a corner, and the second time for losing his temper and transfiguring the examiner into a small rabbit. --Al, Redemption ch. 2 ----------------------------------------------------- From pennylin at swbell.net Tue Jan 15 15:17:25 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny & Bryce) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 09:17:25 -0600 Subject: Hair Color/Appearance References: Message-ID: <3C444805.3070204@swbell.net> No: HPFGUIDX 33490 Hi -- Amy Z wrote: > Ana wrote re: Lupin: > > >He is the only main character about whose, say, facial features JKR > writes > >nothing. We know a lot about appearance of others, especially Dumbledore > >and Snape, whose looks are described to the smallest detail. > >Why not Lupin? > > Perhaps she is allowing our imaginations their maximum range . . . > > I don't actually think the difference is that striking. Some main > characters get quite a detailed description > Then there's Draco, about whom we know only that he has a pale, pointed > face > and cold gray eyes; we finally learn his hair color midway through PA. (I > think many of us filled in that he had light hair because of the repetition > of "pale," Are Draco's eyes described as "cold" or are you filling that in, Amy? just as, as Marianne pointed out, we envision Sirius with black > hair--BTW, I think we get that from "Black" as well as from the Grim. We know his hair is black. Carole & I combed through all the books when we wrote A Sirius Affair. In GoF, the fireplace scene where Harry unburdens himself to Sirius -- "when they had said goodbye, Sirius' face had been gaunt and sunken, surrounded by a quantity of long, black matted hair ...." I think of Sirius as having dark eyes even though his Animagus form has light > eyes...hmm.) *I* think of him as having blue eyes.... sort of the Scots-Irish coloring that I have (dark hair, blue eyes). Carole thought of him as having brown eyes, and she won out for our fanfic descriptions, absent a canon reference. :--) Penny (who will reply to Amy's belated Ginny thoughts later .... hopefully) From aiz24 at hotmail.com Tue Jan 15 15:21:52 2002 From: aiz24 at hotmail.com (lupinesque) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 15:21:52 -0000 Subject: Draco's eyes (was Hair Color/Appearance) In-Reply-To: <3C444805.3070204@swbell.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33491 Penny wrote: > Are Draco's eyes described as "cold" or are you filling that in, Amy? Right from the horse's mouth (no insult intended, Jo! I like horses): The man who followed could only be his father. He had the same pale, pointed face and identical cold grey eyes. (CS 4) :-P Amy who is tempted to ask herself why Harry has taken such notice of Draco's eyes ------------------------------------------------- Ron peered into Harry's teacup, his forehead wrinkled with effort. "There's a blob a bit like a bowler hat," he said. "Maybe you're going to work for the Ministry of Magic. . . ." -HP and the Prisoner of Azkaban ------------------------------------------------- From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Tue Jan 15 15:31:51 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 15:31:51 -0000 Subject: Mud-bloods, Half-bloods, Do we care too much? (Re: About Slytherin House) In-Reply-To: <1782142465.20020115071617@tut.by> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33492 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Alexander wrote: > Voldie was also a Slytherin heir, don't forget about that, > too. He was not mudblood - only half-blood. Statements like this begin to make me wonder. "Does it really matter? Do we see anyone in the book who cares?" Dumbledore respects everyone, and the Malfoys seem to hold to the one-drop rule. Fudge is not down right prejudiced, but seems to have a "first families" mentality. Do we see anyone who takes a long time sorting out "mudbloods" vs. "halfbloods"? Are they really that different? The point is there's a large section of the population that believes that both Hermione and Harry (and Tom Riddle, if they knew it) have ancestry problems to some degree. > For him, rules > could easily be bent (if there were any - read below). Isn't the essence of Slytherin breaking rules, anyway? > But > what I'm trying to say is that it doesn't prove anything - > and we are still free to assume that no mudbloods are sorted > into Slytherin (or the other way around). Even more, there > are still no examples of a Slytherin mudblood - I think a > boy/girl of this ancestry would be oppressed enough in > current Slytherin atmosphere, and it would be definitely > worth noting somewhere during 4 years... I doubt that in these times anyone with some sort of Muggle background would choose to go there. "Not Slytherin, Not Slytherin," might actually be a pretty common refrain. But Slytherin wasn't always so hostile. Tom Riddle, brought up in a Muggle orphanage with absolutely no Muggle background, would have been a target for Draco's teasings in these later days, but is described as charming, popular, and became Head Boy. BTW, I wonder if Riddle's schoolmates knew that he was even a halfblood. His mother died giving him birth, and the orphanage people were unlikely to explain his magical background to him, even at his mother's request. He probably only knew that his mother had died in an Oliver Twist situation, and the info. he could glean from the way she picked his name, "Tom" for his father, "Marvolio" for his grandfather, and his last name being "Riddle." (Which makes me wonder why the orphanage didn't try to track down that worthless Riddle Sr.?) Later information on his family was almost certainly acquired at Hogwarts. It might be a nice touch if he learnt it from Dumbledore, and then wen the other way than Harry. Is this a good time to give my theory about Riddle? I think Riddle's mother was a Potter. It explains the similarity in looks between Riddle and Harry, Harry and James. It keeps the relationship (if there is one) on the wizarding side of things. It's telling that Riddle's mother dies in the Muggle world, completely forsaken by her family. What if Tom Riddle conceived his hatred of the Potters there? > How many answers do you want? They could invite him even > though they didn't like him and his views, for the sake of > completeness. That would be as dumb as inviting the KKK to help you run a school, "for the sake of completeness." Doesn't wash with me. > Or because they wanted to keep an eye on him. Again, doesn't wash. > Or because he wasn't such jerk _at the start_. More likely. > Also, remember that there were medieval times then, and > children were _not_ returning home for summer holidays. They > were given away to the school that was damn long away - what > security issues are you talking about? Muggle-parents could > be easily left uninformed about their children "satanic" > meddlings... :) True, Muggle students would probably never be seen by their family again. I still think it's a security issue, though. The magical world taking kids away from their families is still very much a theme in our literature of "faerie", which almost suggests that memory charms were not quite as good back then as they are now. Salazar might have been pushing for complete separation to avoid all the head-aches and problems. (remember also our legends of people who want to go back again, or do go back again, and find "their friends all gone" - wizards have longer life expectations, we know that. Or go back and mess with Muggle affairs.) > Another reason is that if it was security issue, Salazar > would definitely bring it into debate on whether mudbloods > should be accepted - he was debating against "goodies", and > it would be a much stronger argument than mudbloods general > inability/stupidity/anything-else. Here, I don't follow you. What are "goodies"? >Still the legends tell us > nothing about that (and they are not the legends, as magic > society seems to have much more accurate recordings of that > time). I don't remember there be anything more than legends over the break- up. And, I don't remember there be anything about what Salazar and Godric's arguments were. Just that Salazar and Godric quarrelled over whether to take people in from non-magical backgrounds. Is there anything more in canon than this? > > But apparently he eventually got to the point that he wanted to leave > > a monster behind that would kill all the "mudbloods". Or did he? We > > only have legends of unknown accuracy to show that it was really > > Salazar Slytherin who built the Chamber of Secrets & put the basilisk > > in it. > And only a parseltongue can tame basilisk, and we know > Salazar being parseltongue for sure. And the monster is > hiding in Salazar's statue. I would say that if not Salazar, > then at least one of his heirs (this is even more probable, > as building his own statue is more like in Lockhart's style, > but not Salazar, Voldemort or anybody else I know from > Slytherin). Oh, I don't know. Anyone who would call themselves "Lord" Voldemort (especially since he was brought up in the Muggle world, and knows darn well how sillily we use the prefix for our fictional evil overlords), has a huge dose of ego. I feel pretty sure that Salazar Slytherin built the Chamber of Secrets, but why must we conclude he built it to kill all the "mudbloods"? After all, it's a pretty pathetic and useless way of going about it. Isn't it more likely that he left the basilisk as a weapon for his heir, whenever he arrived, to make use of as needed? And was Tom Riddle using it to kill "mudbloods"? To me, at least, it seemed that Myrtle's death was an accident. He hadn't planned for her to be in the washroom at that point, but she had to die after that. It shut down his plans for awhile. He never was able to properly utilize the basilisk. When he starts up his campaign of terror again, he seems to hit people by chance. He could very well have petrified a "pureblood" student, eg. look at how Hermione and Penelope got it. He focused on getting people like Colin Creevey and Justin Finch-Fletcherly b/c their deaths would be much more useful in discrediting Dumbledore etc., but he really didn't care much and never will care much about blood- distinction. He hates all the good guys. Period. > We can judge Salazar quite effectively by the students of > his House. Don't forget that the Sorting Hat only sorts > those to Slytherin who deserve that from the point of view > of Salazar - it was he among the other three who put some of > his thinking and personality into the Hat. But Slytherin has produced a range of people from Snape to Draco. Not everyone in Slytherin has to share Draco's bigoted views, even though Draco may fit very well in Slytherin. > That's all cool and good, of course, but there's still > ambiguity. Can a mudblood be sorted into Slytherin is still > unknown. Certainly. But I vote, "Yes!" Eileen From margdean at erols.com Tue Jan 15 16:08:54 2002 From: margdean at erols.com (Margaret Dean) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 11:08:54 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Draco's Unlikely Redemption References: Message-ID: <3C445416.B081E985@erols.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33493 lucky_kari wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Margaret Dean wrote: > > lucky_kari wrote: > > > > > PS Amittedly, I perhaps have in mind Maglor in the Silmarillion, > > > who stands by when they throw his father, Eol, over a cliff. > > > Admittedly, Eol deserved it, but so would Lucius deserve Azkaban. > > > > That's Maeglin, > > Oh yeah, of course. :-) Maglor was the last of Feanor's sons left > standing right? Yes, and who (for all we know) may =still= be wandering around singing sad songs. :) > > and that's a very interesting parallel! Because > > the crime for which Eol certainly deserved death (throwing him > > over the cliff was a formal execution) was the attempted murder > > of Maeglin himself, which turned into the actual murder of Eol's > > wife/Maeglin's mother Aredhel, when she jumped in front of the > > spear. > > > > Yeah, I can almost see Lucius doing that if sufficiently > > motivated. Not quite as sure about Narcissa... > > Narcissa seems, from all textual evidence (which isn't much) to be > very concerned over her son. The mileage one could get from this > story is pretty good, actually. Draco would be redeemed, but not > really. After all, Maeglin ends up betraying Gondolin and making life > not so pleasant for the woman he falls for, Idril. Draco, Maeglin? > Hermione, Idril? Ron or Harry, Tuor? But as you said, it's unlikely > JKR has read the Silmarillion! You're right, the Maeglin scenario doesn't really redeem Draco -- in fact, just the opposite, because Maeglin basically got taken in by the good guys after his parents' death, and then betrayed them under pressure from the (then) Dark Lord, motivated also by his jealousy of Tuor and Idril. Mind you, the only problem I'd have with this plotline re: Draco is that at the moment I can't see Our Side being in a position to (or wanting to) take him in if he were orphaned. But Maeglin was definitely a Slytherin type. In between his parents' death and his betrayal of Gondolin he certainly was ambitious and made a name for himself. --Margaret Dean From mjollner at yahoo.com Tue Jan 15 15:47:05 2002 From: mjollner at yahoo.com (mjollner) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 15:47:05 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33494 I wrote: It is hinted that Dumbledore must know of a > prophecy concerning these two [meaning HP & LV], and decided to give Harry some practice > in facing LV within the relative safety of Hogwart's (and where > Dumbledore could protect him and help him) before Harry has to do it > for real and for keeps. brewpub44 wrote: >I really don't agree with the word "prophecy" in your post. >Dumbledore seems to be about everything *but* prophecy. He does not >respect Trelawney's divination, and always talks about people making >their own path. >I would be more agreeable with your post if you said "special >knowledge" than "prophecy". Special knowledge means that he has >studied Lily's spell & LV's powers, and coupled with the wands >being 'brothers', he knows that Harry is the only one who can be >successful (or something along those lines). >I just think prophecies are a cliche JKR is wisely avoiding. >Otherwise, I think the rest of your post is pretty interesting. Fair enough! Let me amend "prophecy" to read "foreknowledge." Your term "special knowledge" would work, too. Though let's remember that Dumbledore said was Trelawney's second real prediction was indeed genuine, and we don't yet know what her first *real* prediction was, and it may very well have had something to do with Potter males being the downfall of Voldemort, since he was after James and Harry and not Lily. Yes, JKR seems to discount prophecies in general, but Trelawney's two may be the real ones we see. All the more reason to impatiently await the rest of the series! From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Tue Jan 15 16:16:51 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 16:16:51 -0000 Subject: Draco's Unlikely Redemption In-Reply-To: <3C445416.B081E985@erols.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33495 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Margaret Dean wrote: > Yes, and who (for all we know) may =still= be wandering around > singing sad songs. :) LOL! Or should I cry? I always felt sorry for him. So much pressure from Dad and the six brothers. /me sees an Arthur Weasley parallel coming up here, but decides to supress it for obvious reasons, WELL other than the fact that JKR certainly isn't going about stealing plots from the Silmarillion. > You're right, the Maeglin scenario doesn't really redeem Draco -- > in fact, just the opposite, because Maeglin basically got taken > in by the good guys after his parents' death, and then betrayed > them under pressure from the (then) Dark Lord, motivated also by > his jealousy of Tuor and Idril. Mind you, the only problem I'd > have with this plotline re: Draco is that at the moment I can't > see Our Side being in a position to (or wanting to) take him in > if he were orphaned. What if, along Maeglin lines, we had a false Draco redemption, in which Draco rejects some of his background, but not really all evil, or falls back to his old ways? Eileen From cindysphynx at home.com Tue Jan 15 16:39:32 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 16:39:32 -0000 Subject: Incantations and R&D in the Magical World (WAS Omnioculars - spells - Lily ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33496 Ben wrote: > > >I was wondering where spells come > >from. Is there something intrinsic about the word "Accio" embedded into > >the > >magical fabric of the universe that causes things to be brought to the > >speaker (imagine the poor prehistoric wizard who discovers this as he > >sneezes, his wand inadvertently pointing at a woolly mammoth). Or perhaps, > >are the spells created somehow (wizard R&D) and magically assigned a magic > >word upon their creation. Or something else entirely? Any ideas? > Amy encouraged: > Ooh, I wonder! Care to spin out these theories some more for us? I love > nature of magic stuff... > OK, how about this? If memory serves, the students almost always use incantations, whereas the adults often do not. Instances of adults not using incantations include Pettigrew stunning Ron and Crookshanks; Black conjuring manacles; Voldemort conjuring Wormtail's hand; Dumbledore sweeping tables aside. Perhaps fully trained wizards are so experienced with certain spells that they don't need an incantation. If that's the case, then maybe incantations are kind of like training wheels. :-) Maybe the purpose of the incantation, like the wand, is to assist the wizard in concentrating his/her power. If the wizard uses an incantation, the incantation helps focus the wizard's mind and energy on the result to be achieved. So if you tried to summon using "Ferula" instead of "Accio", it wouldn't work because your mind would be trying to accomplish something different from your words. So why does Voldemort use incantations in the graveyard? If he's so powerful, can't he torture people with a wave of his wand and no incantation? Perhaps Voldemort uses the incantation because it would be rather embarrassing should the Crucio or Avada Kedavra spell fail. So he uses the incantation to be safe, and to fulfill is Evil Overlord desire for drama. I suppose it is also possible that the wizard is communicating with his wand when he says the incantation. If you use the incantation, the wand knows what you are trying to do. If you don't, the wand has to pick up on your intention in other ways. Perhaps the tight bond between a wizard and his own wand helps this communication process. I'm not sure that the wand-wizard-communication idea works, though, because we see Sirius do rather complex magic with Snape's wand and no incantation. Sirius is good, but is he that good? Ben's idea of a magical R&D department is interesting. It makes sense that there ought to be a department at MoM developing new spells and magical aids. Percy alludes to this with his work on cauldron bottom thickness. It would be highly amusing if Mundungus Fletcher ran MoM's R&D department, which would make his claim that his tent on sticks was really a 12-room suite more believable. If so, Mundungus would be a valuable ally in the fight against Voldemort. Cindy (getting mighty cranky as days go by with no word on the status of OoP) From elfriede.schaden at chello.at Tue Jan 15 16:38:14 2002 From: elfriede.schaden at chello.at (gypaetus16) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 16:38:14 -0000 Subject: Why readers love Snape In-Reply-To: <96.205c99f1.29749468@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33497 garaeta wrote on 14th of January: 'Saving' this man? I don't think he >> needs to be saved. If a woman approached him with that attitude, I beli= eve > >> that she would fail to get even a simple response. He doesn't need to b= e >> saved. Of course it depends on the approach! When you are a naive inexperienced young girl there cannot be success. When you have some experiences with difficult characters, when you do not unsult his intellect and when you are careful and sensitive enough to check how far you can go in your "Florence-Nightingale-for-the-soul-attitude", then there is a possibility to reach his inside step by step. What I believe has to be changed (and changing or making a difference is saving too) is his attitude against weak and helpless figures such as Neville. Snape knows about Neville?s history, such as Remus does, but Lupin wants to help him. It is not necessary to frighten a helpless little boy, who has to visit his insane parents during the holidays, who do not recognize their son. It is not necessary to enlarge the fear of this little shivering boy, in particular not necessary for a powerful, brilliant and highly intelligent wizard such as Snape, who has such an important role to play. When he is after Harry, Ok, I think Harry can take it (and sometimes deserves some punishment) also Hermione and Ron (not to speak of my beloved Weasley twins). But they are talented wizards and witches with a lot of self confidence, knowledge and humor, not so Neville. A horrible and supressing attitude against weak and helpless people, in particular against children is a sign of despotism and tyranny and not of tolerance and freedom. Such an attitude fits better to a Voldemort empire, which Snape is fighting against. Gabriele From lee_hillman at urmc.rochester.edu Tue Jan 15 16:47:28 2002 From: lee_hillman at urmc.rochester.edu (Hillman, Lee) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 11:47:28 -0500 Subject: Mixed blood in houses; Snape and Draco; Lucius; underdeveloped ch aracters; Vamp essay; Draco's broom Message-ID: <95774A6A6036D411AFEA00D0B73C864303B05753@exmc3.urmc.rochester.edu> No: HPFGUIDX 33498 So many topics, so little time. I really should be writing a paper now, but I've been burning to add some sickles to the discussions lately and just have to get it out because it's distracting me. Okay. I'll try to be brief. First of all, the question of whether non pureblood kids would be in Slytherin. My question is why not? Sure, it wouldn't be particularly easy, especially during periods when there's more prejudice against them, but I agree with list members who have said that Salazar probably did not exclude solely on the basis of blood. He was *concerned* about them for security, yes, but perhaps it grew over time to be a problem, it didn't emerge full-fledged at once. It's difficult to imagine Gryffindor and Slytherin working together long enough to build the school and get it underway, otherwise. I'm also taking into consideration the possible time at which the sorting hat was created: if it was closer to the foundation of the school, it's possible Slytherin's attitudes weren't as prejudicial, or that he would have been more willing to overlook it for pupils he could handpick. That's not a hard-and-fast theory, but it does make sense to me that the hat judges primarily on fit based on characteristics and desire, not birth. (Search the archives for more on how the sorting hat sorts.) Furthermore, on the subject of Hogwarts houses and the general attitude about Muggle-born students, I think it's mixed. We've discussed JKR's housism, but I prefer to see students of all types in all houses--and also to see that the school itself ran on a continuum. In fact, in my own fanfic, I decided that there were probably eras where the prejudice against Muggle-born wizards was more and less prevalent, and the administration may have been chosen with that in mind. So say a new Headmaster is appointed exactly because he wants to "cleanse" the school. He grandfathers the existing enrollment, or maybe the upperclassmen, but refuses to accept Muggle-born children in the incoming classes. So over a period of 7 years, there are no more Muggle-born students at all. But attitudes are on a pendulum just like most things, so over time, the public opinion swings back to the left, that Muggle-borns should be allowed back in. Perhaps it's because, as Ron mentioned in CoS, without the inclusion of Muggle-born and half-born wizards, the population would die out. So a new Headmaster is appointed who is sympathetic to Muggles, and the process reverses itself again. Throughout this, there will always be extremist families who are either highly conservative (purebloods only) or highly liberal (why hide who we are?) who object to the views of the other side. There are also moderate lefties like Arthur Weasley who believes Muggles are all right, but is fairly condescending to them as a whole, and moderate rights who accept half-bloods, but not Muggle-born, etc. The point is that as control of the system changes hands, so too will the population and the popularity of the views expressed by the administration. I firmly believe that all four houses have students who are pure, half, and Muggle-born, and that each house has members who are liberal, moderate, or conservative about their view of the importance of blood. Slytherin may have a higher percentage of purebloods, or it may be that anyone who isn't pureblood either hides it or is shut out a lot, but in Slytherin, one would expect that the students could get around it somehow. Many discussions this weekend about Snape and Draco. Most of you will breathe a sigh of relief when I say I don't have time to write an essay on either of them. I'll just briefly address something about Draco's redemption. Dave asked how it could be satisfying. Well, to me, it would be satisfying to see the *very beginnings* of Draco's redemption, without having to go through the long and possibly bloody, definitely turbulent, process. Others have pointed out the ways in which Snape serves as a literary foil for Draco. I also believe that one of Snape's functions as a character is to represent a version of Draco's story. Therefore, having set Draco on the first few steps of the path to good, Rowling eliminates the need to show his entire journey. We "know" in one sense how it will turn out, becuase we will have already "seen" such a transformation (or at least its results) in Snape. I'm not suggesting that Draco will turn out to be just like Snape, or that their family backgrounds parallel, or even that Draco will take Snape's place (at Hogwarts, for ex.), but that by the end of the series, I think, we will know enough about Snape to know how he got where he is, and we will be given the impression that Draco, while not there yet, is on his way. I don't want to see Draco kill Lucius or work with Harry. I don't want him to turn around completely and become Joe NiceGuy. I certainly don't want him to take up the mantle of Chief Evil Baddie when Voldemort bites the dust. All I anticipate is that by subtle and mostly off-stage actions, Draco will begin to see that there are alternatives that are equally rewarding, or possibly even more rewarding, than being a snot. And one thing about Lucius: Lucius does deserve whatever is coming to him, but I don't believe he's completely beyond help, either. Yes, he made and keeps making conscious choices to be ruthless, cold, underhanded, and generally abysmally low, but I believe his cruelty is motivated by fear--not fear of Muggles, as someone suggested, because of what they might do to his family personally, but fear of losing the wizarding way of life. As I see it, he thinks he is protecting his world by keeping Muggles largely out of it. Though I also don't believe that's his primary motivation in joining the Death Eaters, either: I think he's almost as obsessed with immortality as Voldy is, but he's letting Voldy take all the risks until they get it right. Then he'll be in the position to take advantage of the power before Voldy decides he no longer needs Death Eaters. I just want to say one last thing about the discussion regarding underdeveloped characters, primarily females, in the Potterverse. We all have minor characters we'd like to know more about. But I'm here to tell you, folks, when you're writing a novel and worried about a central plot, a bunch of subplots, balancing humour and suspense, and getting to all the things you really want to get to....well, some of it falls away in the process. There simply is not time to get into every single detail of every character you create. Sometimes you need a place filler (such as, IMO, Madam Pince or Professor Vector), and you come up with a name and a vague idea of the character (search the messages for "stock characters" for more about this), but never develop anything else because you don't need to do. Sometimes, the main identifying characteristic comes to you immediately, and the character has a distinct voice and manner, but no specific history (IMO, Dean and Seamus fit this category). Sometimes, you have to delve into a character's past, but even though you as author know many details of his life, there just isn't room to add it in or it just isn't as important as the central plot (Sirius Black). And on rare occasions, there are characters who may have started as any of the above, but who leap off and do things on their own and INSIST that you tell the readers all about them (Snape). In any case, there just is no way any of us would want to read something that delves heavily into character study every time one of the minor characters arrives on the scene. Inevitably, while we may learn an interesting detail or two (for ex., what if the next time we see Madam Pince, she is wearing heavy perfume, or dark glasses and has a headache, or something?), we will probably never get the whole story. Unless she really does decide to compile the encyclopedia after book 7. Until then, that's one of the many productive uses of fanfic. Gwen Two quick PS's: 1. The vampire essay in PoA is not confirmed by Lupin, who could have been making it up as an excuse to extricate Ron and Harry from Snape's office, but by Harry's earlier discussion with Neville, when he ditches Neville by saying he needs to work on it in the library. 2. Draco does say he'll bully his father into buying him a broom, and Lucius does buy him seven and we suspect thus secures Draco's place on the team, but notice that he doesn't do this until their second year, when Draco is *eligible* to play (first-years generally aren't allowed to try out for the teams). So either Draco decided not to ask or was told categorically no. He *is* a spoiled brat, but he doesn't get his way all the time with his father. Lucius also refuses to tell him anything in CoS... oh, bugger, I said I wouldn't get into this. Right. Well, I'm off then. From andrew_macian at yahoo.com Tue Jan 15 17:00:37 2002 From: andrew_macian at yahoo.com (Andrew MacIan) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 09:00:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] more on stereotypes( WAs role models and gender typing) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020115170037.69980.qmail@web9506.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33499 Greetings from Andrew! Two comments in passing.... --- jrober4211 wrote: {snip} > I just want to make this observation about her > character. She is a > nurse and IMHO is portrayed as hateful, impatient, > and bossy. Now > working as a nurse in an American hospital ( the > role is a bit > different from English nurses as I understand it > from talking with > them), we over here have to literally turn the other > cheek with > irate visitors and patients. I also have had no personal interaction with the British medical system, but it appears to me that Pomfrey is usually acting more as a PA (physician's assistant) or as a doc than a nurse, in that she not only diagnoses a pt but also prescribes (as it were) and treats. > I would never dream of > talking to > people the way Madam Pomphrey does and expect to > keep my job. Plus, I > don't see that she does very much. In this case, I > think Madam > Pomphrey is portrayed more like a stereotypical > Nurse Ratchett, and > there are no nurses, at least in America ( you might > get by with it > on a military base here), that could get away with > behaving like she > does. No personal reflections, but you don't work in the American version of public medicine or the VA (Veteran's Administration), do you? Having had recourse to both systems, unless I am already unconscious, I shall literally resist to the point of self-inflected GSW ere I am placed back in their "tender mercies". Bad treatment, bad medicine and bad food...and too many of my brothers from Nam have been neglected to death by both systems. Sorry for the slight rant. 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 video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ From andrew_macian at yahoo.com Tue Jan 15 17:07:35 2002 From: andrew_macian at yahoo.com (Andrew MacIan) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 09:07:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] petrification and notifying parents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020115170735.15821.qmail@web9507.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33500 Greetings from Andrew! Some more differences between the US and Britain.... --- jrober4211 wrote: {snip} > Depending on whatever waivers I had to sign before > enrolling my child > in Hogwarts, I might even consider a law suit. But > no one ever sues > Dumbledore or Hogwarts, god knows they certainly > would have several > cases against them by muggle legal standards. > Well, in the UK (based on what I read in the news, and some discussions with British colleagues) starting a suit and maintaining one is *far* harder than it is in the US (whence you and I both write, if I read what you write correctly). Also, the reflex to lay suit is mostly a US perversion of the legal system that is not quite as wide-spread as some here think. Thus, I would offer that the notion of suing Hogwarts would be not be the first thing a British family would think of doing, post-accident. > I know, I know....it's just a book and the wizarding > world doesn't > exist, but all this talk about realism vs. utopia > and role models, > come on people, it's the minor details that make > that whole discussion > a moot point at best. With this point of literary theory I concur, but I would also offer that Rowling is writing from a most British perspective. I serious doubt that the American passion/plague of legal worship would ever apply to/in her universe. 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 video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ From mercia at ireland.com Tue Jan 15 17:03:05 2002 From: mercia at ireland.com (meglet2) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 17:03:05 -0000 Subject: Throwaway comment in POA Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33501 Only my second post but I've been lurking trying to catch up with past discussions. (Although over 33000 posts are hard to catch up on!) I have a thought about Lupin on the train to Hogwarts which exercised a few minds a while back. When Lupin on his return from dealing with the dementor addresses Harry by name, JKR comments something like, 'Harry didn't ask how Lupin knew his name.' I find that a strange comment. Why should Harry be even remotely surprised about anyone in the wizarding world knowing his name. After all for two years he has had to cope with all sorts of people staring at him and recognising him from his scar. He has been told more less from the start that he's famous in this world. It's like Madonna being surprised about someone recognising her. In my experience of JKR such little things can be significant. My take is that Lupin was planted on the train by Dumbledore to protect Harry, not, as someone suggested, from the dementors, but from Sirius Black. After all at this point everyone is convinced Sirius is guilty. He has escaped from Azkaban and he is assumed to be coming after Harry to kill him. He is believed to be so deep in the dark arts that he could escape Azkaban and therefore the normal protection that presumably surrounds the Hogwarts express could be thought insufficient. Who better to offer additional protection than the new DADA teacher? Furthermore Lupin is one of Dumbledore's 'old crowd', used to fighting dark powers and used also to acting incognito or in spy type situations and also of course, as his old friend well aware of what Sirius would look like even after 11 years in Azkaban. I am sure he would have been well briefed by Dumbledore and knew exactly who Harry, Ron and Hermione were and that they were usually to be found together. I supect that he was very far from asleep on any part of their journey (the triple emphasis on his comatose state is very supicious don't you think? - this is Rowling after all) and that if any other students apart from our trio had looked into his compartment at the beginning they would have found a wide awake teacher, quite enough to discourage anyone else from joining the compartment until HRH arrived. Just a few thoughts but they reflect why I get such pleasure from reading and rereading these books. You keep seeing more and more little subtleties and plot twists. Any comments? meglet2/Mercia From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Jan 15 17:47:21 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 17:47:21 -0000 Subject: more on stereotypes( WAs role models and gender typing) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33502 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jrober4211" wrote: > Also, no one has mentioned this lately, and since I am a newby, I > want to preface what I say with -No, I have not read every listing > regarding Madam Pomphrey. > > I just want to make this observation about her character. She is a nurse and IMHO is portrayed as hateful, impatient, and bossy. Welcome to the group! Madam Pomfrey is a victim of mistranslation by the American editors. She is not a nurse in the British originals. She is a 'matron', that is, "a (married or unmarried) woman who has official charge of the domestic arrangements of a hospital, school, prison, etc" according to my lovely old 1955 edition of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. The date is significant: Hogwarts is not based entirely on contemporary schooling, but on the schools Rowling remembers and the schools she read about in "school stories" as a child. So Pomfrey's bedside manner is not even the caricature of a medical professional, but IMO, is meant to recall the 'first aid ladies' I encountered in elementary school. They were no-nonsense types who dispensed band-aids and painted iodine (ouch!) on playground scrapes , their chief qualification being that they could apply the iodine with a steady hand, despite the screams and tears of their child victims, and would not faint at the sight of blood. The same applies to Madame Pince. I don't think school librarians got all the special training available today. Back then, when you entered the library you were expected to conduct yourself like a miniature adult, and the librarians, or at least the ones I remember, were not highly skilled at determining what sort of book I had in mind. Pippin From cindysphynx at home.com Tue Jan 15 18:09:09 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 18:09:09 -0000 Subject: Somebody to Blame & The Blame Game (LONG) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33503 Luke wrote (about the attempt to place blame for Crouch's demise): >But it also seems to be basically irrational to attempt to apply >blame to any particular quarter. > > Fudge is culpable for what Fudge did or failed to do. McGonagall >is culpable for what McGonagall did or failed to do. Snape likewise >for his own actions or inactions. AND >How can one be "more" at fault, anyway? Isn't fault a black-and- >white concept? You either are at fault or you aren't--and while two >people can share blame in the sense of both being at fault >simultaneously, they do not share blame in the sense that the two >might share a pie, taking differently-sized portions: this person >with 60% and this person with 40%. Blame, as I see it, just can't >work like that. I hope you'll all forgive me for taking a stab at answering this post, but Luke raises some very good questions and I can't help myself. Part of my problem is that it is not easy to bring the discussion back to HP canon. I don't necessarily have good answers, but I'll take a crack at some of the ideas here. First, my main point in initially trying to fix blame for the Crouch incident is just that I don't like Snape, so I'd like to see him take the fall. A worthy goal, I'm sure you'll all agree. :-) My instincts tell me that the whole thing was Fudge's fault (or perhaps the dementor's fault if it understood what it was doing). But I don't see blame/fault/culpability/responsibility as being a black-or-white concept. Several people often play various and overlapping roles in causing a bad event to happen. Here, Fudge summoned the dementor; Snape (perhaps) let the dementor in the castle; Snape and McGonagall didn't protect Crouch. The very character of what each person did was different. Fudge started the events in motion. Snape (perhaps) failed to engage in insubordination when he really should have. Snape and McGonagall had the last opportunity to act and did not. Luke is certainly right that each person is responsible for his/her actions. However, it seems to me that the person who creates a hazardous situation is more culpable than the person who fails to diffuse it. By that measure, Fudge started the chain of events, of course. Snape also started the chain of events if he knowingly escorted a dementor into the castle. McGonagall's culpability is only in failing to stop the natural progression of events Snape and Fudge started. Snape also failed to stop the progression, so Snape is arguably much more responsible than McGonagall. Luke again: > The same conundrum, I feel, permeates the long-standing debate on >the GOF argument between Harry and Ron. Both Harry and Ron acted in > questionable fashion and in some manner contributed to the >argument. I agree that it might not be possible or even worth the effort to assess blame/fault/culpability in the Harry/Ron fight. The difference, in my mind, is that in the dementor incident, I am trying to figure out who caused a particular significant and unfortunate event -- the sucking of Crouch's soul. In the Ron/Harry fight, there is no significant culminating event for which someone could be blamed. They are just mad at each other for a while and that's it. If Snape were involved, however, then I would try to find a way to blame him, of course. :-) The essence of Luke's objection seems to be (and Luke can correct me if I misunderstand) that it isn't possible or logical to assess blame as though one were serving a pie. (Brace yourself, as this is the part of this post that starts to veer off-topic.) I can't fully wrap my mind around the objection because society does that (assesses blame among multiple culpable actors) all the time. If two people cause an accident, one might be 60% responsible, and the other might be 40% responsible, and penalties might attach based on that apportionment of responsibility. From a legal perspective, the concept isn't at all novel. I have a hunch, however, that Luke is talking about philosophy, not law. Um, that gets a lot more difficult. Should we look at the motives of the various actors? If so, Fudge's motives were (probably) legitimate, as he was acting to protect himself. Should we examine forseeability? Then Snape and Fudge are equally culpable if both brought the dementor into the castle, as it was forseeable that the result would be a soul-free Crouch. Should we decide who acted most irresponsibly given the amount of information they had? If so, McGonagall had complete information because she knew the dementor was bearing down on Crouch and did nothing to stop it. Whatever the yardstick we choose, it doesn't trouble me to try to figure out who is at fault in the Crouch incident because I find the process intellectually interesting, and because it helps me to some extent evaluate other aspects of the books. For instance, Dumbledore is rather sharp with McGonagall ("Minerva, I'm surprised at you.") If I'm trying to decide whether Dumbledore is overly harsh and whether to sympathize with McGonagall, I would consider whether Crouch's demise was her fault. Now, to continue the blame game , there is another Big Event for which we could try to find someone responsible. Pettigrew somehow manages to escape in PoA. Whose fault is that? It actually becomes rather complex. Is it Snape's fault? I would dearly love to say "yes." Had he listened in the Shrieking Shack and not jumped to conclusions, there would have been a third wizard to escort Pettigrew, possibly preventing his escape. Is it Harry's fault? He intervened to prevent Pettigrew from being killed, thereby setting in motion the chain of events that led to Pettigrew's escape. Is it Lupin's fault? He did several things that led to Pettigrew's escape. He forgot his potion and came up with the lame idea of using manacles to escort Pettigrew. Personally, I haven't made up my mind on those questions. Cindy From bonnie at niche-associates.com Tue Jan 15 18:23:27 2002 From: bonnie at niche-associates.com (dicentra_spectabilis_alba) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 18:23:27 -0000 Subject: Why do readers love Snape? (and Draco/ Snape comparison) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33504 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "judyserenity" wrote: > > Eloise wrote: > > > > > What really intrigues me, though, and perhaps some of you other > > > Friends of Snape out there can help me out on this one, is just > > > *why* do some of us have sympathy for this horrible man, > > > want to find excuses or reasons for his > > > behaviour... > > Anavenc replied: > > Snape is not only sympathised with, but much, much more. A large > > part of HP fandom consists of people who are simply infatuated with > > him. Meanwhile, it seems like JKR so far hasn't planned on readers > > loving him--at least not yet :). She keeps repeating in interviews > > that Snape is horrible... He *is* horrible. Despite the fact that he's brilliant, complex, and all those other things, he's also vindictive, mean, and spiteful. Revenge seems to be his main motivation, and anger his underlying state. I would speculate that many of the "good" things he's done have not been out of the goodness of his heart. I don't think he countered Quirrell's jinx because he cared whether Harry fell from the broom, I think he was ordered to protect Harry by Dumbledore. It also wouldn't surprise me if he left the Death Eaters because they pissed him off somehow and he turned spy to get back at them. He also would have killed Sirius in the Shrieking Shack if Sirius had made just one false move, and he hates nearly everyone for the most trivial of reasons. We might find later that he's got redeeming characteristics, but even if he does, he's sure got a lot of strikes against him, especially in JKR's book (the figurative one, that is). --Dicentra, who loves Snape principally because of his striking resemblance to Alan Rickman From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Jan 15 18:38:59 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 18:38:59 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore,Maxime, Lupin and Snape, stereotyping, female characters Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33505 Dumbledore and McGonagall: I don't think there's any doubt that McGonagall is being groomed as Dumbledore's successor and that the teachers regard her as such. She does indeed take over for him when Dumble is sent away in CoS. After Ginny is taken, she announces to the staff that Hogwarts will have to be closed. The teachers accept this from her without question, even though it means they'll soon be out of their jobs. There's no murmuring, no one asking that this be referred to the Ministry or the Board of Governors. What McGonagall says, goes. As for what Dumbledore does all day, he answers all those Owls from the Ministry asking for advice. He's been Fudge's kitchen cabinet, and a force in the International Confederation of Wizards too. I think he uses Hogwarts as his "bully pulpit" and McGonagall does most of the day to day running of the school. Madame Maxime: Mme. Maxime, it's true, has been in denial about her giant side, but after all she never had any reason to acknowledge it before. She adjusts remarkably quickly, in a matter of months, once she sees she has something to gain by it. This is a mark of her maturity. We don't know when she and Hagrid made up, but I like to think that Hagrid's improved teaching skills are the result of her coaching. Lupin and Snape: I salute Cindy's valiant defense of the wolf. I would love to think that everyone at Hogwarts, including 7th years who aren't trying for a N.E.W.T. in Potions and the irrepressible Peeves, is so solicitous of Snape's feelings that no one ever did anything like walk behind him and make vulture noises, or imitate his distinctive walk while pretending to carry an oversize handbag. Or come to think of it, put fingers in front of their teeth and pretend they were fangs. (Hmm, that would go along way toward explaining his deplorable treatment of Hermione, wouldn't it) I'm sure if they did, Snape could have forced Filch to tell him what was going on. In fact, Cindy's defense has inspired me so that I wish to advance a new theory: Snape really did have a Hagrid moment when he outed Lupin. After all, it's only Lupin's impression that the dirty deed was a quote accident unquote. Suppose Snape stalks into the Great Hall after that exhausting night, and some clueless Slytherin pesters him about Lupin's absence. Snape snarls, "I don't give a damn where the werewolf is." Only as shocked silence spreads across the Slytherin table and people turn to look at Lupin's empty chair does Snape realize what he's said. For all we know, he went straight to Dumbledore afterwards and offered his resignation, which Dumbledore refused to accept. After all, the damage was done. Sacking Snape wouldn't change anything. More on stereotyping: I think that Rowling simply reflects the real world when she has the kids encounter women mostly in traditional professions. The professionals children are most likely to meet in daily life are those concerned with the care of children, and those are the traditionally female occupations, after all. I think it will change as the trio's circle of contacts grows wider. Ramsey, my pet literary expert, says that shadowy females have been a feature (or defect) of the child exile story since its inception, back in the twelfth century or so. It doesn't sound like they'll be going away any time soon. :P According to Ramsey, the characters in child exile stories represent aspects of the family that the hero has lost. The female characters whom the hero encounters correspond to aspects of the missing mother. They are shadowy because none of them can be entirely satisfactory as replacements. IMO, many of the female characters Harry has come in contact with so far function in this fashion. In fact an amazing number of HP females have "M" in their names: McGonagall, Molly, Hermione, Myrtle, Rosmerta, Malkin, Pomfrey and even Narcissa Malfoy. Rowling isn't religious about this: Sprout doesn't have an M name, but she does play a maternal role with the mandrakes (and kills them...I'd love to hear from the psychologists about that). As mother surrogates, good and bad, McGonagall offers discipline, Molly, love, Hermione, counsel, Myrtle,guilt trips, Rosmerta, nourishment, Malkin, clothing, Pomfrey, healing, Narcissa, rejection. So I agree, the books encourage the reader to think of women as mothers. That's part of the story Rowling wants to tell. In fact, she has said she wrote the books out of the grief she felt when her mother died. The fear of losing one's mother is real and powerful and every child understands it. Who can forget the image of Harry gazing wistfully into the Mirror of Erised? I don't see that this should be a problem for girls (or boys) reading the books, unless HP is all they ever read. No novelist, however skilled, can capture more than a few facets of human nature anyway. Rather than trying to police our children's dreams I would suggest making sure they understand the difference between dreams and reality. There are fascinating real-life women to read about. As soon as it became clear that I had a Hermione-sized appetite for the printed word, my parents stocked my room with three encyclopedias and a shelf of biographies for children. I read about Martha Custis, Queen Elizabeth I, Joan of Arc, Pocahontas, Cleopatra, Marie Curie, Annie Oakley, Clara Barton, Florence Nightingale, Mary Tudor, Marie Antoinette, Dr. Elizabeth Blackwell and others. Not a traditionalist in the bunch except for Marie Antoinette, and look what happened to her! My mother didn't read romance novels or women's magazines, she didn't watch soaps, and she wouldn't take me to see any 'kids' movie she didn't think would entertain her. No one had to tell me the pop lit view of women was hollow. I could see that for myself. I loved the adventures and the suspense, and those wonderful sexy guys in the stories, but I couldn't understand how Scarlett O'Hara, for example, could be so *stupid*. (Apologies to GWTW fans) Female characters: Hermione is the active heroine. IMO, Rowling isn't interested in telling us much about the other girls because, as an artist, she wants our attention on Hermione. The other female students, are like the background in a picture...at the moment, they exist mostly to show us what Hermione is *not*. She's not a snob like Pansy, she's not athletic like Cho, she's not giggly like Lavender or Parvati, she's not a flirt like Fleur, she doesn't invite people to treat her like a little girl, the way Ginny does in PS/SS and CoS (okay, Penny, I admit it :P --Gin does seem to be growing out of it now, thank goodness) . It may seem an artistic flaw, in that some of us are getting a little tired of Hermione, but I think that's partly because we've studied her to death. We need Book Five! Pippin not a literary expert, but I play one on HP :-) Silliest argument ever for H/G: there's no M in Ginny. From bonnie at niche-associates.com Tue Jan 15 18:30:04 2002 From: bonnie at niche-associates.com (dicentra_spectabilis_alba) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 18:30:04 -0000 Subject: Throwaway comment in POA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33506 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "meglet2" wrote My take is that Lupin was planted > on the train by Dumbledore to protect Harry, not, as someone > suggested, from the dementors, but from Sirius Black. [snippage] I > supect that he was very far from asleep on any part of their journey > (the triple emphasis on his comatose state is very supicious don't > you think? - this is Rowling after all) and that if any other > students apart from our trio had looked into his compartment at the > beginning they would have found a wide-awake teacher, quite enough to > discourage anyone else from joining the compartment until HRH arrived. > > Just a few thoughts but they reflect why I get such pleasure from > reading and rereading these books. You keep seeing more and more > little subtleties and plot twists. Any comments? > > meglet2/Mercia Great catch, Mercia. I think you're dead on, and I also think that it's possible Lupin recognized Harry because of his resemblance to James Potter. However, I don't think we can exclude the dementors as things Lupin was supposed to protect Harry from. He had chocolate handy in his possession, which is the cure for encounters with dementors. So he was to fend of both dementors and Sirius Black and anything else that might mess with Harry. --Dicentra, who always suspected Lupin was awake the whole time From bonnie at niche-associates.com Tue Jan 15 19:01:43 2002 From: bonnie at niche-associates.com (dicentra_spectabilis_alba) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 19:01:43 -0000 Subject: Why readers love Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33507 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "gypaetus16" wrote: > garaeta wrote on 14th of January: > > > > What I believe has to be changed (and changing or making a difference > is saving too) is his attitude against weak and helpless figures such > as Neville. Snape knows about Neville?s history, such as Remus does, > but Lupin wants to help him. It is not necessary to frighten a helpless > little boy, who has to visit his insane parents during the holidays, > who do not recognize their son. It is not necessary to enlarge the > fear of this little shivering boy, in particular not necessary for a > powerful, brilliant and highly intelligent wizard such as Snape, who > has such an important role to play. > > Gabriele Hey, wait a minute. That's true: Snape DOES know about Neville's parents. Could that have something to do with why Snape singles him out, the way he does Harry? The Longbottoms were powerful enemies of the Death Eaters, undoubtedly when Snape was one of them. Why would Snape hold a grudge against someone who was fighting for a cause he eventually embraced? What a jerk! --Dicentra, who loves Snape because of his uncanny resemblance to Alan Rickman (it bears repeating) From moongirlk at yahoo.com Tue Jan 15 19:16:12 2002 From: moongirlk at yahoo.com (moongirlk) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 19:16:12 -0000 Subject: The Female Students (and other female charcters) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33508 I'll probably regret replying to this before catching up on all the posts from the last few days, but I wanted to respond to a few things, and darned if I could manage to delay my gratification. --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "judyserenity" wrote: > Mrs. Lestrange seems very interesting. But, she has been in exactly > one scene so far. We don't even know her own name (given or maiden.) > And, her presence at the trial is balanced by the apparent lack of > females in the Death Eater circle summoned by Voldy. Which brings to mind something positive that JKR has done in respect to women. V discounts them, and quite to his detriment. Starting with Lestrange herself, who seems to be quite a character. Unrepentant in the face of an angry mob, she's not the least concerned that she's had a part in destroying two people so thoroughly that they will spend the next decade or so, if not the rest of their lives, institutionalized. She's one of the very few DEs who choose to go to Azkaban rather than deny, lie, or scrounge to turn in everyone in sight - she is the *only* one so far that has openly and defiantly avowed herself to be a DE and a loyal follower of V. In contrast to Crouch Jr., V's pet and "loyal servant", who whinged and begged and cried and denied his little heart out on the stand, she was amazing. Perhaps if he'd sought to get her out of prison, he'd have had a loyal servant who didn't have the strangely counterproductive urge to teach Harry to resist the Imperious curse :D I love minor characters! Second woman he should've given more credit - Lily Potter, of course! "Step aside woman!" is pretty dismissive. Too bad he didn't take into account her strength, her love, and her determination to protect her child. I'm guessing that in the future this tendency to discount the power and importance of women will bite him in his creepy tush. I could see that happening with Hermione, McG, Molly... any of several women. Just something that popped into my head. > Trelawney does have a decent amount of lines, although she is is quite > frivalous. I do see her as fussy and neurotic, always expecting > people to die, afraid to sit at a table with 12 people, etc. I have to agree with you there, but then, as a character that nobody (meaning the other characters) takes seriously, I think it's ok that she's stereotypically flighty and lame. I see > McGonagall as fussy, too. McGonagall is the stereotypical prim and > proper spinster, hair in a bun, spectacles, and all. And *she* didn't > bend the rule about no first years with brooms -- she went to > Dumbledore and asked for permission. This, I totally don't see. Yes, she's got the bun and glasses, but I think they are there specifically as a foil to her *real* personality. This is a woman who makes fun of other profs in public - "Tripe, Sibyl?"/ picking on Lockhart. And she didn't stop to ask Dumbledore's permission before she took a kid who should have been in all manner of trouble (remember Harry was afraid that the "Wood" she asked for was going to be some sort of paddle), and put him on her house's Quidditch team without a detention, or even a talking-to about safety, and without making him go to tryouts, or, in fact, asking him if he *wanted* to be on the team, that I can recall. She gets very excited (and downright competitive) about sports, she wears robes that are at least as interesting and noticeable as Lockhart's, which means she doesn't mind being noticed and has some interest in her appearance. She dances and kisses and blushes. She has tender feelings for her students, past and present, she cares about how she makes them feel (feeling bad about being hard on Pettigrew). Her animagus form is a cat, which implies all manner of things, but to me prim isn't one of them. This is not your stereotypical strick spinster teacher. Snape is not strict about rules > in the same way that McGonagall is. He is much more machiavellian > (and more interesting), he enforces rules only when it suits his > purposes. As does McGonagall, as is evidenced above - she didn't do anything to punish Harry for the flying incident, because she wanted him on her team. > About my deingrating what the female professors do -- I may have > overstated my case, but I was trying to make a point about how JKR > presents the female faculty. In other words, *I'm* not trying to > denigrate the female faculty, but I think to some extent canon does > denigrate them. I think things like this have a lot to do with our own personal perceptions. In other words, things may be inferred that were never meant to be implied. For instance... If what Madame Pomfrey does is so important, why > isn't she Dr. Pomfrey? The title of school nurse *implies* someone who > just fixes sniffles, even though she in fact does much more. Why? I have to say that is an inference, not an implication. I know a lot of nurses (male as well as female, I'd wager) would find this a bit offensive. Nurses *do* far more than fix sniffles - ask one. They are medical professionals in their own right, and in places where they're the *only* medical professionals, as is the case at Hogwarts, they take on all sorts of extra responsibilities. Most schools - and I admit I could be wrong about this as far as British boarding schools are concerned - don't have doctors, they have nurses. Hogwarts just happens to have an exceptionally good one, who rules her medical wing with an iron fist (kicking out anyone, no matter their rank, when she feels it necessary), cures everything from sniffles to dragon bites to bone loss to petrification, criticizes and praises professors in front of students when she feels like it, and has enough feminine wiles left over to make Dumbledore blush. Also, not a stereotypical female. Did I mention I love minor characters? And by > saying that Sprout just "prunes flowers", I mean that she's not shown > using any real powers of her own. When have we ever seen Sprout do > anything magical? Given what she is shown as doing, she might as well > be a muggle or a squib working with magical items, like Filch is. > (Putting scarves on the mandrakes apparently took some skill, but not > necessarily magical skill.) I can't remember a single spell she has > done. Granted, Sprout's not shown to cast any spells, but just because she doesn't start off her first class pontificating about the glories of what she can do with all of her plants and skills like Snape does doesn't mean she can't do it. In fact, Snape and Pomfrey would be hard-pressed to do their jobs, and Lupin as well, if it weren't for Sprout's green thumb. We have evidence that magic is used in wizard gardening - Hagrid had to get permission to do an anti-slug charm, for example. So I'd say it's a safe bet that Sprout does, in fact, use magic. It's just not necessary in her classes at this point, and she's not been called upon to do magic in any of her scenes so far. Snape doesn't use magic in his class either, and out of class he only has under extreme circumstances (like the shack) or when required for the job (like the dueling club). As a major character with a lot of page time, it's inevitable that he would be shown to use magic more than Sprout. I agree that there are fewer female characters than male, and that they get less page time overall (so far), that's empirically shown, but when the quality or strenght of the characters is in question, I'd say that much is up to individual perception. kimberly hoping to see Mme Rosmerta hq'ing "the resistence", if things get that bad. From hollydaze at btinternet.com Tue Jan 15 19:22:34 2002 From: hollydaze at btinternet.com (Hollydaze) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 19:22:34 -0000 Subject: Throwaway comment in POA References: Message-ID: <006101c19dfa$9bc13580$0579073e@j0dhe> No: HPFGUIDX 33509 meglet2/Mercia wrote: > When Lupin on his return from dealing with > the dementor addresses Harry by name, JKR comments something > like, 'Harry didn't ask how Lupin knew his name.' I find that a > strange comment. Why should Harry be even remotely surprised about > anyone in the wizarding world knowing his name. After all for two > years he has had to cope with all sorts of people staring at him > and recognising him from his scar. He has been told more less from > the start that he's famous in this world. > In my experience of JKR such little things can be significant. I always felt that this comment was to show that Harry *wasn't* surprised that Lupin knew who he was. Book four is the book where Harry has to start dealing with his fame more obviously than he has done before. So, reading this comment in hindsight, I saw this as a lead in to book 4 and Harry learning to deal with his fame (and Ron's jealousy of it). However I also saw it (again in hindsight) as foreshadowing of that fact that Lupin knew James. If Harry had asked Lupin then and there why he knew his (Harry's) name, he might have discovered that Lupin was a friend of his fathers a lot earlier than he actually does (first Boggart lesson). But because he thinks Lupin knows him from his scar and fame he doesn't bother to ask. > My take is that Lupin was planted > on the train by Dumbledore to protect Harry, not, as someone > suggested, from the Dementors, but from Sirius Black. > I am sure he would have been well briefed by Dumbledore and knew > exactly who Harry, Ron and Hermione were and that they were > usually to be found together. I suspect that he was very far from > asleep on any part of their journey (the triple emphasis on his > comatose state is very suspicious don't you think? - this is > Rowling after all) and that if any other students apart from our > trio had looked into his compartment at the beginning they would > have found a wide awake teacher, quite enough to discourage anyone > else from joining the compartment until HRH arrived. I always thought the reason Lupin was on the train was that as a new teacher (and a quite recent student in respect to other teachers/bar Snape) he was using the train to get their for the first time, as it is the only way he knew. Snape is the same age, yes, but he has also worked their longer and probably knows of other ways to get to the school, although your explanation does seem to make a bit more sense. There is one problem I see in this, how would he know that HRH were even going to go looking for carriage if they didn't enter his in the first place (which they didn't). They entered in a carriage further up the train and then went looking for a quieter carriage, how would he know they were going to do this and so wait in that carriage? HOLLYDAZE!!! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From hollydaze at btinternet.com Tue Jan 15 19:24:20 2002 From: hollydaze at btinternet.com (Hollydaze) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 19:24:20 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's Middle Name References: <000201c19d1d$fc0ff080$af3ffea9@c8b5v1> Message-ID: <006201c19dfa$9c25eac0$0579073e@j0dhe> No: HPFGUIDX 33510 TerriLyn wrote: > I just think that when there's the discrepancy over "Fawcett", > that it could be two different girls discussed entirely. I'd not worry over it too much. Actually when I mentioned the Fawcetts, I was trying to say that i thought they might be two different people (perhaps related) and to see what others thought. i just got confused on the houses (saying they were both in H when one was in H and the other R) because I couldn't find the other quote I was looking for. I wasn't at all trying to say they were the same person:) HOLLYDAZE!!! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Jan 15 21:02:34 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 21:02:34 -0000 Subject: Why Readers Love Snape Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33511 If Alan Rickman was, as reported, JKR's choice to play Snape, then she knows perfectly well that the character has an attractive side. All her comments about how horrible Snape is are part of the act. One) They let us know that, no, in real life a teacher should not act they way Snape does. Two) They're misdirection: like the magician's flourish. "Nothing up my sleeve," s/he says, so you don't look at the *other* sleeve. Some of us like to watch the show and be amazed, others like to see if we can spot the springwork. JKR has to keep us both guessing, so she tosses out ambiguous comments like "Who'd want Snape in love with them?" which don't answer the question at all. Pippin From oppen at cnsinternet.com Tue Jan 15 21:06:46 2002 From: oppen at cnsinternet.com (Eric Oppen) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 15:06:46 -0600 Subject: A Roiyal at Hogwarts? Message-ID: <008401c19e08$8be2ad20$d9c71bce@hppav> No: HPFGUIDX 33512 Wouldn't it be..._interesting_....if one of the Royal Family turned out to be strongly magical, and got The Letter From Hogwarts? If the Muggle PM knows about the magical world (and, I would assume, the Opposition leader must, as well, if only so that he can step in if there's a change of party dominance in Parliament) it would follow that the reigning monarch would also know. Since Hogwarts is the optimal environment for a budding witch or wizard, the case for sending even a member of the Royal Family there would be strong. The tabloid press would go NUTS wondering where Prince or Princess Whoozis was going to school. (Unless, of course, royals who are found to be magical are tutored privately---I imagine this could be arranged fairly easily). Having the paparazzi running up against the Aurors would be _so_ amusing..."Paparazzo, meet Mad-Eye Moody. Mad-Eye Moody, this is a paparazzo." Come to it, Herself has said that Rita Skeeter was conceived _before_ She became world-famous...could she have been inspired by the tabloids' feeding frenzy about Princess Diana? --Eric, who would love to sic dementors on the tabloid press. From zoehooch at yahoo.com Tue Jan 15 21:11:21 2002 From: zoehooch at yahoo.com (zoehooch) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 21:11:21 -0000 Subject: Why the Malfoys Are This Way, Female Characters, and Sociology In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33513 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jchutney" wrote: > Southernscotland wrote: > ***I have a little theory (please be gentle and use candles instead > of flames!) about why the Malfoys might not like muggles. They are > afraid of them (us).*** > > I totally agree with this theory. Even though we're told fire did > not work on real witches, it's still possible to "attack" a wizard > or witch if they're sleeping, etc. Also, anyone with magical > ability would be met by great fear and predjudice. Wizards like the > Malfoys hatred of muggles is clearly a reaction to the hatred muggles > have of wizards. Obviously prejudice is a two-way street. The > Dursleys and the Malfoys are both prejudiced. And as powerful as > Lucius might be, ANYONE can be taken down if you have the right plan > of attack. Is there evidence that Muggles hate wizards? We know that the Dursleys do, of course, but we also have the Grainger's who seem quite open to wizards and are happy to have one in family as well as Lily's paprents. Zoe Hooch From ftah3 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 15 21:50:15 2002 From: ftah3 at yahoo.com (ftah3) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 21:50:15 -0000 Subject: Why the Malfoys Are This Way In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33514 zoehooch wrote: > Is there evidence that Muggles hate wizards? We know that the > Dursleys do, of course, but we also have the Grainger's who seem > quite open to wizards and are happy to have one in family as well as > Lily's paprents. I think it's the wizard world that assumes, based on past experiences (c.f. witch burnings), that muggles would hate/persecute them if the general muggle populace knew they existed. It's mentioned that the wizard world hides itself from the muggle world; Harry asks someone why, Hagrid I *think*, who responds off-handedly that it's because then muggles would want magical solutions for all their problems. I rather think the truth is that they're afraid of being outed, for fear of persecution. And I also agree with jchutney that the Malfoy's (and others') prejudice may be partly based on that fear of persecution ~ a sort of deep-seeded "get them before they get us" reaction. Mahoney From tracym255 at aol.com Tue Jan 15 22:12:40 2002 From: tracym255 at aol.com (mullsym255) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 22:12:40 -0000 Subject: Throwaway comment in POA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33516 I always took the comment as JKR's way of foreshadowing that Lupin knew Harry because of his relationship with James. However, I always felt that it was a bit of a mistake on her part because first of all, Harry's famous. Therefore, even if Lupin wasn't friends with Harry's dad, he could have checked out the scar and thought to himself "oh, Harry Potter". The second reason that it wasn't the best way to foreshadow a relationship was that I believe Hermione or Ron called out "Harry!" several times after he collapsed to try to revive him. So, Lupin would have known his name if he'd heard either of them. So, basically I think it was an attempt to foreshadow that JKR goofed up a bit. Tracy From david_p at istop.com Tue Jan 15 22:16:56 2002 From: david_p at istop.com (david_p2002ca) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 22:16:56 -0000 Subject: Why the Malfoys Are This Way and Sociology In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33517 Lilahp wrote one snowy afternon: (at least, it's a snowy afternoon here!) > But I still don't understand why the wizards didn't just take over > instead of retreating and creating their own little world - which > takes quite a lot of time and energy to keep secret. If they couldn't > have back then, they certainly could have by now. Survival of the > fittest and all that. > > Maybe they could run things better than us. Maybe they are fearful of > absolute power corrupting absolutely, but it somehow seems to work in > their own society. Look at the size of the wizard population in the UK. According to JKR, every time a child with magic abilities is born, their name is inscribed with a magic quill in a book at Hogwarts (one of the scholastic chats). So, there are 1000 magic children in the age range of 11 to 18 in the UK. If Dumbledore at 150 represents the upper age limit for the wizard pyramid (Nicolas Flamel excluded), we're looking at a magical population of no more than 22 000 in the UK, with over 59 million muggles. This does raise another question: can the magic community survive? Is their gene pool diverse enough? David P. From richasi at azlance.com Tue Jan 15 23:19:00 2002 From: richasi at azlance.com (Richasi) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 18:19:00 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Throwaway comment in POA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000601c19e1b$041e8860$e6d51b18@cfl.rr.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33518 > From: mullsym255 [mailto:tracym255 at aol.com] > out "Harry!" several times after he collapsed to try to revive him. > So, Lupin would have known his name if he'd heard either of them. So, > basically I think it was an attempt to foreshadow that JKR goofed up > a bit. I dunno about that really. Considering how people react when they meet Harry, I don't feel it was a mistake. I think Lupin was distracted enough not to care that it was famous Harry Potter he was saving. Of course, he probably had fair warning himself from Dumbledore (which I think someone else said here) and, of course, from James. Richasi From bonnie at niche-associates.com Tue Jan 15 23:29:57 2002 From: bonnie at niche-associates.com (dicentra_spectabilis_alba) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 23:29:57 -0000 Subject: Why Readers Love Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33519 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" wrote: > If Alan Rickman was, as reported, JKR's choice to play Snape, > then she knows perfectly well that the character has an attractive > side. All her comments about how horrible Snape is are part of > the act. In one of her interviews, she said she didn't have a say in the casting but that she was pleased with it. Of course, Rickman is the consummate villian, Colonel Brandon (Sense and Sensibility) notwithstanding. No one comes close to Rickman's smooth basso profundo. I can't wait to hear him say to Sirius in the Shrieking Shack, "Just give me a reason and I swear I'll do it" as he aims his wand between Sirius's eyes. Woohoo! > > One) They let us know that, no, in real life a teacher should not > act they way Snape does. > > Two) They're misdirection: like the magician's flourish. "Nothing > up my sleeve," s/he says, so you don't look at the *other* sleeve. > Some of us like to watch the show and be amazed, others like to > see if we can spot the springwork. JKR has to keep us both > guessing, so she tosses out ambiguous comments like "Who'd > want Snape in love with them?" which don't answer the question > at all. > So if Snape isn't as bad as he seems to be, why is he this bad at all? It would seem that he has already been "redeemed" once by abandoning the Death Eaters, so there's no point in setting him up for a second redemption. For a redeemed character, he's still pretty rotten. Other characters that seemed bad and weren't were mostly misunderstood. Sirius Black is the best example of this: he is assumed to be bad because of the way Rat Pettigrew framed him, and then when he escapes Azkaban everyone assumes it was his involvement in the Dark Arts what done it. When we find out the truth, his actions look totally different (such as the fact that in Azkaban he hadn't gone mad, breaking into the Gryffindor dorms, etc.). Knowing the truth puts things in an entirely different light with Sirius. With Snape, what can we find out to change how we see his bad behavior? His bad treatment of Harry is genuine, not misunderstood good behavior. Even if it turns out that LOLLIPOPS is correct, mean is still mean. No, Snape's bad side is genuinely bad. JKR might insist on this to conceal something else, but I really can't see him being redeemed a second time. --Dicentra, who REALLY can't wait for PoA on film From cmf_usc at yahoo.com Tue Jan 15 23:34:04 2002 From: cmf_usc at yahoo.com (cmf_usc) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 23:34:04 -0000 Subject: The Female Students -Voldie underestimating women In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33520 Hi all! Responding to Kimberly's really interesting analysis-- > Which brings to mind something positive that JKR has done in respect to women. V discounts them, and quite to his detriment. >Perhaps if he'd sought to get her <(Mrs. Lestrange)> out of > prison, he'd have had a loyal servant who didn't have the strangely > counterproductive urge to teach Harry to resist the Imperious > curse :D I love minor characters! > > Second woman he should've given more credit - Lily Potter, of course! > "Step aside woman!" is pretty dismissive. Too bad he didn't take > into account her strength, her love, and her determination to protect > her child. I'm guessing that in the future this tendency to discount > the power and importance of women will bite him in his creepy tush. > I could see that happening with Hermione, McG, Molly... any of > several women. Just something that popped into my head. > Somehow I never focused on this flaw of Voldemort's! But now that Kimberly's spelled it out, I can see it might have a real bearing on future plots. With Hermione especially--as a female and Muggle-born, Voldie may really underestimate her in future. Can't you just see it--- "I'm going to take over the world, and there's nothing you can do to stop me, Muggle girl!" To which Hermione replies, "But I read _Obscure Spells and Little-Known Magic_ , and I know all I have to do is (fill in the blank)!" This makes me worry about Hermione though--might she be the one who is sacrificed while doing something dangerous? That might be kind of unexpected, and we know how JKR likes surprises. Caroline From bonnie at niche-associates.com Tue Jan 15 23:42:47 2002 From: bonnie at niche-associates.com (dicentra_spectabilis_alba) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 23:42:47 -0000 Subject: R&D in the Wizard World In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33521 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ftah3" wrote: > > I still rather like the idea that Arithmancy is the science of spell- > crafting. As in, a combination of numerology, straight grammar, and > the magic inherent in words. I.e., Fred and George blew off > Arithmancy and thus the spell they made up and gave to Ron to turn > Scabbers yellow didn't work, because it's not just words, but the > *right* words, determined through a scientificish process, that > matter. > Not to burst your bubble or anything, but here's a muggle-world definition of Arithmancy: "Divination by numbers. The ancient Greeks examined the number and the values of letters in each name of two combatants. They predicted the combatant having the name of the greater value would be victorious. It was by using this science that some diviners foretold that Achilles would defeat Hector. "The Chaldeans also practiced arithmancy. They divided their alphabet into three parts, each part composed of seven letters which they attributed to the seven planets. Through this arithmetic method they made predictions based on the planets. "The Platonists and Pythagoreans were also strongly attracted to this form of divination which is similar to certain aspects of the Jewish Kabbalah." On the other hand, JKR is not above adapting muggle-world stuff for her own purposes. I'm pretty sure there's a spell R&D--otherwise how would they have come up with the potion to make Remus "tame" after it was too late to cure him? --Dicentra, who would pay top dollar for a spell that would zap Bill Gates in the butt every time his software acted up From lipglossusa at yahoo.com Wed Jan 16 00:16:03 2002 From: lipglossusa at yahoo.com (lipglossusa) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 00:16:03 -0000 Subject: Sleepy Lupin-- WAS Throwaway comment in POA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33522 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "meglet2" wrote: My take is that Lupin was planted > on the train by Dumbledore to protect Harry, not, as someone > suggested, from the dementors, but from Sirius Black. -snip- >I supect that he was very far from asleep on any part of their journey (the triple emphasis on his comatose state is very supicious don't you think? - this is Rowling after all) and that if any other students apart from our trio had looked into his compartment at the > beginning they would have found a wide awake teacher, quite enough to discourage anyone else from joining the compartment until HRH arrived.> Meglet, I too have wondered about whether Lupin was really asleep or not on the infamous train ride. At first I thought the reason he was so exhausted was because he had been up all night in his werewolf state, probably locked up in a room somewhere, breaking furniture. But I've since reread the previous chapter carefully, when Harry goes to bed in his room at the Leaky Caldron and there's no mention of a full moon the night before. Of course it could have been a full moon outside and Harry just doesn't notice because he's thinking about Sirius Black. But why didn't JKR throw this detail in anyway, if she wanted this to be the explanation? After all, there are many things that happen that the reader notices but Harry doesn't. So Lupin could be faking it, and hanging around HRH on Dumbledore's orders. But why would Dumbledore think that Sirius Black could sneak onto the train anyway? It would be pretty difficult for him to wander around Kings Cross and get onto Platform 9-and-3/4 with wizards and muggles roaming everywhere, and even a huge black dog lurking about would be pretty suspicious too. If Albus was really that concerned about Sirius attacking Harry on the Hogwarts Express, why didn't he just arrange for Harry to get to Hogwarts some other way? marina Marina From lipglossusa at yahoo.com Wed Jan 16 01:06:24 2002 From: lipglossusa at yahoo.com (lipglossusa) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 01:06:24 -0000 Subject: Snape and Neville-- WAS Why readers love Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33523 I think taking the "poor Neville" side in Snape's dealings with Neville is a bit insulting to Neville. Yes, he is often bumbling, frightened, and forgetful, but Neville has shown time and again that he's made of stronger stuff than one might think. I would cite his attack on Crabbe and Goyle, his attempt to stop HRH from sneaking out, his fight against the boggart/Snape, plus the fact that he was sorted into Gryffindor, etc. And not that it's an excuse, but Snape is horrible to everyone, not just Neville! It's not in Snape's character to treat someone differently because of a troubled past. I think it's pretty clear that, though we haven't yet found out why, Snape has had his own troubled past, and might have his reasons to believe that giving Neville special treatment might be detrimental in some way. After all, Neville has just as much reason to fear Voldemort as Harry does, but the boggart manifesting itself as Snape shows that Neville is not afraid of evil, he is afraid of making mistakes. Snape, the ever-present critic, constantly mocks Neville's mistakes, and, though Neville hasn't realized it yet, keeps him on his toes and gives him a less dangerous thing to fear. marina From Rebecca.Allen at turner.com Wed Jan 16 02:24:54 2002 From: Rebecca.Allen at turner.com (Allen, Rebecca) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 21:24:54 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why Readers Love Snape (long) Message-ID: <759A085B4DB9AF47AD5BB22098C91728075315@cnncex01.turner.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33524 Dicentra wrote: > So if Snape isn't as bad as he seems to be, why is he this bad at all? > It would seem that he has already been "redeemed" once by abandoning > the Death Eaters, so there's no point in setting him up for a second > redemption. For a redeemed character, he's still pretty rotten. > With Snape, what can we find out to change how we see his bad > behavior? His bad treatment of Harry is genuine, not misunderstood > good behavior. Even if it turns out that LOLLIPOPS is correct, mean is > still mean. > > No, Snape's bad side is genuinely bad. JKR might insist on this to > conceal something else, but I really can't see him being redeemed a > second time. I wanted to contribute my remarks about Snape's possible 'redemption' because I think it's a little complicated. On the one hand I agree that Snape might not need redemption a la evil-to-good because it would seem that he already got that a long time ago. In this case, his future 'redemption' would occur in the mind of Harry or the reader when we find out more about what motivates him, about which we know nothing at all. Sirius got a chance to tell his side of his story. This vindicated him for both stuff he was innocent of (e.g. he really didn't betray the Potters or kill Peter) and for stuff that he did do that seemed terrible at the time but was sort of understandable in retrospect. Like breaking Ron's leg -- I could forgive someone their violent rampage if I found out they'd been imprisoned for 12 years for someone else's crime. Snape, on the other hand, also has a story that no one is willing to tell. OK, it is possible that he's simply an insecure, jealous, cruel person, but I think there is a ton of possibility for the reader to see things differently when his back story or his current point of view is revealed. His bad behavior certainly appears bad, but it could be misunderstood as well -- Harry consistently misunderstands Snape anyway, so we have an established theme here. And I agree with Pippin that JKR is being coy in talking about Snape; she's not keen on giving too much away prior to future books, so she has to stick with his 'horrible' depiction until she writes more. *OTOH* concerning his 'redemption' -- One of the things that intrigues me the most about Snape is that it's quite possible that he still feels he needs to redeem himself for his DE days even if he's been on the side of good for 15+ years. What really struck me about the 'pajama party' scene is that Snape really acts like he's guilt-stricken. He nearly has a breakdown when fake!Moody accuses him of still being untrustworthy; in 1500 pages this is the only time he blushes. This brings me to my Snape theory (yeah, you knew this was coming). I think after he decided to turn against the DE's he wound up feeing terrible about whatever it was he did do while he was really with them and he became obsessed with the idea of doing something important to redeem himself. If he was the spy who uncovered the plot to kill James and Harry then you could see how he might consider this his big chance to make up for his past, not just because he owed James a favor but since everyone else loved James so much then saving his life would be construed as really heroic. But then something went horribly wrong (thanks to Sirius, he believed) and James wound up dead anyway and whatever credit there was to take was taken by Harry. I think Snape gets so irrational around Harry because Harry reminds him of his guilt, regrets and failure to really help James when he had the chance. And I think he hates James because James up and died. This would also explain why Snape is al! ways running into the middle of dangerous situations to try to fix them; he's still trying to make up for his past and he still winds up being mistrusted and misunderstood for all his efforts. I think he's a terribly sympathetic character even with all his flaws. Also, I don't think anything 'drove' Snape into joining the DE's in the first place. He might have had family already DE's and he just thought that was *who he was* and it wasn't until later that he realized he could decide on a different course of action (i.e. the moral of the whole story). And I'm afraid I'm not a LOLLIPOPS believer (sorry! please consider me your loyal opposition), but I do agree with all your premises that it seems like the books are leading up to a bombshell revelation about what's really eating Snape. We shall see. The long-winded Rebecca (who, thanks to LesAJa, has spent the whole evening picturing Snape with ringlets) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Ryjedi at aol.com Wed Jan 16 02:40:32 2002 From: Ryjedi at aol.com (rycar007) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 02:40:32 -0000 Subject: Omnioculars - spells - Lily - gender - virginity- S.P.E.W. - Appearance In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33525 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amy Z" wrote: > Ben wrote: > > >I was wondering where spells come > >from. Is there something intrinsic about the word "Accio" embedded into > >the > >magical fabric of the universe that causes things to be brought to the > >speaker (imagine the poor prehistoric wizard who discovers this as he > >sneezes, his wand inadvertently pointing at a woolly mammoth). Or perhaps, > >are the spells created somehow (wizard R&D) and magically assigned a magic > >word upon their creation. Or something else entirely? Any ideas? > > Ooh, I wonder! Care to spin out these theories some more for us? I love > nature of magic stuff... > > Jewish mysticism puts a heavy emphasis on the power of words in themselves > (letters, also). The word is more than just a summary of what you're trying > to do; it has a unique power. As I've always been interested in occult philosophy and practice, I'll take this opportunity to sound smart (I rarely get them!). The basis of many successful occult operators (Levi, Crowley, etc) is that what we call magic is the work of the mind. Our belief, or more accurately imagination, creates and shapes reality to our will. Imagination, creativity, the right brain, the Id, the soul, by many names we know the thing inside ourselves that creates, that shapes and defines. It's this part of ourselves that creates the gods, and the belief (or the only term, "manna") that keeps them alive. However, like it or not, from birth we're programmed with "popular" reality. "You can't do that," we're told, and the logical part of us accepts it. Ritual (in the case of Harry Potter, we'd say magic words and wand waving) tricks the left side of the brain into thinking that this is a logical process - cause and effect. Saying the English word with "Accio" merely helps the wizard to focus, to trick the brain. Certain words and symbols have a greater effect on the subconcious mind (as well, for the spirits one tries to invoke/evoke). This is also why Molly Weasley doesn't need to say "Accio" when grabbing for Wheezes, her subconcious has learned by now that it works inherently. The wand, like the tarot or the ouija board, is a focusing tool for magical energies, unique to the user. Muggles, I wager, are people without any talent for accepting the impossible, people without the special creative "spark" that makes a wizard. With the right combination of symbols, words, and imagination, anything is possible. > Is it just me, or is JKR slyly informing us about Professor Grubbly- Plank's > sexual history when she has Lavender say about the unicorn, "How did she get > it? They're supposed to be really hard to catch!" (Medieval tradition had > it that only a female virgin could tame a unicorn.) Wouldn't it be hilarious if later on in the series the Gryffindors meet another unicorn, and it likes everyone but kicks Lavender or Parvati? Another subtle hint I look forward to :) -Rycar From midwife34 at aol.com Wed Jan 16 03:53:32 2002 From: midwife34 at aol.com (jrober4211) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 03:53:32 -0000 Subject: Why the Malfoys Are This Way and Sociology In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33526 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "david_p2002ca" wrote: > > > > This does raise another question: can the magic community survive? > Is their gene pool diverse enough? > > David P. Oh how I wish I had not loaned my books out so I could qoute exactly from what book and who said it......but I think it was in CoS when Draco called Hermione a "mudblood" and Herminoe and Harry had no idea what Draco was referring to. The trio went to Hagrid's and was repeating to Hagrid what Draco said. Ron , I think , made the comment that all magical people had muggle blood at some point because the race nearly died out. I suppose in order to promote magical ability , without the fear of persecution, the wizards retreated from the world to prevent extinction. If the occurence of a birth of a magical child is that rare, it would stand to reason that by forming a magical community, they would be able to prevent this from happening, with an infusion of muggle blood occasionally. As for taking over the world, hiding Hogwarts and other communities would be alot easier to do than taking on the world muggle population at this point in time as quantity and size due seem to influence how effective spells are( ex- dragons and their armor, the giant spider in the tournament) , at least from what i gathered in reading the books. And I maybe wrong, but isn't this where Voldemort and Dumbledore differ? Isn't Voldemort out to rule not only the wizarding world but the muggle world too, as Voldemort resents having to hide from muggles, and from what I have seen , makes no effort to do so? Jo Ellen From blenberry at altavista.com Wed Jan 16 01:46:21 2002 From: blenberry at altavista.com (blenberry) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 01:46:21 -0000 Subject: Magic Gene Pool In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33527 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "david_p2002ca" wrote: > we're looking at a magical population of no more than 22 000 in the > UK, with over 59 million muggles. > This does raise another question: can the magic community survive? > Is their gene pool diverse enough? > > David P. Aha! Ron already addressed that in CoS (between slug belches): "Most wizards are half-blood anyway. If we hadn't married muggles we'd've died out." Barbara From brewpub44 at earthlink.net Wed Jan 16 04:46:02 2002 From: brewpub44 at earthlink.net (brewpub44) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 04:46:02 -0000 Subject: Divination in the Potterverse Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33528 One of the posts on this board started me thinking about divination in the Potterverse. I have a theory on how this magic really works, how the wizard world misunderstands it (even and especially Trelawney), and I also have re-read the key points in PoA and GoF to try to back up (or debunk) my theory. First, the theory. Divination is almost always misunderstood as "predicting the future". Yes, it certainly is meant to do that, but successful divination does not predict the raw future. Divination really predicts a future *based on events that are currently happening outside the wizard's or witch's direct knowledge*. Let me try to make a couple of examples. A divination on Person A getting hit by a bus as they cross the street next Tuesday will not work. But a divination on Person A getting hit by a bus on Tuesday when, at the very moment of the divination spell, an enemy of Person A is planning to run over Person A on Tuesday. See the difference? The divination is really a form of "sensory perception" that is perceiving something going on elsewhere that, if continued through to it's natural conclusion, will have an impact to someone or something in the future. It is *not* looking in to the future, seeing something happen, coming back to the present and reporting on it. This begs these two questions (at least): Why doesn't divination work better then? Because even when you have the facts, you can't always deduce an outcome. A lot of it depends on human behavior, which is inherently unpredictable. Trelawney's "big prediction" about LV is very strong because he is not only real predictable but also real powerful and nasty. Why doesn't the wizard world understand what it is, why do they still consider it 'foreseeing the future'? In a word, prejudice. Because it's not reliable, it's not treated seriously, and those who have "the gift" are blinded by it's wonder that they don't see the reality either. In order to figure it out, you have to use more scientific methods, and Hermione herself says in SS that wizards & witches aren't the best at using logic. Now to the book. Here are the snippets [all from POA] regarding the mis-named "telling the future", and how they fit, or debunk, my theory: Trelawney's "Big Prediction": She predicts that LV's servant who has been chained for twelve years will break free and rejoin his master. LV will rise again with his servant's aid, greater and more powerful than he ever was. All that is to happen that night. Now, at that very moment, Sirius is steadfastly tracking Wormtail and is already getting close. Crookshanks is also on the case on Sirius' behalf. Wormtail is LV's servant. LV is planning his own rebirth, but does not have the ability due to his current form. Now, if the spell first of all gathers up all this 'real time' knowledge, then the spell can also put two and two together. It is logical for Sirius & Crookshanks to uncover Wormtail (Pettigrew). It is reasonable to assume that Pettigrew can evade them as he has managed to in the past. It is reasonable to assume that his cover as Scabbers will be blown. It is reasonable to assume he will return to LV, and that LV will have Pettigrew's help to be reborn. And the power of LV in this whole equation makes it really "strike home" with Trelawney, hence the trancelike state she enters. Then the spell delivers this conclusion to Trelawney, and she spouts it off as a prediction. So it's not out of thin air, it's an assemblage of data with a conclusion drawn. Other, minor, predictions: Trelawney predicting that Neville will break a cup appears to come out of thin air. Neville isn't planning on breaking a cup. But Neville is a nervous clutz in real-time, so she is seeing something that, if continued to it's natural conclusion, results in Neville breaking a cup. I think my theory still holds here. Trelawney predicts someone won't be around by Easter. Seems to come out of the blue. But Hermione already hates the class, taken to it's natural conclusion means she's gone by Easter. Trelawney seeing the 'Grim' many times around Harry. It's almost universally agreed upon that this Grim is really a representation of Sirius aka Padfoot. In real-time, Sirius is interested in Harry. Also the skull (danger), the club (an attack), etc., is very evident: in real-time, Sirius is planning on attacking Wormtail who is in the pocket of Harry's best friend. If her divination saw all that going on, the natural conclusion would be "Harry will see a big black dog attacking someone, with danger, etc." So the theory fits. Trelawney predicts Lupin will not be with Hogwarts for very long. This, too, fits the theory. If you have all the facts about Lupin, you can deduce he won't stay long, her spell simply put together the pieces for her. Harry seems to predict that Buckbeak survives and flies away. OK, this seems to go against my theory. None of the events that led to Buckbeak's release seem to even be in the planning stages at this time, so yeah, this seems to debunk me. Unless someone would be kind enough to twist this in my favor! Anyway, this is my theory. I'll re-read the Trelawney parts in GoF and see if anything else fits or doesn't fit. I welcome your opinions! A Barkeep in Diagon Alley From lav at tut.by Wed Jan 16 04:34:14 2002 From: lav at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 06:34:14 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why the Malfoys Are This Way and Sociology In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1301680781.20020116063414@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 33529 Greetings, ! > David P. wrote to us in his wisdom: d> This does raise another question: can the magic community survive? d> Is their gene pool diverse enough? d> David P. As far as I remember, 500 people are enough to maintain genetic diversity in a separate group. 22000 you have counted are definitely enough, especially with regular blood injections from muggles (ah, and they are regular, not occasional as someone has already wrote, at least it's the impression I got from the books). Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, (Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed), always happy to throw weird ideas into the community. From david_p at istop.com Wed Jan 16 04:11:42 2002 From: david_p at istop.com (david_p2002ca) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 04:11:42 -0000 Subject: Is Ron a Seer? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33530 Looking back at PoA and GoF, I've noticed that Ron's predictions have an uncanny knack for coming true - even when he makes them up. Examples: In PoA, in their first Divination class, Ron sees two things in Harry's teacup: An acorn, representing a windfall, unexpected gold - the 1000 Galleons from the Tri-wizard cup in GoF, perhaps? An animal (not the Grim!) - Sirius Black is an animagus (as we discover later in the book) In GoF, Ron makes the following predictions for his star chart: Harry will be stabbed in the back by someone he thought was a friend - Harry and Ron have a fight after Harry is named to the Tri-wizard tournament and barely speak for almost a month. Ron predicts his own drowning - he is taken underwater by the merpeople for Harry to rescue in the second task. That's a pretty good average, for a 14 year old wizard without much training. Better than Professor Trelawny, at any rate... I've lent out ms PS/SS and CoS - can someone else take a look for more of Ron's predictions? Perhaps he has The Sight - though I'm sure he'd deny it. David P. From goldie034 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 16 04:14:01 2002 From: goldie034 at yahoo.com (goldie034) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 04:14:01 -0000 Subject: Draco's Eyes, Hair Color... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33531 Okay, I know this has probably been posted, but I'm not finding it in either the stories or the discussion pages. Could someone tell me if Rowling ever tells us what color eyes Ron and Hermione have? I've always pictured Hermione having brown eyes to go with her brown bushy hair, and Ron having blue eyes with his red curly hair. Am I right? Also, what color is Ginny's eyes? Thanks guys. ~Jeni~ From southernscotland at yahoo.com Wed Jan 16 06:05:05 2002 From: southernscotland at yahoo.com (southernscotland) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 06:05:05 -0000 Subject: Why the Malfoys Are This Way and Sociology In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33532 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Lilahp wrote one snowy afternon: > > But I still don't understand why the wizards didn't just take over > > instead of retreating and creating their own little world..If they couldn't have back then, they certainly could have by now. > > then "david_p2002ca" wrote: > >Look at the size of the wizard population in the UK...So, there are 1000 magic children in the age range of 11 to 18 in the UK... we're looking at a magical population of no more than 22 000 in the UK, with over 59 million muggles. > I am sure that all of you are right, if we are thinking about normal population assimilation. I didn't mean that they should come out into the open - I don't think many of us muggles, if we knew of their existence, would treat them much better than we would have centuries ago! Permit me to explain. What I did mean was that the wizarding world could have taken over Entirely By Secret. Since they seem to be able to keep things from being discovered so well. In this view, the wizards would be like spies, only they would be looking out for their own interests in our world. We would never know they were anything but like us (except for those who had them in the family). They wouldn't necessarily need a great deal of people, either, once they had the persons they wanted in the important positions that they needed to have filled. Like, say, in government, for example. A few spies could do a lot. It would be similar to the ways in which some wizards mix with muggles now, only more so. With magic, they could make a lot of events happen in our society to suit them. To me, it would seem to take less effort than keeping a whole other world under wraps. The magical world could still have its hidden areas, but the wizards would be able to exist more and more in our world, all in secret. Then they would gradually and irretrievably change and refine our society to be more like theirs, all without our knowledge or memories of what they were doing. (Even now, quite a few things go on in our "normal" towns and cities that we, the common people, aren't aware of.) It would have to be very slow, because right now, muggle/wizard families exist where the muggle members, especially, would notice any drastic or non-benevolent changes. When necessary, Memory Charms and other spells and potions would be most advantageous here. After all, they already have demonstrated "improving" memories for some of us, and they do other, mostly minor, things which have an impact on our world. The muggle/wizard families both know about these policies, and, I assume for protection's sake, mostly approve of them. That's how it could start - most innocently. Just a little bit more meddling to a few more folks. It won't hurt those muggles...it will do them some good... Over time, though, they might not have to use such things as much, as they obtained more control, and needed our permission and knowledge less and less. The following generations wouldn't necessarily know what they missed. It wouldn't all be a bad thing - the environment, for example, could certainly use a bit of magic. Also, at the beginning at least, some of the wizards would be convinced that such new policies would be Entirely For Our Own Good. They would become Our Benevolent Protectors. A More Advanced Society. Not saying that I don't trust their politicians, but from what we've seen so far...(I know that Dumbledore would prevent it, but there seems to be only one of him at present. And maybe some of this would occur far from his all-knowing eyes.) I know that they have, and have had, strict laws against interference, but they have shown that they can do what they must, for security's sake. It must be, and must have been, tempting for some of them to try to take it further. Even the social workers among the group might want to start trying to improve the lot of human beings, since we seem to mess so many things up. You know, in a "Gandalf-who-would-use-the-ring-only-for-good" sort of way. Once you start, it's a slippery slope...and in some ways, they have already started... That's my point - and maybe that's part of Voldemort's plan, after he takes care of the good wizards and becomes immortal. You need a few servants when you become king of the world, and if they're muggles, so much the better, right? (Again, sorry if what I am getting at has been discussed extensively by folks in this very forum. And I know I earlier brought up Middle-Earth's elves, but they seem to be different from the wizarding realm.) lilahp (who lives in the American South and hardly knows what this thing called "snow", which was attributed to her, is, but liking the concept!) From pigwidgeon37 at yahoo.it Wed Jan 16 11:36:44 2002 From: pigwidgeon37 at yahoo.it (pigwidgeon37) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 11:36:44 -0000 Subject: Scapegoats & The Blame Game (WAS: Snape and McGonagall) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33533 Luke wrote: < In any case, the consequences of individual actions are simply too hard to measure, and judgment too far beyond mere human wisdom. At least, that's what I believe. Which is why I don't like the concept of blame in the first place, so perhaps I am just being touchy. :-)>> Cindyshpynx wrote: <> Much as I like this kind of semi-philosophical discussion, it would really require English to be my first language. But I hope you'll not be too harsh on me. Of course, the concept of "blame" doesn't sound too appealing, because one of the most well-known inhabitants of Blame City is the Scapegoat. And as far as this creature is concerned, I 100% agree with Luke. Nevertheless, the Blame Game is also a Responsibility Game and therefore shouldn't be refused altogether, as it offers the opportunity of personal development, insofar as "taking the blame" and not "putting the blame on " is concerned. The former certainly doesn't work unless the persons concerned are ready to acknowledge - the possibilities and thus responsibilities they had to prevent something from happening - their motives why they didn't or did only partially act accordingly - their guilt or failure and hence to learn from their experience. To exemplify this by way of the Crouch/Dementor accident: If Snape really let the Dementor into the school, he first has to determine whether or not it was in his powers to do otherwise, without risking to be kissed himself. If he had the possibility and thus the responsibility of standing up to Fudge, he should admit to himself why he didn't (explanations ranging from being overly stressed to not wanting to get involved with the MoM, given his rather unfavourable records). And, in the end, he would have to decide on how to behave, should such a situation ever arise again. That is also why it can never be a black- and- white- concept, for nobody ever has 100% responsibility. The latter, namely "putting the blame on " is what I guess Luke hates (am I right?), because it is totally useless and furthers irresponsibility and immaturity instead of the contrary. If Snape washed his hands of the whole affair, telling Dumbledore "Of course I let Fudge and the Dementor into the school, I thought it was all agreed with you, and then, she"- pointing at McGonagall- "could have said or done something as well!", that would only lead to conflict and hatred. But I agree with Cindy that it's appealing to analyse who of Dumbledore/ McGonagall/ Snape/ Fudge had which part of the responsibility and why they decided to act accordingly or not, for it allows us an interesting glimpse on their personality, after all how you handle your responsibilities says a lot about yourself. Susanna/pigwidgeon37 From pigwidgeon37 at yahoo.it Wed Jan 16 12:19:47 2002 From: pigwidgeon37 at yahoo.it (pigwidgeon37) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 12:19:47 -0000 Subject: Magical Aristocracy (WAS: Why the Malfoys are as they are) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33534 Southernscotland wrote: <> Nice as it is, I'd really like to contradict this theory. It is not canonical evidence, but I think it qualifies as a very solid assumption, that the Malfoys are an old family. And I mean "old" in a strictly European sense- don't flame me, this isn't arrogance, it's a matter of fact. The origin of the name "Malfoy" being clearly French ("of bad fame" or "untrustworthy"), I'd hazard the theory that the family pedigree is traceable back to the Normans and probably even further, as it is more than possible that the first Malfoy who had crossed the channel married some noble Saxon witch of even more impressive and long-standing pedigree. So what we are facing here is aristocracy, both of blood and money. Now I don't want to go into a detailed description of snobbish, snotty, arrogant aristocrats, moreover what I'd have to say about the British variety would only be an extrapolation of my Austrian knowledge, but let me say this: Much as they may plead the contrary, most descendants of nobility ARE incurably arrogant and see themselves as the Selected Few. They may tolerate the occasional parvenu (which means the Nobel Prize winner as well as the film star or the industry tycoon), but in the end it all comes down to the superiority of "old blood" and "breeding". This is exactly the Malfoys' attitude, which we learn mostly by Draco's comments, though we can be fairly sure that he only repeats what he hears from his father and, if her attitude during the QWC is a valid indication, also from his mother. Considering the often discussed wizarding population of GB and putting it into relation with the Muggles living there, how many wizarding families would you guess are up to the Malfoys' standards? Three? Four? Not many, anyway. Apart from these, I think there is a very subtle hierarchy in the "real" aristocrats' perception of worth and social rank: No.1 are the Malfoys and the aforementioned three or four families, equally outstanding for blood and wealth. One step down: The purebloods sticking to a strictly anti-Muggle and anti-Mudblood ideology (Crabbe and Goyle seem to fit into that category). Next step: Purebloods with more liberal views, the so-called "Muggle-lovers" like the Weasleys and Dumbledore. One down: halfbloods. One more down: Mudbloods. And then, at the bottom end of the ranking, there's Muggles, House Elves, Werewolves who fall into the category of "worthless scum". Therefore, I would even venture the suggestion that the Malfoys don't "hate" Muggles: They consider them worthless, crawling creatures whom you might use to have a bit of fun (Voldemort's invitation for Lucius to join him in a bit of Muggle-torturing), because they can't use magic and are thus infinitely inferior. Maybe, and here Southernscotland has a point, the origin of despising Muggles IS fear, but a fear lost in the mists of time when Muggles started to persecute magical folk. The true hate of the likes of Malfoy and company IMHO is directed against wizards like Hermione who are regarded as intruders, and against those who defend or befriend them. That's why I'm leaning towards the theory that Lucius Malfoy and a few other DEs have joined Voldemort not because they fear or adore him so much, but because they see his power as a means to achieve their very own aims, namely the elimination of those they've always been regarding as disturbing factors. Susanna/pigwidgeon37 From lav at tut.by Wed Jan 16 10:01:04 2002 From: lav at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 12:01:04 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why the Malfoys Are This Way and Sociology In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1513003298.20020116120104@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 33535 Greetings, ! > Lilahp wrote to us in her wisdom: s> I am sure that all of you are right, if we are thinking about normal s> population assimilation. s> I didn't mean that they should come out into the open - I don't think s> many of us muggles, if we knew of their existence, would treat them s> much better than we would have centuries ago! That I agree. Remember from Derini - "people destroy things they cannot comprehend". I would suppose there can be only two variants of open contact between Wizarding World and Muggle World - either there's a big war, or wizards agree to be "slave-race" to be used in laboratory experiments (top-secret laboratory experiments, of course) to determine what magic is... s> Permit me to explain. What I did mean was that the wizarding world s> could have taken over Entirely By Secret. Since they seem to be able s> to keep things from being discovered so well. Oh, no, shut her mouth or she gives them an Idea! :-P What I cannot agree in your detailed plan is the general idea that a secret operation of such scale can be kept secret. First of all, wizards will have to agree with the fact that the information WILL leak. There is no way to prevent it, no matter do you have Memory Charms or not. But unlike current situation, information leakage is much more likely to become the subject of investigation of security agencies (it's much more difficult to conceal a secret operation in High Circles). As soon as this happens, discovery of the Wizarding World is the question of time. Of course, from the point of view of securities, wizards have advanced techology (memory erasing, false memory creation etc), but they have no school of conspiracy, are weakly trained to operate in the muggle world and are in general incompetent. And anyway I doubt the effectiveness of Memory Charms against modern interrogation technics (if you think our securities are too ethical to use it, I wish you luck). The result of all this will be simple and predictable: some kind of _undirect_ contact between country governments and Wizarding World. Unofficial contact. But don't they have such contact already? Minister of Magic may _believe_ that Muggle Prime-Minister keeps his mouth tightly shut about Wizards. So good for him, he's such a nice guy. I don't believe into such charity. Even more, I have a strong suspicion that special Anti-Magic Wings of security organisations have been created long ago in all countries that posess any kind of security... And they have been created with that very purpose - to _prevent_ such operation of the Wizarding World. Of course, all this has gone pretty off-topic, so I better shut up before Securities come to take me... :) Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, (Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed), always happy to throw weird ideas into the community. From vmadams at att.net Wed Jan 16 12:12:25 2002 From: vmadams at att.net (torimarie_1216) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 12:12:25 -0000 Subject: Is Ron a Seer? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33536 First, may I just say that this is my maiden post here and I am a wee bit nervous about it. Also, I really enjoy this site and look forward to conversing with you all about these wonderful books. The nuances and details are so great that I believe the conversations could go on forever--as this paragraph threatens to do if I don't get on with my post. ;-) --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "david_p2002ca" wrote: > Looking back at PoA and GoF, I've noticed that Ron's predictions have > an uncanny knack for coming true - even when he makes them up. I've noticed this too and I agree with you. Ron could indeed have "the sight". Now wouldn't *that* impress the girls--especially Parvati and Lavendar! ;-) > Harry will be stabbed in the back by someone he thought was a friend - > Harry and Ron have a fight after Harry is named to the Tri-wizard > tournament and barely speak for almost a month. I agree with you that this prediction comes true. But I thought it did so when Moody/Crouch, Jr. delivered him to Voldemort after Harry trusted him and thought he was helping him. Moody/Crouch gave him those hints about the first task and covered up for him when he got stuck in the stairs between Snape and Filch. Harry even trusted him to let him put the Imperius Curse on him in class! When Ron gets so angry at him over the tournament, Harry *feels* like he got stabbed in the back I think. But IMO that was more of a rift between two young friends than real betrayal. > Ron predicts his own drowning - he is taken underwater by the > merpeople for Harry to rescue in the second task. Wow! Good catch! I hadn't noticed that one. > Better than Professor Trelawny, at any rate... LOL! Way better than her! > I've lent out ms PS/SS and CoS - can someone else take a look for > more of Ron's predictions? Perhaps he has The Sight - though I'm > sure he'd deny it. Well, they don't start taking Divination lessons until the third year, so there wouldn't be any formal predictions. But there may be some things he says in normal conversation that come true. I'll be on the lookout for them! :-) And yes, I'm sure he'd deny it too--that is until he noticed how much feminine attention it got him! ;-) Tori Marie From pigwidgeon37 at yahoo.it Wed Jan 16 13:03:04 2002 From: pigwidgeon37 at yahoo.it (pigwidgeon37) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 13:03:04 -0000 Subject: Colonel Snape? - Snape redeemed? - Why the Longbottoms? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33537 Dicentra spectabilis wrote: <> I've always found that one interesting, though I have to contradict you on Colonel Brandon being a consummate villain: He's quite the contrary, and that's what makes JKR's statement so interesting. IIRC, she even said that Rickman was the actor she had pictured all the time as Snape. Now I'd have to go home and check, but wouldn't the "Sense and Sensibility" movie and the period of writing PS/SS fairly coincide? Now if Rickman's Colonel Brandon and JKR's mental image of Snape have something in common, that would make Snape a very tragic romantic hero with- L.O.L.L.I.P.O.P.S. alert!!!!- a heartbreaking love story in his past. Interesting, hmmm? Even if I shudder at the consequences, for who would be there to mend the broken heart? 20 years younger than Snape? Oh, the possibilities <> I suppose that the concept of redemption is a very personal one, above all if separated from a strictly Christian view. At least, as a Catholic, you may say that sins are forgiven as soon as the sinner feels contrition and confesses, thus achieving God's forgiveness. As far as Snape is concerned we have too little knowledge about his character, his past and magical law to be able to draw stringent conclusions. First, we don't know when exactly he returned to the Light Side. It might have been immediately after his initiation, or some years after, or even after Voldemort's downfall, though I doubt that. But if Snape had his fair share of Death Eater activity, I'd imagine that it takes more than just Dumbledore's forgiveness and trust to make him feel redeemed. Second, if a bond is created when a wizard saves another wizard's life, it is possible that destroying another wizard's life has similar consequences. <> This comment gave me another thought which hasn't been discussed recently AFAIK: Don't you think that this whole Longbottom story is a bit fishy? According to what Sirius tells HRH, it happened not too long, but some time after Voldemort's downfall, when a few remaining faithful DEs were desperately searching for their lost Evil Overlord. But does anybody have an idea as to why the Lestranges got it into their fanatical heads that the Longbottoms might eventually know his whereabouts? Did not only the DEs, but also the MoM Aurors search for Voldemort? I was under the impression that a large majority of the wizarding population, including the MoM, believed that he was dead and gone for good, so why should they send Aurors to find him? And if they did so, why were the Longbottoms the only targets? Or weren't they? Did somebody go after Moody too and was this how he lost his eye and maybe also his leg? Though this would have to have taken place after the Longbottom affair, for he still had his eye at the Lestrange/Crouch trial. I'd really like to hear your suggestions and thoughts because this keeps puzzling me. Susanna/pigwidgeon37 From hp_lexicon at yahoo.com Wed Jan 16 13:42:26 2002 From: hp_lexicon at yahoo.com (hp_lexicon) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 13:42:26 -0000 Subject: Draco's Eyes, Hair Color... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33538 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "goldie034" wrote: > Rowling ever tells us what color eyes Ron and Hermione have? I've > always pictured Hermione having brown eyes to go with her brown bushy > hair, and Ron having blue eyes with his red curly hair. Am I right? > Also, what color is Ginny's eyes? Okay, well according to the Lexicon (hint hint) Hermione and Ginny have brown eyes and Malfoy has gray eyes. Ron's eye color, however is not listed. If it's not in the Lexicon, that usually means it's not given in the books. So how do we know? When Hermione was getting over being a cat in CS, her eyes were said to be returning to their usual brown. We see Ginny's brown eyes peeking out at us on the second landing in the Burrow in CS, through a narrow opening of her bedroom door, and also in CS, Harry recognizes Lucius as Draco's father because he has the same gray eyes. Oh, the Lexicon is found here: http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon Steve From lotusmoondragon at aol.com Wed Jan 16 14:56:33 2002 From: lotusmoondragon at aol.com (lotusmoondragon at aol.com) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 09:56:33 EST Subject: Trelwaney's Predictions Message-ID: <8d.126e03ef.2976eea1@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33539 In a message dated 1/13/2002 3:17:07 AM Eastern Standard Time, mrgrrrargh at aol.com writes: > What > better cover for a gifted seer than that of one who has made two correct > predictions. You know, I kind of think that Dumbeldore's comment about the "two correct predictions" is an exaggeration. Like when your mother tells you that she's told you a "million" times to clean your room. The reason I say this is that I'm currently reading PoA again, and I just finished the "Talons and Tealeaves" chapter. She said quite a few things that actually happened. Neville's teacup, for instance. And I happen to think she is correct in her prediction to Lavender, even though the wording leaves something to be desired. Lotus lotusmoondragon at aol.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lotusmoondragon at aol.com Wed Jan 16 14:57:21 2002 From: lotusmoondragon at aol.com (lotusmoondragon at aol.com) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 09:57:21 EST Subject: Non Academic Classes Message-ID: <184.22d7502.2976eed1@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33540 In a message dated 1/13/2002 3:28:07 AM Eastern Standard Time, faubert at optonline.net writes: > Or maybe Hogwart's have more classes then what we read about. We > might not see the non magic classes. > They could also add some classes every three years. In PoA, Harry's 3rd year, they added new classes. Perhaps in 6th year, there is an opportunity to take music or arts, or some other kind of non academic class. Lotus lotusmoondragon at aol.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From margdean at erols.com Wed Jan 16 15:35:39 2002 From: margdean at erols.com (Margaret Dean) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 10:35:39 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Trelawney's Predictions References: <8d.126e03ef.2976eea1@aol.com> Message-ID: <3C459DCB.1F40978C@erols.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33541 lotusmoondragon at aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 1/13/2002 3:17:07 AM Eastern Standard Time, > mrgrrrargh at aol.com writes: > > > What > > better cover for a gifted seer than that of one who has made two correct > > predictions. > > You know, I kind of think that Dumbeldore's comment about the "two correct > predictions" is an exaggeration. Like when your mother tells you that she's > told you a "million" times to clean your room. > > The reason I say this is that I'm currently reading PoA again, and I just > finished the "Talons and Tealeaves" chapter. She said quite a few things > that actually happened. Neville's teacup, for instance. And I happen to > think she is correct in her prediction to Lavender, even though the wording > leaves something to be desired. Ah, but Dumbledore didn't say "correct predictions." He said "genuine predictions" -- by which I think he means actual instances of the Sight coming upon Trelawney. It's fairly obvious even to Harry how different this is from the usual run of Trelawney's predictions. A prediction can perfectly well be correct without being "genuine" in that sense; by coincidence, by good guessing, by cleverly vague wording, all the stock-in-trade of the fortune-teller. I'm with the camp that holds that Trelawney's actual Sight is fitful and uncontrollable, but that she's a past master at plausible fakery. --Margaret Dean From lotusmoondragon at aol.com Wed Jan 16 15:10:08 2002 From: lotusmoondragon at aol.com (lotusmoondragon at aol.com) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 10:10:08 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco's Eyes, Hair Color... Message-ID: <190.1285dae.2976f1d0@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33542 In a message dated 1/16/2002 3:46:14 AM Eastern Standard Time, goldie034 at yahoo.com writes: > Could someone tell me if > Rowling ever tells us what color eyes Ron and Hermione have? I don't know about Ron, but Hermione's eyes are brown. In CoS, when Harry and Ron go to visit her in the hospital wing after the PolyJuice Potion incident, it says something about Hermione's eyes were slowly turning back to brown. Lotus lotusmoondragon at aol.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Edblanning at aol.com Wed Jan 16 15:58:55 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 10:58:55 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Trelawney's Predictions Message-ID: <13e.7c6826e.2976fd3f@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33543 In a message dated 16/01/02 15:12:56 GMT Standard Time, margdean at erols.com writes: > Ah, but Dumbledore didn't say "correct predictions." He said > "genuine predictions" -- by which I think he means actual > instances of the Sight coming upon Trelawney. It's fairly > obvious even to Harry how different this is from the usual run of > Trelawney's predictions. > > A prediction can perfectly well be correct without being > "genuine" in that sense; by coincidence, by good guessing, by > cleverly vague wording, all the stock-in-trade of the > fortune-teller. > > I'm with the camp that holds that Trelawney's actual Sight is > fitful and uncontrollable, but that she's a past master at > plausible fakery. > > Hear hear! On the way back from school yesterday we were listening to the part of PoA where she makes her prediction of Voldemort's return. What struck me was her incredulity when Harry relates her prediction back to her. Her gift seems to be so fitful that she doesn't even recognise it/ expect it when it happens. And then, in an apparent, if unintentional, admission she protests that she would never have predicted something so unlikely. 'Ha! Got you, you old fraud!' was my reaction. It's not that I think she has no gift at all, just that she hasn't harnassed it. I don't think we can tell anything from the other predictions she's made: nothing that goodness knows how many fake mediums/fortune tellers haven't achieved, whether stage performers or masquerading as genuine. Eloise (who's consoling herself with a bit of light entertainment after the computer just ate the last four hours' work. Yes, I know I should have saved it!) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ftah3 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 16 16:03:59 2002 From: ftah3 at yahoo.com (ftah3) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 16:03:59 -0000 Subject: R&D in the Wizard World In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33544 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "dicentra_spectabilis_alba" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ftah3" wrote: > > > > I still rather like the idea that Arithmancy is the science of spell- > > crafting. As in, a combination of numerology, straight grammar, and > > the magic inherent in words. I.e., Fred and George blew off > > Arithmancy and thus the spell they made up and gave to Ron to turn > > Scabbers yellow didn't work, because it's not just words, but the > > *right* words, determined through a scientificish process, that > > matter. > > > Not to burst your bubble or anything, but here's a muggle-world > definition of Arithmancy: > > "Divination by numbers. The ancient Greeks examined the number and the > values of letters in each name of two combatants. They predicted the > combatant having the name of the greater value would be victorious. It > was by using this science that some diviners foretold that Achilles > would defeat Hector. > > "The Chaldeans also practiced arithmancy. They divided their alphabet > into three parts, each part composed of seven letters which they > attributed to the seven planets. Through this arithmetic method they > made predictions based on the planets. > > "The Platonists and Pythagoreans were also strongly attracted to this > form of divination which is similar to certain aspects of the Jewish > Kabbalah." If arithmancy is straight divination per the definition above, why doesn't Trelawney teach it? And why does Hermione, who absolutely poo-poo's Trelawney's class, love her arithmancy class? Not making a point; just wondering out loud. Mahoney From jbryson at richmond.infi.net Wed Jan 16 14:47:59 2002 From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 14:47:59 -0000 Subject: Is there evidence that Muggles hate wizards? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33545 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "zoehooch" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jchutney" wrote: > > Southernscotland wrote: > > ***I have a little theory (please be gentle and use candles instead > > of flames!) about why the Malfoys might not like muggles. They are > > afraid of them (us).*** > > > > I totally agree with this theory. Even though we're told fire did > > not work on real witches, it's still possible to "attack" a wizard > > or witch if they're sleeping, etc. Also, anyone with magical > > ability would be met by great fear and predjudice. Wizards like > the > > Malfoys hatred of muggles is clearly a reaction to the hatred > muggles > > have of wizards. Obviously prejudice is a two-way street. The > > Dursleys and the Malfoys are both prejudiced. And as powerful as > > Lucius might be, ANYONE can be taken down if you have the right > plan > > of attack. > > Is there evidence that Muggles hate wizards? We know that the > Dursleys do, of course, but we also have the Grainger's who seem > quite open to wizards and are happy to have one in family as well as > Lily's paprents. Some Muggles hate wizards, others don't, others simply don't believe in them. For evidence that some Muggles hate wizards, simply point your browser to "Harry Potter Satan." The Wizards prefer that Muggles simply not believe in them. That seems to be the main reason for MoM. There is long history persecutions to justify that, although in many "witch trials," the acccusers had other motives in bringing the case. Hagrid probably echoed most wizards when he told Harry that the Muggles would want the wizards to solve all their problems for them. It looks like Petunia's hatred of witches was sibling rivalry and envy, as well as perhaps fear. This may be the case for most anti-wizard Muggles who know about them. Tex From PrncsPnut at aol.com Wed Jan 16 16:13:28 2002 From: PrncsPnut at aol.com (JennyGirl9) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 16:13:28 -0000 Subject: Trelwaney's Predictions In-Reply-To: <8d.126e03ef.2976eea1@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33546 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., lotusmoondragon at a... wrote: > In a message dated 1/13/2002 3:17:07 AM Eastern Standard Time, > mrgrrrargh at a... writes: > > > > What > > better cover for a gifted seer than that of one who has made two correct > > predictions. > > You know, I kind of think that Dumbeldore's comment about the "two correct > predictions" is an exaggeration. Like when your mother tells you that she's > told you a "million" times to clean your room. > > The reason I say this is that I'm currently reading PoA again, and I just > finished the "Talons and Tealeaves" chapter. She said quite a few things that > actually happened. Neville's teacup, for instance. And I happen to think she > is correct in her prediction to Lavender, even though the wording leaves > something to be desired. > > Lotus > lotusmoondragon at a... > > I had a thought about Trelawney's predictions -- When she tells Neville that he's going to break a teacup, was it a true prediction? If she hadn't said something to him, would he have still gone for a pink cup over a blue cup? Perhaps he wouldn't have been so nervous and he wouldn't have dropped the cup in the first place. In other words, she didn't make a prediction for him, she made him nervous. And everyone is dreading *something,* so, to tell Lavendar that the thing she dreads "will happen on the 16th," could really apply to anyone. As Hermione said, her rabbit didnt actually die then, she just found out then. I'm with Hermione on this one - Drop the class and run for it. :) Trelawney is full of it, if you ask me. haha From lav at tut.by Wed Jan 16 16:22:05 2002 From: lav at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 18:22:05 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: R&D in the Wizard World In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5515015463.20020116182205@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 33547 Greetings! > Mahoney wrote to us in her wisdom: f> If arithmancy is straight divination per the definition above, why f> doesn't Trelawney teach it? And why does Hermione, who absolutely f> poo-poo's Trelawney's class, love her arithmancy class? f> Not making a point; just wondering out loud. f> Mahoney Being slightly familiar with the subject, I can suppose that these are two different things. Divination conveys knowledge that is either remote or in future (or in the past), but it conveys the knowledge about some events. Arithmancy, on the other hand, does not give such information. Instead, it deals with "general trends". That is, Arithmancy can possibly say that a ship named "Madam Maxime" will be unlucky and prone to sinking despite all efforts, but will be unable to predict if it will sink at all or not, where will this happen and so on. Just my IMHO, of course. Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, (Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed), always happy to throw weird ideas into the community. From lav at tut.by Wed Jan 16 13:06:47 2002 From: lav at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 15:06:47 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Mud-bloods, Half-bloods, Do we care too much? (Re: About Slytherin House) Message-ID: <1093296026.20020116150647@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 33548 Greetings, Eileen! > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Alexander wrote: >> Voldie was also a Slytherin heir, don't forget about that, >> too. He was not mudblood - only half-blood. > > Statements like this begin to make me wonder. "Does it really matter? > Do we see anyone in the book who cares?" IMHO a damn lot of them. Discussion has drifted from the question "can a mudblood be sorted into Slytherin" to the general discussion of mudbloods and their status in the Wizarding World. This is not what I meant initially, but then I don't control other people's sayings... ;) Hmm... perhaps a voting could help - could anybody bother to start a Poll, or to tell me what I should do to start one (that is, to beg the moderators, to chase list elves with my petty demands or whatever else)? So far there are no arguments that muggle-borns can be sorted into Slytherin, only inner beliefs of some people. On the other hand, we have no direct proof that they can NOT be sorted there. We know of no muggle-blood who was sorted into Slytherin, but we don't know for sure none was. We have Salazar's objections against muggle-borns, but still don't have a clue whether he would admit a muggle-born with a good potential. We know of only one half-blood there - Voldemort, but he can easily be an exception from the general rule due to his heritage. A lot of speculation is possible here. > Isn't the essence of Slytherin breaking rules, anyway? My IMHO is that Slytherin essence is ambition. After all, this is the quality Sorting Hat keeps mentioning each year. They hold less respect for rules (if any), but many Gryffindors have the same qualities. > I doubt that in these times anyone with some sort of Muggle > background would choose to go there. "Not Slytherin, Not Slytherin," > might actually be a pretty common refrain. Only if the muggle-born in question is aware of the problem of mudblood vs pureblood. From what I have read it seems quite probable that most muggle-borns only meet this problem much later. Harry himself met the problem only due to a chance. And it is not written in any of the schoolbooks, I think, or else neither Harry nor Hermione wouldn't be so surprised when they faced it the first time. > Is this a good time to give my theory about Riddle? I think Riddle's > mother was a Potter. It explains the similarity in looks between > Riddle and Harry, Harry and James. It keeps the relationship (if > there is one) on the wizarding side of things. It's telling that > Riddle's mother dies in the Muggle world, completely forsaken by her > family. What if Tom Riddle conceived his hatred of the Potters there? But what about Dumbledore? In the end of CS he states quite firmly (though undirectly... interesting...) that Harry is no heir of Salazar. Even an undirect lie is not something I would expect from Dumbledore. [ "He looked into the old man's eyes, and was nearly ] [ pushed back. There was Light in his eyes, the Light so ] [ bright that it was blinding and almost indiscernible ] [ from Darkness..." ] [ Sergei Lukyanenko, "Night Watch", my quote translation ] >> How many answers do you want? They could invite him even >> though they didn't like him and his views, for the sake of >> completeness. > > That would be as dumb as inviting the KKK to help you run a > school, "for the sake of completeness." Doesn't wash with me. > >> Or because they wanted to keep an eye on him. > > Again, doesn't wash. Hmm... if I was given a choice of whether to accept a trouble-making collage in united school, or face the problem of independent school training potential dark mages, I would definitely choose the first option. Just for that reason - to keep the eye on the bastar... well... opponents. :) >> Another reason is that if it was security issue, Salazar >> would definitely bring it into debate on whether mudbloods >> should be accepted - he was debating against "goodies", and >> it would be a much stronger argument than mudbloods general >> inability/stupidity/anything-else. > > Here, I don't follow you. What are "goodies"? "Goodies" are those who are "good". :) Gryffindor, Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff the names. Not meaning that all of them were good from our point of view, only from the point of view of Salazar. > I don't remember there be anything more than legends over the break- > up. And, I don't remember there be anything about what Salazar and > Godric's arguments were. Just that Salazar and Godric quarrelled over > whether to take people in from non-magical backgrounds. Is there > anything more in canon than this? CS9, professor Binns lesson on History of Magic. Arguments of Salazar are quite accurately described there, and there is no mentioning of security issue. We have nothing more but a legend about their arguments, indeed. > Oh, I don't know. Anyone who would call themselves "Lord" Voldemort > (especially since he was brought up in the Muggle world, and knows > darn well how sillily we use the prefix for our fictional evil > overlords), has a huge dose of ego. I feel pretty sure that Salazar > Slytherin built the Chamber of Secrets, but why must we conclude he > built it to kill all the "mudbloods"? After all, it's a pretty > pathetic and useless way of going about it. From the point of view of effectiveness-oriented XXth century, true. But most of villains in Potterverse seem to like drama a lot, and such a move is indeed cool from the point of view of a man who is the least bit romantic. Throughout the books many characters act not the most effective way possible. As someone has stated here in the newsgroup, this is what makes the books realistic and interesting indeed - nobody is perfect. > Isn't it more likely that > he left the basilisk as a weapon for his heir, whenever he arrived, > to make use of as needed? And was Tom Riddle using it to > kill "mudbloods"? To me, at least, it seemed that Myrtle's death was > an accident. He hadn't planned for her to be in the washroom at that > point, but she had to die after that. It shut down his plans for > awhile. He never was able to properly utilize the basilisk. When he > starts up his campaign of terror again, he seems to hit people by > chance. He could very well have petrified a "pureblood" student, eg. > look at how Hermione and Penelope got it. He focused on getting > people like Colin Creevey and Justin Finch-Fletcherly b/c their > deaths would be much more useful in discrediting Dumbledore etc., but > he really didn't care much and never will care much about blood- > distinction. He hates all the good guys. Period. A very interesting sequence of arguments, but the conclusion is IMHO undeservedly simplified. Never I could imagine Voldemort acting out of such primitive idea as just to "hate all good guys". Don't forget that in both cases it's a 16-year-old youth who tries to do the best he can. Of course he's not acting the best way possible. If he was Voldemort at the peak of his power, I would expect him to be more effective. In short: never underestimate the Dark Lord, or you may end up on the wrong side of his wand... :) > But Slytherin has produced a range of people from Snape to Draco. Not > everyone in Slytherin has to share Draco's bigoted views, even though > Draco may fit very well in Slytherin. This "range of people" is quite limited, though. Of all the characters about whom we know they are from Slytherin, only Snape shows some hints of goodness, still being nothing more but a bigot in usual circumstances (and in critical, too). I know nothing about his motivation, of course, but as Sirius said in GoF: "we can judge people by the way they treat their minors". Cannot guarantee correct quote, as I'm translating it back into english... Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, (Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed), always happy to throw weird ideas into the community. From christi0469 at hotmail.com Wed Jan 16 15:57:02 2002 From: christi0469 at hotmail.com (christi0469) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 15:57:02 -0000 Subject: Colonel Snape? - Snape redeemed? - Why the Longbottoms? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33549 > > > I suppose that the concept of redemption is a very personal one, > above all if separated from a strictly Christian view. At least, as a > Catholic, you may say that sins are forgiven as soon as the sinner > feels contrition and confesses, thus achieving God's forgiveness. > > > Susanna/pigwidgeon37 The three elements of Catholic confession are contrition, confession, and penance/satisfaction. Snape has probably done penance in risking his life opposing Voldemort, but penance also requires satisfying the debts caused by your sin. The examples in the book I read were returning money you stole and repairing the reputation of anyone you slandered. Sometimes you have to apologize to the person you hurt, not just to God. Confession outside the Catholic Church would involve similar elements-you feel bad about what you've done, you ask God's forgiveness(or someone else's, depending upon your religious affiliation), and you try to correct the harm you caused. Snape may have come far in renouncing his DE ways, but judging by his behavior and attitude I do not get the feeling that he has tied up all the lose ends. This formula leaves room for further redemption on his part. Christi From judyshapiro at earthlink.net Wed Jan 16 16:52:16 2002 From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 16:52:16 -0000 Subject: Snape redeemed? - Why the Longbottoms? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33550 > > Dicentra spectabilis wrote: > > Snape DOES know about Neville's parents. Could > > that have something to do with why Snape singles him > > out, the way he does Harry? The Longbottoms were powerful enemies > > of the Death Eaters, undoubtedly when Snape was one of them. Why > > would Snape hold a grudge against someone who was fighting for a > > cause he eventually embraced? What a jerk! Well, according to Sirius, of the five closest friends Snape had at school, four were tracked down by Aurors and either killed or given life in Azkaban. That would be a powerful reason to hate Aurors. I have to admit, anger at the Longbottoms in particular would not be especially fair, since two of Snape's friends were jailed specifically for torturing the Longbottoms, but since when are emotions rational? And of course, Neville's potions incompetence drives Snape up the wall, especially since it often disrupts the class (people standing on chairs to get out of the way of Neville's spilled potions, etc.) By the way, does anyone know whether "git" is the British equivalent of "jerk"? I've seen that "git" means "idiot." Jerk also literally means idiot, but usually implies someone who is selfish, inconsiderate, and mistreats other people. pigwidgeon37 wrote: > ... Don't you think that this whole Longbottom story is > a bit fishy?... does anybody have an idea as to why the Lestranges > got it into their fanatical heads that the Longbottoms might > eventually know his [Voldemort's] whereabouts? Did not only the DEs, > but also the MoM Aurors search for Voldemort? I was under the > impression that a large majority of the wizarding population, > including the MoM, believed that he was dead and gone for good, so > why should they send Aurors to find him? And if they did so, why > were the Longbottoms the only targets? Yes, the Aurors *were* searching for Voldy. In the Death Eaters chapter of GoF, Voldemort says "I dared not go where other humans were plentiful, for I knew that the Aurors were still abroad and searching for me." I think the story about the Longbottom's being tortured is supposed to be true within the Potterverse. Dumbledore tells it to Harry, and Dumbledore is not supposed to be a liar. I assume the Lestranges and their accomplices (Crouch Jr. and the other guy) started with the Longbottoms because the Longbottoms were the easiest to catch, and then got caught themselves before they could torture anyone else. -- Judy From christi0469 at hotmail.com Wed Jan 16 16:57:12 2002 From: christi0469 at hotmail.com (christi0469) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 16:57:12 -0000 Subject: petrification and lawsuits/obtaining mandrakes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33551 ---> > A related question, since the subject came up: I wondered as I read > CoS... are mandrakes that rare that no mature ones could be acquired > for months, from anywhere? I just wondered why Madame Pomfrey, Snape > or Dumbledore didn't send for some from Diagon Alley, so that the > stricken students didn't have to spend most of a term petrified. > > > Barbara I found some information about mandrake plants. You obtain the best results by planting the seeds in the spring and carefully repotting the plants in late August, and it takes a few years for them to mature. I'm not a gardener, but it seemed to me that mandrakes require more than average care. JKR changes this a bit in CoS, as the students transplant the mandrakes in early September and the plants mature over a 9 to 10 month period. Using JKR's ammended view all mandrakes would be immature until June (IMHO, of course). Christi From pbeider at yahoo.com Wed Jan 16 17:16:30 2002 From: pbeider at yahoo.com (pbeider) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 17:16:30 -0000 Subject: Fred and George's wager on the Quidditch World Cup Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33552 I am a newbie, but I've checked the "Mysteries and Inconsistencies FAQ" and didn't see this one, so here goes: Why would the Weasley twins bet all their savings on such a seemingly improbable end of the Quidditch World Cup, and how is it that they WON that bet? Theory #1: the match was fixed. But Krum wasn't shown to be a bad guy--and why would the twins, of all people, be in the know? Theory #2: they divined the result. But JKR has led us to believe that true divination is very rare, and they haven't shown predictive powers any other time. My best guess is that JKR didn't consider the ending all that improbable. But since a quidditch game can go on for days until the snitch is caught, thus seemingly allowing plenty of time for a comeback, how often can it be that a seeker deliberately ends a game on a losing score? And even if that has been known to happen once in a blue moon, why would Fred and George bet all their money on it?? From ickle_ronniekins at yahoo.com Wed Jan 16 17:20:22 2002 From: ickle_ronniekins at yahoo.com (Ronald Rae Yu) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 09:20:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: Red-Haired Man, Natalie McDonald Message-ID: <20020116172022.47272.qmail@web21106.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33553 Thinking about what Trelawney said to Parvati in book 3: 'Beware a red-haired man.' Could that possibly be a reference to Padma's (who Trelawney could easily mistake as Parvati) going to the ball with Ron? Just wondering what she could have possibly meant, and what significance could it contribute to the story (as with JKR, little things count). I found it interesting that Natalie McDonald is actually a young HP fan who died of leukemia. It's an old story but it's just now that I've heard of it. http://www.iharrypotter.net/jkrowling/nmcdonald.html -Ron Yu __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ From cindysphynx at home.com Wed Jan 16 17:48:53 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 17:48:53 -0000 Subject: Mrs. Lestrange, Crouch, Moody, and the Longbottoms (WAS Colonel Snape? ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33554 Susanna wrote: > Don't you think that this whole Longbottom story is a > bit fishy? According to what Sirius tells HRH, it happened not too > long, but some time after Voldemort's downfall, when a few remaining > faithful DEs were desperately searching for their lost Evil Overlord. > But does anybody have an idea as to why the Lestranges got it into > their fanatical heads that the Longbottoms might eventually know his > whereabouts? Did not only the DEs, but also the MoM Aurors search for > Voldemort? I was under the impression that a large majority of the > wizarding population, including the MoM, believed that he was dead > and gone for good, so why should they send Aurors to find him? And if > they did so, why were the Longbottoms the only targets? Or weren't > they? Did somebody go after Moody too and was this how he lost his > eye and maybe also his leg? Though this would have to have taken > place after the Longbottom affair, for he still had his eye at the > Lestrange/Crouch trial. > A couple of things. First, I think it is plausible that Mrs. Lestrange and her DE buddies did not believe Voldemort was dead. Perhaps they were aware of the protections Voldemort gave himself. Also, even Hagrid in PS/SS doesn't believe Voldemort is dead and gone forever. If Mrs. Lestrange talked her way out of Azkaban (as Sirius tells us), and immediately set about capturing an Auror and torturing him, she is quite a piece of work. Second, Moody did not attend the Lestrange/Crouch trial (there is no mention of him in that Pensieve scene, anyway). I like to think that this is because he was involved in the arrest of Mrs. Lestrange, and she, um, gave him a bit of a hard time. As for whether Mrs. Lestrange may have captured Moody and tortured him like the Longbottoms, I doubt that is how he lost is eye and leg. It seems that Mrs. Lestrange means business and cuts to the chase, so I think she'd go straight to torturing like she did with the Longbottoms and not bother with injuring her victims in some other fashion. Maybe the Mrs. Lestrange was one of those Unspeakables who went over to the dark side. ::shiver:: Boy, I hope so. Cindy (who will be bitterly disappointed if Mrs. Lestrange turns out to be a florist) From bonnie.abrams at cwine.com Wed Jan 16 17:39:24 2002 From: bonnie.abrams at cwine.com (sing2wine) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 17:39:24 -0000 Subject: Hello from a Newbie & Moody's nose & leg Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33555 I finished GoF last night (having first begun the series on Dec. 27th..) and was feeling bereft this morning so I am thrilled to find a group of adults who are as bewitched by the series as I am. Now I will be able to survive until the next book arrives in July.... I searched through many of the postings as well as the VFAQ and perhaps I missed one on the subject I wish to bring up: Moody's Nose and Leg - I can accept his "mad-eye" which though physically disturbing - serves a purpose. But if Harry's arm bones can be regrown and Phoenix tears can repair torn flesh - and for that matter - if Wormtail can get a replacement hand from Voldemort - why couldn't Moody get a replacement leg or more simply - why couldn't he get a nose job? Even we muggles can do that! The only theory I have is that he wished to wear his battle scars as a reminder to all of the evil he fought. Any thoughts on this? Thanks, Bonnie / sing2wine From blenberry at altavista.com Wed Jan 16 18:11:39 2002 From: blenberry at altavista.com (blenberry) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 18:11:39 -0000 Subject: Fred and George's wager on the Quidditch World Cup In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33556 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pbeider" wrote: > Why would the Weasley twins bet all their savings on such a seemingly > improbable end of the Quidditch World Cup, and how is it that they > WON that bet? > > how often can it be that a seeker deliberately ends a game > on a losing score? And even if that has been known to happen once in > a blue moon, why would Fred and George bet all their money on it?? I think we have enough clues in canon to answer all these... Fred and George are very motivated at this point to make some money to finance their joke shop, so they are willing to take a substantial risk. Considering the conversation at the Weasley dinner table ("Krum's one decent player, Ireland's got seven" Charlie says) the scenario they bet on doesn't seem that far-fetched. As for why Krum catches the Snitch, I think Harry's got his number ("He knew they were never going to catch up... The Irish Chasers were too good... He wanted to end it on his terms, that's all...") and F&G, as fans of Krum's, guessed that he would do that. Barbara ************** Snape smirked as he swept off around the dungeon, fortunately not spotting Seamus Finnigan, who was pretending to vomit into his cauldron. ---CoS From dsslouisville at yahoo.com Wed Jan 16 18:24:41 2002 From: dsslouisville at yahoo.com (andee1270) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 18:24:41 -0000 Subject: Hello from a Newbie & Moody's nose & leg In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33557 Bonnie wrote: > I can accept his "mad-eye" which though physically disturbing - > serves a purpose. But if Harry's arm bones can be regrown and Phoenix > tears can repair torn flesh - and for that matter - if Wormtail can > get a replacement hand from Voldemort - why couldn't Moody get a > replacement leg or more simply - why couldn't he get a nose job? > Even we muggles can do that! The only theory I have is that he wished > to wear his battle scars as a reminder to all of the evil he fought. > Any thoughts on this? > Thanks, > Bonnie / sing2wine Hi Bonnie I just finished rereading GOF last night too, and I must say, that I believe your theory on why Moody remains disfigured to be the right one. As an Auror dealing with the most unsavory of characters, it is my opinion that he would want to appear as menacing and even crazy as he possibly could. I would even hazard to guess that his reputation of "Mad" is a carefully constructed one meant to keep his enemies and the public at large guessing. There is some intimidation to be had in people not being 100% sure what you may or may not be capable of! Andrea (who upon finishing the reread was impressed anew by what a funny book GOF is! The dialogue between Ron and Harry in common room while making up their divination homework almost had me in tears!) From judyshapiro at earthlink.net Wed Jan 16 18:23:02 2002 From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 18:23:02 -0000 Subject: Snape's Childhood/Making fun of Snape & Voldy/Royals/R&D Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33558 I have a bunch of short replies to post. I said: > > I'm convinced he [Snape] could not be muggle-born, because I'm > > convinced there are no muggle-borns in Slytherin and SpyGameFan replied [message #33486] > Wasn't it stated that 1st year Snape knew more about poisons (or > something similar) than most 7th years? That would imply that he > had a magical childhood. I think Sirius says that Snape "knew more curses when he arrived at school than half the 7th years." That is additional evidence that Snape came from a magical family, but it's not proof by itself. Hermione is muggle-born, and she knew a lot of magic before coming to school, from her spellbooks. It's possible that after he was accepted at Hogwarts, Snape spent the summer learning curses. Pippin said, in regards to Neville's Boggart: [message 33505] > I would love to think that everyone at Hogwarts, including 7th > years who aren't trying for a N.E.W.T. in Potions and the > irrepressible Peeves, is so solicitous of Snape's feelings that > no one ever did anything like walk behind him and make vulture > noises, or imitate his distinctive walk while pretending to carry > an oversize handbag . I just can't see students making fun of Snape, at least not when he's around. Too risky. This quote brings up some other interesting points, though. Are 6th and 7th year students required to take potions? If not, Harry would be sure to drop it, and then we'd see a lot less of him interacting with Snape (rats!) Maybe for literary reasons, JKR will make potions required for all 7 years. On the topic of making fun of teachers, who remembers that back in SS/PS, Fred & George Weasley were punished for enchanting snowballs so that they followed Quirrell around and bounced off the back of his turban? Of course, it's not until later that we learn Voldemort's face is back there. I just love the thought of Voldy being pelted by snowballs, and unable to do anything about it because it would blow his cover! So, are Fred and George supposed to know whom they were attacking? Will Voldy come after them? "Eric Oppen" wrote: > Wouldn't it be..._interesting_....if one of the Royal Family turned > out to be strongly magical, and got The Letter From Hogwarts? Yeah, and imagine how very interesting the scandal headlines would be. "Prince caught drinking butterbeer at the Three Broomsticks! Also suspected of nicking Cannabis Sativa from Potions' storeroom! Father makes him visit with patients at St. Mungo's!" On the topic of "Magic Research and Development", Dicentra said: [message 33521] > I'm pretty sure there's a spell R&D--otherwise how would they have > come up with the potion to make Remus "tame" after it was too > late to cure him? I haven't envisioned any sort of R&D department like large manufacturing corporations have. Instead, I've imagined that some wizards and witches do research on their own, and then publish the results in journals (like "Transfiguration Today"), similar to academics in the real world. Of course, one would expect that the professors at Hogwarts would be involved in such activity, although the books have never said so. I've long suspected that Snape came up with Wolfbane potion. The timing is right (it became available after Snape finished school) and Snape is presumably one of the top potions experts in England (and England would be a center of werewolf research -- London has that big werewolf problem!) Also, having Lupin is his debt is exactly the sort of thing Snape would want. Plus, I find it interesting that Lupin says "Professor Snape has kindly concocted" Wolfbane Potion for him. As my dictionary notes, concocted can mean "mixed together", but it can also mean "invented." (If Snape didn't invent the potion, Lupin could have just described him as *brewing* the potion.) By the way, thanks to everyone who supported me on the "Women in the Potterverse" debate. {Especially Sirius, who said my posts were excellent and made my day!) I'm trying not to say any more in this topic, though, because I've basically made all the points I wanted to make, and I really need to sign off and get some work done eventually. -- Judy From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jan 16 18:56:30 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 18:56:30 -0000 Subject: Snape's redemption In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33559 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "dicentra_spectabilis_alba" > So if Snape isn't as bad as he seems to be, why is he this bad at all? It would seem that he has already been "redeemed" once by abandoning the Death Eaters, so there's no point in setting him up for a second redemption. For a redeemed character, he's still pretty rotten. << Snape's redemption may be incomplete. It's said one isn't really sure of repentance until the opportunity to commit the same sin presents itself again and is rejected. We also don't know whether Snape joined Dumbledore because he was genuinely sorry for what he'd done as a Death Eater, or because he wanted something for himself that Voldie couldn't give him. In that case also, Snape's redemption may have only begun. I think Rowling outed Snape at the trials to set up a situation where Voldemort will need to test his loyalty before letting him rejoin the DE's...perhaps by demanding that Snape betray a member of The Old Crowd such as Sirius or Lupin. By maintaining the image that Snape is pretty horrible, Rowling makes sure the reader will be in suspense as to the outcome. Pippin From cindysphynx at home.com Wed Jan 16 19:01:15 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 19:01:15 -0000 Subject: Snape's Skill at Potions and Curses (WAS Snape's Childhood//Royals/R&D) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33560 Judy wrote: > I think Sirius says that Snape "knew more curses when he arrived at > school than half the 7th years." That is additional evidence that > Snape came from a magical family, but it's not proof by itself. > Hermione is muggle-born, and she knew a lot of magic before coming to > school, from her spellbooks. It's possible that after he was accepted > at Hogwarts, Snape spent the summer learning curses. It's possible that Snape spent the summer learning curses, but I doubt it. In PS/SS, Harry sees a book of curses, and Hagrid says "An' anyway, yeh couldn't work any of them curses yet, yeh'll need a lot more study before yeh get ter that level." That suggests that Snape has been working on learning curses for quite some time before he goes off to Hogwarts. Judy again: >Maybe for literary > reasons, JKR will make potions required for all 7 years. Oh, I think so. So far as the teachers know, Harry and the gang haven't accomplished anything with a potion yet. I would think we'll see them learn to brew important potions and use them in upcoming stories. Judy again: > I've long suspected that Snape came up with Wolfbane potion. The > timing is right (it became available after Snape finished school) and > Snape is presumably one of the top potions experts in England (and > England would be a center of werewolf research -- London has that big > werewolf problem!) Also, having Lupin is his debt is exactly the sort > of thing Snape would want. Plus, I find it interesting that Lupin > says "Professor Snape has kindly concocted" Wolfbane Potion for him. > As my dictionary notes, concocted can mean "mixed together", but it > can also mean "invented." (If Snape didn't invent the potion, Lupin > could have just described him as *brewing* the potion.) How interesting! Boy, this is a tough one. I can't imagine Snape setting out to discover a werewolf potion given his apparent dislike of werewolves. Perhaps he discovered it accidently? If so, how would he test it? Would he ask Lupin to volunteer? I can't imagine one could make a great deal of money off of such a potion, as the target market consists of werewolves who can't find paid work. Judy again: > By the way, thanks to everyone who supported me on the "Women in the > Potterverse" debate. {Especially Sirius, who said my posts were > excellent and made my day!) I agree with Sirius, and I enjoyed them very much! Cindy (still not convinced that Snape is some Master Potions Brewer) From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jan 16 19:27:23 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 19:27:23 -0000 Subject: Making fun of Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33561 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "judyserenity" wrote: > Pippin said, in regards to Neville's Boggart: [message 33505] > > I would love to think that everyone at Hogwarts, including 7th > > years who aren't trying for a N.E.W.T. in Potions and the > > irrepressible Peeves, is so solicitous of Snape's feelings that > > no one ever did anything like walk behind him and make vulture > > noises, or imitate his distinctive walk while pretending to carry > > an oversize handbag . > > I just can't see students making fun of Snape, at least not when he's > around. Too risky. This quote brings up some other interesting > points, though. Are 6th and 7th year students required to take > potions? If not, Harry would be sure to drop it, and then we'd see a > lot less of him interacting with Snape (rats!) Maybe for literary > reasons, JKR will make potions required for all 7 years. > > On the topic of making fun of teachers, who remembers that back in SS/PS, Fred & George Weasley were punished for enchanting snowballs so that they followed Quirrell around and bounced off the back of his turban? It didn't stop them, did it? I have kids, as well as being married to an ex-prankster, and I can tell you that risk assessment isn't a teenage strong point. Snape's attitude would be a challenge not a deterrent. I can't wait to see what Fred and George pull off as seventh years. Presumably they're continuing in potions because they need it for their jokes, and as entrepreneurs it won't matter to them whether they pass the potions N.E.W.T. or not. And what's the risk...detention? Who cares? Snape will lose his temper and go into full rant mode? Excellent! He'll turn people into ferrets and bounce them around the corridor? Nope, against the rules. And there are blackboards and bulletin boards where pictures of Boggart Snape could be left...I think I've made my point so I'll stop. I'd love to see Snape out of the classroom. Besides, another three years of Neville blowing up his cauldron and Harry struggling to keep his temper could get old. Pippin From ftah3 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 16 19:54:33 2002 From: ftah3 at yahoo.com (ftah3) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 19:54:33 -0000 Subject: Snape's Redemption In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33562 dicentra_spectabilis_alba wrote: > So if Snape isn't as bad as he seems to be, why is he this bad at all? > It would seem that he has already been "redeemed" once by abandoning > the Death Eaters, so there's no point in setting him up for a second > redemption. For a redeemed character, he's still pretty rotten. > With Snape, what can we find out to change how we see his bad > behavior? His bad treatment of Harry is genuine, not misunderstood > good behavior. Even if it turns out that LOLLIPOPS is correct, mean is > still mean. > > No, Snape's bad side is genuinely bad. JKR might insist on this to > conceal something else, but I really can't see him being redeemed a > second time. Who says that the Good Guys have to be nice guys? Sure Snape is mean, vindictive, rude, etc., but I honestly don't see that attitude problems mean he isn't 'redeemed.' And I don't believe that anything is necessary to change how we view his bad behavior. He might just simply be a jerk who is needlessly mean to Harry. People like that do exist, although again it doesn't automatically mean they're in need of being 'redeemed' from Evil to Good. And if you mean that he needs to be redeemed from ill-tempered to Mr. Nice Guy, boo hiss I say! :-) I like him rude. It's refreshing (and terribly amusing). >From another angle, JKR paints with an awfully broad brush. Snape is a secondary character, and like most of the secondary characters certain personality traits are played up in him. The spit-flying rage he goes into in the Shrieking Shack was, to me, a hilarious example of this. I see Snape in a similar light as I see the Dursley's ~ if they were real, I'd call child protective services on them, stat; but since they're not, I find their extreme behavior amusing, and then judge their impact on the plot by what they do. With Snape, if he was a real teacher, and my child went to his school, I'd lobby to have him fired; but since he's not, I'm amused by his exaggerrated behavior, but find that in action he's one part bane of Harry's life and one part trusted associate of Albus Dumbledore. Considering the latter, I don't see the former as anything more evil than a personality defect. I also view his actions in regards Lupin and Black as personality defect as opposed to inherent evil as well ~ and perfectly in character. And as far as Snape doing something else to 'redeem' himself, I don't see it. Rather, I don't see it as being a redemption. I do think he'll do something important for the Side of Good in the future, but I don't think it will be redemptive, because if he had to be redeemed (and do we know he had? I mean, other than being ill-tempered to MWPP, I can't seem to recall if it was stated he was a bad guy in the past, or if it has just been inferred so by listfolk here. [The dangers of discussion lists! LOL]) anyhow, if he had to be redeemed in the past (brought over from the Dark Side), it's done. So any significant action on his part imho will simply be in character for a guy who is a Jerk in a White Hat**. A completely valid character type, imho. Mahoney **White Hat being another term for Good Guy. Ah, cheesy Westerns.... From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Wed Jan 16 19:58:04 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 19:58:04 -0000 Subject: Mud-bloods, Half-bloods, Do we care too much? (Re: About Slytherin House) In-Reply-To: <1093296026.20020116150647@tut.by> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33563 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Alexander wrote: > Greetings, Eileen! > > > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Alexander wrote: > >> Voldie was also a Slytherin heir, don't forget about that, > >> too. He was not mudblood - only half-blood. > > > > Statements like this begin to make me wonder. "Does it really matter? > > Do we see anyone in the book who cares?" > > IMHO a damn lot of them. Before I go off for the weekend to Toronto (yeah!), I have to comment on this. My question was, "Do we see anyone who cares about the mudblood/halfblood distinction?" As I said, the Malfoys stick to the "one drop" rule, Dumbledore accepts everyone. Are the careful distinctions we draw between mudbloods and halfbloods represented by anyone in the book? Eileen From ftah3 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 16 20:01:56 2002 From: ftah3 at yahoo.com (ftah3) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 20:01:56 -0000 Subject: R&D in the Wizard World In-Reply-To: <5515015463.20020116182205@tut.by> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33564 I asked: > f> If arithmancy is straight divination per the definition above, why > f> doesn't Trelawney teach it? And why does Hermione, who absolutely > f> poo-poo's Trelawney's class, love her arithmancy class? > > f> Not making a point; just wondering out loud. > > f> Mahoney Alexander wrote: > Being slightly familiar with the subject, I can suppose > that these are two different things. Divination conveys > knowledge that is either remote or in future (or in the > past), but it conveys the knowledge about some events. > Arithmancy, on the other hand, does not give such > information. Instead, it deals with "general trends". That > is, Arithmancy can possibly say that a ship named "Madam > Maxime" will be unlucky and prone to sinking despite all > efforts, but will be unable to predict if it will sink at > all or not, where will this happen and so on. Ah, I see the difference between Trelawney's divination and arithmancy. But it makes me wonder still more at Hermione enjoying it. It has going for it that it doesn't attempt to pin things down too narrowly, making it seem, on one hand, a bit less wishy-washy; yet it's still incredibly vague, and seems to be to be somewhat...useless. I guess I imagine Hermione enjoying classes with much more basis in concrete & reliable evidence/outcome. Arithmancy has the concrete, in that you have formula = theoretical outcome. But reliability...you could just as well toss the dice, and say that if you get snake eyes you will have a terrible accident...sometime, somewhere, maybe. And it doesn't seem like the kind of thing that would appeal to Hermy. But, I suppose, not one of the most earthshattering topics of query.... %-) Mahoney From mlfrasher at aol.com Wed Jan 16 20:15:54 2002 From: mlfrasher at aol.com (mlfrasher at aol.com) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 15:15:54 EST Subject: Slytherin/Saving Snape/Snape and Neville (LONG) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33565 Hello All! Catching up on a few things that caught my eye..... Alexander Lomski wrote: >For me to say that Slytherins are Gryffindors is a little embarrassing. Difference >between a Slytherin and a Gryffindor IMHO lies not in their like/dislike of DA and >DADA, but in their inner motivations. >For a Slytherin, ambition is perhaps the most important quality (as was stated quite >clearly by the Sorting Hat many times). For Gryffindors, this may be courage or >loyalty (though the latter is also a quality of Hufflepuff). A Slytherin may easily hate >the Dark Arts - it's not important, as many spells that are not DA can be easily >used for "evil" purpose. A Gryffindor could possibly use even the darkest >Unforgivable curses for noble ends (it's unlikely that Crucio can be used this way, >but Imperio definitely can be used to save one's life). Well, I think it has something to do with the fine line between 'dark' and 'light'. Looking at Gryffindor and Slytherin and opposite sides of the same coin. Your argument on the DA almost seems like the "ends justifies the means". I just believe that there are more than meets the eye in the GH/SH relationship, foregoing what the hat says in a few stanzas. I do not think that the Unforgivable curses could be used by a Gryffindor or anyone else for that matter for noble ends. They're the UN-forgivable curses for a reason. Someone could use many many other counter curses for self defense or to save another's life without resorting to any one of those. I think Harry understood that when he stopped Sirius and Lupin from killing Wormtail. Something that Dubmledore praised him for, and also stated that James would have approved of Harry's decision. As much as I would have liked to see them zap Pettigrew with some green light, it doesn't justify it (although I would want some death if I'd been stuck in Azkaban for that long) they could have put the immobilization spell on him and that would have alleviated any chances of him turning to the rat and running away. A better chance of bringing him to justice and proving Sirius' innocence. Gabriele commented on 'saving' Snape and his approachability: >Of course it depends on the approach! When you are a naive inexperienced young >girl there cannot be success. When you have some experiences with difficult >characters, when you do not insult his intellect and when you are careful and >sensitive enough to check how far you can go in your "Florence-Nightingale-for-the->soul-attitude", then there is a possibility to reach his inside step by step. Perhaps I wasn't clear here, and I agree with you. I meant I think to approach Snape with the purpose of changing him (his overall personality, that is) would be a waste of effort as I don't think he really needs to be changed. And him being a grown man, the thought of a young girl doing this never really entered my mind. >What I believe has to be changed (and changing or making a difference is saving >too) is his attitude against weak and helpless figures such as Neville. [EDIT] >When he is after Harry, Ok, I think Harry can take it (and sometimes deserves some >punishment) also Hermione and Ron (not to speak of my beloved Weasley twins). But they are talented wizards and witches with a lot of self confidence, knowledge and humor, not so Neville. A horrible and supressing attitude against weak and helpless people, in particular against children is a sign of despotism and tyranny and not of tolerance and freedom. Such an attitude fits better to a Voldemort empire, which Snape is fighting against. I have the greatest sympathy for Neville, but I think this kid is nervous about everything. There is no doubt he's got a huge burden to bear but in contrast to Harry, he's at least known (as far as we can guess, although this is not confirmed) the truth of what happened to his parents, and he has a grandmother, who is a little scary, but at least cares for his well being. Harry who is made of tougher stuff obviously, was lied to be his guardians all his life, despised, and told basically that he was good for nothing every day of his life. It's amazing, and admirable, this kid didn't go postal and has ANY confidence. I think Snape is fighting against ultimate evil and I don't equate this with picking on a student. OK, so he's not a particularly nice man, but that's hardly a crime, or tyranny. Neville, who has shown us that he *can* muster up some strength, needs to learn at some point to stand up to his fears or else he'll be a victim all his life. The rest of the cast can't do that for him for the rest of his days. People *should* protect the weak, but sometimes doing so absolves the "weak" from protecting themselves. Saying that, I agreed with marina's observation that Snape is horrible to everyone (an equal opportunity offender, if you will) and actually keeps Neville on his toes. Dicentra, who loves Snape principally because of his striking resemblance to Alan Rickman mused: Ahh yes, Rickman made him easier to like.... ;) >He *is* horrible. Despite the fact that he's brilliant, complex, and all those other >things, he's also vindictive, mean, and spiteful. Revenge seems to be his main >motivation, and anger his underlying state. I would speculate that many of the >"good" things he's done have not been out of the goodness of his heart. [EDIT] ...He also would have killed Sirius in the Shrieking Shack if Sirius had made just one false move, and he hates nearly everyone for the most trivial of >reasons. We might find later that he's got redeeming characteristics, but even if he >does, he's sure got a lot of strikes against him, especially in JKR's book (the >figurative one, that is). It's not clear that we can assume that anything altruistic Snape has done was done through a command by Dumbledore. As Sirius and the gang basically tried to have him killed or maimed years ago for "just snooping around", I don't think that was one of Black and Lupin's best moments (I think Lupin feels remorseful about that) and I'd hardly call this trivial. James had the sense enough to see how dangerous that idea was. I mean they spent years figuring how to be be Animagi so they could safely be with Lupin, so the group obviously knew the dangers. Believe me, I'm waiting for more from JKR on Snape's past. I still read the books thinking, "What a jerk!", but this character has continually surprised me, and being a jerk doesn't mean his motivations are bad or all selfish. From hollydaze at btinternet.com Wed Jan 16 20:27:38 2002 From: hollydaze at btinternet.com (Hollydaze) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 20:27:38 -0000 Subject: Is Hogwarts Public or Private? References: <5a.4efe588.2975104c@aol.com> Message-ID: <009b01c19ecc$bee23fa0$0b1f073e@j0dhe> No: HPFGUIDX 33566 Ahah, my FAVOURTIE topic (I have enjoyed this topic on many other sites) > > I would demand a refund of my tuition paid. > Does Hogwarts have a tuition? The Weasleys couldn't possibly pay. And imagine asking The > Dursleys to cough up money for a magic school. This is an edited copy of two posts I sent to another HP site about why I feel that Hogwarts does not require tuition and is a public school: (During this post I refer to Public and Private schools as Americans would -even though I'm British- to avoid confusion) This was in reply to someone asking: a.. How would wizard taxes be able to pay for a school that had gold plates? b.. Would a private school give scholarships to muggle borns and People like the Weasley's? c.. Wouldn't people like Lucius Malfoy object to paying taxes so that "Mudbloods" could go to the school? START 1st EMAIL: Firstly there are 6 main reason why I believe that Hogwarts is a Public school (non fee paying) 1) There are house elves who do all the cleaning/cooking/housework etc. Even if you don't like it and think of it as slave labour, you still have to accept that they don't get paid so the school does not have to pay for that, which cuts down on the amount of money they have to spend. 2) They do not have to pay a gas/electricity bill because they don't use them. They use fire instead (in the torches-lights), and it is safe to presume from the way the kitchens were described (book 4) that they use it there too. 3) This is a bit of presumption on my part but they have a gigantic fresh water lake right next to them which they dump their waste in it (see Moaning Myrtle in Book 4) so is it so impossible that they take their water from their as well and have some kind of magical cleaning system? This stops it from over flowing too, as it would if they put stuff in and never took stuff out. 4) The Gold plates (and other furniture) can be accounted for in two ways, either they could have belonged to one of the founders OR it could have been created by magic in the first place, after all we have already seen Dumbledore make a chair from magic in about 3 seconds in book 3 at Christmas. If things like the plates had an-breakable spells on them or spells to stop them wearing out then that could also account for why they last so long etc. It could even be a combination of both with some belonging to the founders and some having been created by magic. 5) The students buy their own equipment so the school does not have to pay for that, just benches, tables etc, which would come under stuff that could be made by magic (see point 4). This is also what I assume Harry was referring to when he said he had 4 more years at Hogwarts, that he would have to buy books etc rather than that he had to pay tuition. 6) Hogwarts seems to be partly self sufficient when it comes to food too, (although I should think they do buy in some stuff). We already know that they at least have a chicken coop because Ginny was killing the chickens in it. We have also seen evidence that food can be made by magic, Molly Wealsey for example (book four) pours a sauce out of her wand. Also, we don't know the exact way that the House Elves' magic works but we can presume that it is something to do with cooking / cleaning / food etc so they can probably do something similar if not better. This only leaves the teachers/staff (and Dobby's) salaries which I am pretty certain could be afforded by the taxes!!! For the moment that is all I can think of but I think the thing we have to remember is that it is a magic school therefore everything in it could be magic and not actually need paying for. I know part of this is presumption but even without the presumptions there is still a lot that we know that would reduce the cost of the school to a level that would be acceptable to tax payers. Also to the person who said that Lucius Malfoy would not like the idea of paying for "Mudbloods" to go to school, what would be the difference between paying taxes so that no one had to pay fees (and so be paying for the "Mudbloods", and people who can afford it (the Malfoys) paying extra in the fees so that people could get scholarships because that would be exactly the same. He would object to both. END 1st EMAIL START 2nd EMAIL A friend I was talking to on the Internet (Mandy, also a member of HPfGU) has come up with an idea that solves the problem of whether Hogwarts is Public or Private. When I presented your arguments and mine she simply stated that it was both, the reasons being that it is like a private school in everywhere (boarding, buying books -which could be either- staying over at hols etc. etc. ) except that they don't actually have to pay anything (reasons in my last email would back up that there isn't that much to pay for apart from food and teachers salaries which would not amount to as much as paying for a muggle public school really.) And one last question that I find rather interesting. I have been asking EVERYONE I know who has read the HP books in Britain (and some Americans as well) what they think Hogwarts is, Public or Private? and every time the answer comes back as Public with the British, and (with two exceptions) Private for the Americans (and any Canadians). I find it interesting that there should be this difference of opinion between people in Britain (Public school) and people in America/Canada etc. (Private school). Especially as the books are set in Britain and yet it is the Americans and not the Brit's who see it as a Private school. Why do you think this is? END SECOND EMAIL. I would be most grateful if someone could answer that last question for me as I never got a reply on any other groups I posted it on. HOLLYDAZE!!! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From moongirlk at yahoo.com Wed Jan 16 20:51:08 2002 From: moongirlk at yahoo.com (moongirlk) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 20:51:08 -0000 Subject: more on stereotypes( WAs role models and gender typing) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33567 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jrober4211" wrote: > Also, no one has mentioned this lately, and since I am a newby, I > want to preface what I say with -No, I have not read every listing > regarding Madam Pomphrey. > > I just want to make this observation about her character. She is a > nurse and IMHO is portrayed as hateful, impatient, and bossy. Wow! As someone who thinks of Pomfrey as being compassionate, efficient, assertive and highly competent, I'm lost. I guess I could buy bossy - she's is clearly boss of the hospital wing, telling people to get out if they're endangering the rest and recovery of her patients, but she also turns a blind eye when she can tell that said patient wants/needs the company. But I very recently posted something about the virtues of Pomfrey in another post (33508, if you're interested), so I guess I'll leave it at that and just ask this - what, in the text, gives you the impression that she's hateful and doesn't do very much? I wish I had the books handy so I could re-read her scenes, because my initial reactions to her were so much the opposite that I'm curious to see what I might have missed. Nurse Ratchett was cruel and enjoyed the control she had over her captives -er.. patients. If Pomfrey comes off like that to some people, I must have missed or misinterpreted something big. Still and all, though, I have to defend her on this point: > I can't remember her ever being described, per se, but the > image that comes to mind is one of those white uniformed, stockings, > and little white caps on their heads starched to the hilt, type nurse > one saw in the old soap operas of the 1950's. Now what kind of role > model is that for little girls and boys who want to be future > nurses ? If you can't remember her being described, how can you determine that because of the image that pops into your mind she's a bad role model? And can her outfit make her a bad role-model anyway, unless she's wearing the version of said uniform that might show up on a XXX movie while treating the kids? kimberly wanting to rush home and re-evaluate Pomfrey, just in case. From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com Wed Jan 16 21:12:58 2002 From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 15:12:58 -0600 Subject: Trelawney, Ron's predictions, Harry's Betrayer References: <13e.7c6826e.2976fd3f@aol.com> Message-ID: <3C45ECDA.E60C351E@kingwoodcable.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33568 Edblanning at aol.com wrote: > Hear hear! > > On the way back from school yesterday we were listening to the part of PoA > where she makes her prediction of Voldemort's return. > > What struck me was her incredulity when Harry relates her prediction back to > her. Her gift seems to be so fitful that she doesn't even recognise it/ > expect it when it happens. And then, in an apparent, if unintentional, > admission she protests that she would never have predicted something so > unlikely. > > 'Ha! Got you, you old fraud!' was my reaction. I completely agree...she doesn't even entertain the thought that she made the prediction without her knowing. She's so dismissive of what the kids say, and that bugs me. If they don't predict what she wants then she believes that they aren't listening. I agree with Ron in PoA, "she's a right old fraud." > > It's not that I think she has no gift at all, just that she hasn't harnassed > it. I don't think we can tell anything from the other predictions she's made: > nothing that goodness knows how many fake mediums/fortune tellers haven't > achieved, whether stage performers or masquerading as genuine. There are people who just read others very well, like Miss Cleo and John Edwards on the sci-fi channel here in the states. Some people are just very intuitive with others. My father-in-law is one of the best, and when he says something about someone, I keep and ear open. I usually take the skeptical view when it comes to predicting anything. I strongly believe in following my gut, but I'm not going tell others what's happening in their lives based on their gut with no facts available. Though...I also fancy that idea of true seer's. We also choose to interpret Trelawney's predictions. She constantly predicts Harry's death, but as Hermione points out, everyone knows Harry is constantly in mortal danger (whatcha ya wanna bet Harry name will be added to the Weasley clock?). McGonagall states that Trelawney loves to open her class with the prediction of a student's death, and none of them have died yet! We also have no idea what Lavender was dreading. Her rabbit died before Oct 16, she just happened to get the news on that date. As for Neville, I think it was likely for him to break a cup anyway, and Trelawney could've picked up on his nervousness. I'm not willing to give her that one just yet. I think JKR is setting us up for someone else to be a seer. I think it might be Ron. He's just joking with Harry about the betrayer and the windfall of money. Was it also Ron who made the prediction that he would drown? Does anyone have GoF that they could pull out and see what Ron predicted? I would, but I've lent my book to a friend (who's slowly becoming a fan). We're going to have to a keep a close eye on Ron. I see great things for him. ;-) Have any of us considered that Moody might have been the "betrayer"? For the entire book, Harry thought that 'Moody' was on his side, and at the end of the book, it was 'Moody' who betrayed him to Voldemort. It's also possible that it hasn't happened yet, if Ron is correct, which I think he is. -Katze From vmadams at att.net Wed Jan 16 18:30:07 2002 From: vmadams at att.net (torimarie_1216) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 18:30:07 -0000 Subject: Fred and George's wager on the Quidditch World Cup In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33569 I'm a newbie too and I have thought about this question as well. --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pbeider" wrote: > Why would the Weasley twins bet all their savings on such a seemingly > improbable end of the Quidditch World Cup, and how is it that they > WON that bet? I agree that the odds of their winning seem very slim. Also, Fred and George are far too savvy to gamble away all of their savings-- and their plans for the joke shop!--on such a long shot. > Theory #1: the match was fixed. But Krum wasn't shown to be a bad > guy--and why would the twins, of all people, be in the know? I'd never even thought of that possibility. I agree with you, though, that it doesn't seem very likely. Krum actually turns out to be pretty honest IMO and I can't see Fred and George being involved in anything like that. They're full of mischief, but fixing a World Cup quidditch final is too devious even for them! > Theory #2: they divined the result. But JKR has led us to believe > that true divination is very rare, and they haven't shown predictive > powers any other time. I've considered this possibility too. I posted something earlier on another thread about Ron's predictions coming true. And I know many people think Ginny could be a true seer. Maybe being a seer is a Weasley family trait. ;-) But even if that were true, I have trouble believing that Fred and George would recognize that they were making a true prediction and have enough faith in it to take such a big risk. I have a third theory for you to consider. What if they had gotten ahold of a time-turner? Perhaps the one Hermione turned back in to Professor McGonagall some weeks before? Do you think they would be able to rationalize cheating in this way? If they did have a time-turner, I wonder what happened to them and Ginny in the woods after the World Cup match. Did they change anything that we will find out about later? Perhaps stop something worse from happening? The possibilities are endless! > And even if that has been known to happen once in > a blue moon, why would Fred and George bet all their money on it?? I agree. I just can't see them taking such a foolish risk--unless they knew for a certainty that it would pay off. Thanks for bringing this up! From blenberry at altavista.com Wed Jan 16 18:38:35 2002 From: blenberry at altavista.com (blenberry) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 18:38:35 -0000 Subject: Moody's nose & leg In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33570 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "sing2wine" wrote: > I can accept his "mad-eye" which though physically disturbing - > serves a purpose. But if Harry's arm bones can be regrown and Phoenix > tears can repair torn flesh - and for that matter - if Wormtail can > get a replacement hand from Voldemort - why couldn't Moody get a > replacement leg or more simply - why couldn't he get a nose job? > Even we muggles can do that! > Any thoughts on this? Remembering that Mad-Eye is so suspicious of everyone that he only drinks from his hip flask, I'm not surprised that he would refuse to undergo any spells or drink any potions (such as Skele-Gro) that might repair his nose or regrow anything. A spell is probably necessary for a replacement leg like Wormtail's hand. Granted, modern Muggle prosthetics are better than that wooden leg, but those probably aren't available in the wizarding world since spells are usually used. Just my theory... Barbara From Zorb17 at aol.com Wed Jan 16 19:19:26 2002 From: Zorb17 at aol.com (Zorb17 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 14:19:26 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Divination - Fred and George's wager Message-ID: <15e.735acb7.29772c3f@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33571 Mahoney asked: <> First, I want to say that I'm wholeheartedly with Hermione on this issue. I think Trelawney's a big fraud, and most of her "predictions" can be attributed to luck. I even think Ron's predictions can be chalked up to this; after all, there's only so many horrible things you can come up with to fill a month, some of them are bound to happen, or at least appear to happen. Personally, I don't believe in fortune-telling at all. However, I think we have to accept that in the Magical world, there *are* ways to predict the future, if JKR's Arithmancy does indeed do that. If, like Hermione, I were transplanted into that world, I'd probably do what she does - go with the form of prediction that clings most closely to the scientific method and logic. I really hope we get to see what the subject's all about in canon someday. pbeider asked: < Theory #2: they divined the result. But JKR has led us to believe that true divination is very rare, and they haven't shown predictive powers any other time.>> I was wondering the same thing the last time I read GoF. This happened to coincide with reading up on the Ron-As-Seer theories. This is just wild speculation, but what if Fred and George didn't divine the result, but RON did? Maybe the Seventh Son theory has merit to it, or F&G know something that Ron doesn't yet. Ron could've made an offhand comment at home before the QWC, that he thought that could happen. The twins picked up on it and thus placed the bet. Probably not, but it's fun to guess! Zorb From lav at tut.by Wed Jan 16 19:32:28 2002 From: lav at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 21:32:28 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hello from a Newbie & Moody's nose & leg In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <17526440742.20020116213228@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 33572 Greetings! > Bonnie wrote to us in his (her?) wisdom: s> I can accept his "mad-eye" which though physically disturbing - s> serves a purpose. But if Harry's arm bones can be regrown and Phoenix s> tears can repair torn flesh - and for that matter - if Wormtail can s> get a replacement hand from Voldemort - why couldn't Moody get a s> replacement leg or more simply - why couldn't he get a nose job? s> Even we muggles can do that! The only theory I have is that he wished s> to wear his battle scars as a reminder to all of the evil he fought. s> Any thoughts on this? s> Thanks, s> Bonnie / sing2wine Perhaps physical damage done by powerful curses are not that easy to repair. There's also another possibility. There's a fat chance that Alastor's wooden leg is magical... Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, (Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed), hoping to see what spell does that leg contains... From munchiethe6th at yahoo.com Wed Jan 16 19:56:12 2002 From: munchiethe6th at yahoo.com (munchiethe6th) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 19:56:12 -0000 Subject: Is Ron a Seer? and Hi from a New Member In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33573 Hi Everybody, I'm new to this list and since this is my first post, I thought I would introduce myself before I made my comments. My name is Emily, and I am a sophomore in college, studying to be an engineer. I first read SS/PS in October 2001 to prepare for the movie, and fell in love. I have since read all 4 books three times, and am impatiently waiting for Book 5 (like everyone else, I'm sure). Over the past semester break from school, I got my mother hooked on HP and we read a couple of the books out loud to each other. Anyway, enough about me, here are my thoughts on this subject. (By the way, I'm sorry if I repeat anything that has been said in the past, for as I stated above, I'm new here. ) --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "david_p2002ca" wrote: > Looking back at PoA and GoF, I've noticed that Ron's predictions > have > an uncanny knack for coming true - even when he makes them up. > I definitely think that Ron does have some "seeing" ability. Along with some of the examples already given (Ron's drowning, Harry getting stabbed in the back, and Harry's unexpected gold) Ron did make a "prediction" in COS. I put quotes on that word because what he said wasn't about something that might happen in the future, but about something that happened in the past. HRH were trying to figure out what Tom Riddle did to receive a medal for Special Services to the school. Ron says, "Maybe he murdered Myrtle..." The Trio didn't know at the time, but Riddle did have a direct hand in Myrtle's death. This seems to follow the same pattern as all of Ron's predictions: somewhat vague (but not too vague), and made completely in jest. I believe that if Ron ever took his ability seriously, he might not be as effective. He seems to say the first thing that pops into his mind, and it often turns out to be true. Often, the more we think about things, the less we trust our own instincts and gut feelings. Maybe Ron will eventually notice his gift, but I hope he won't do something that will corrupt his natural ability. Anyway, I hope this made enough sense to everyone. Emily From igenite_olwyn at yahoo.com Wed Jan 16 21:06:49 2002 From: igenite_olwyn at yahoo.com (Olwyn of Igen) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 13:06:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Is Hogwarts Public or Private? Message-ID: <20020116210649.50160.qmail@web14905.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33574 Hollydaze wrote: >And one last question that I find rather interesting. I have been asking EVERYONE I know who has read the HP >books in Britain (and some Americans as well) what they think Hogwarts is, Public or Private? and every time the >answer comes back as Public with the British, and (with two exceptions) Private for the Americans (and any >Canadians). I find it interesting that there should be this difference of opinion between people in Britain (Public >school) and people in America/Canada etc. (Private school). Especially as the books are set in Britain and yet it >is the Americans and not the Brit's who see it as a Private school. >Why do you think this is? Here we go, first posting and a confusing one (even to me). As far as I know, and thats not very far believe me :), what we class as a Public school overe here (ie UK) is what a lot of people would class as a Private school. Ie fee paying and all that kind of stuff. Not necessarily a boarding school, although a lot are, but they definately involve the paying of fees by the students parents or scholarships IIRC. To be honest I dont think we have such a thing as a Private school over here, although I could very well be wrong on that score. General, mainstream, government funded school is called just that, mainstream schooling. Everyone and anyone can attend and the taxes (in some small way) pay for it. I realise this has probably hasn't explained things properly for which I apologise, but its the best form of explaination I could think of. Olwyn __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ From hollydaze at btinternet.com Wed Jan 16 22:06:17 2002 From: hollydaze at btinternet.com (Hollydaze) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 22:06:17 -0000 Subject: Is Hogwarts Public or Private? (I was using the American version of the words) References: <20020116210649.50160.qmail@web14905.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <017001c19eda$05ec0ea0$0b1f073e@j0dhe> No: HPFGUIDX 33575 Olwyn wrote: > As far as I know, and that's not very far believe me > :), what we class as a Public school over here (i.e. > UK) is what a lot of people would class as a Private > school. I.e. fee paying and all that kind of stuff. > Not necessarily a boarding school, although a lot are, > but they definitely involve the paying of fees by the > students parents or scholarships IIRC. In the Us (as I understand) a public school is one paid for by taxes and a Private school is on paid for by parents, scholarships etc. In Britain, Public and Private schooling means that SAME THING, they are both Fee paying schools. That is why I stated at the beginning of my post that I would be using the American version of the words to avoid confusion. That is confusion for people in either the UK or US (or anywhere else for that matter). I was going to use the AMERICAN versions of the words Public and Private to write my email as it avoids having to write Public (State run) and Private (fee paying) everytime you use the words. Or else confusing people by saying Public and state run. So when I said that everyone I knew in Britain said they saw it as a "public" school, I was *transalting* that they saw it as a NON-fee paying school i.e. a STATE RUN school. > To be honest I don't think we have such a thing as a > Private school over here, although I could very well > be wrong on that score. Yes we do (My mum is currently working in one called St Helens's but that's OT) HOLLYDAZE!!!( Who personally -even though I'm British- agrees with the American wording, it makes more sense). [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From hollydaze at btinternet.com Wed Jan 16 22:39:31 2002 From: hollydaze at btinternet.com (Hollydaze) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 22:39:31 -0000 Subject: Divination in the Potterverse References: Message-ID: <01c101c19ede$aac5c2a0$0b1f073e@j0dhe> No: HPFGUIDX 33576 > Buckbeak's release seem to even be in the planning stages at this > time, so yeah, this seems to debunk me. Unless someone would be kind enough to twist > this in my favour! This probably isn't a good enough idea but what about Dumbledore, the committee and Hagrid. If The committee is thinking about the execution, Hagrid is (at least) wishing that Buckbeak will escape, and Dumbledore is already thinking about ways to get Beaky out of this situation then that might work. We have evidence in other books that Dumbledore does seem to know what might happen, what has happened (even when he wasn't their etc). And this is just my interpretation, but I distinctly got the impression that the Dumbledore in the hut at the execution KNEW what was going on with the time turner even though it is *3 hours before* it is used (obviously it is begin used at that time but strictly it is still 3 hours until HH go back in time). I almost got the feeling that when "Harry could still here Dumbledore's voice talking form within the cabin" Dumbledore was distinctly stalling the committee and McNair. Also when he comes out and exclaims "how extraordinary" with a "not of amusement in his voice". Plus he knows (even at that time) that Hermione ahs the time turner so if Dumbledore was already planning this (although possibly not exactly the way it turned out, that may have been some quick thinking on his part) then that would back up your theory. No go and poke massive flaming branches at me!!! LOL! HOLLYDAZE!!! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From moongirlk at yahoo.com Wed Jan 16 23:07:27 2002 From: moongirlk at yahoo.com (moongirlk) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 23:07:27 -0000 Subject: Slytherin/Saving Snape/Snape and Neville (LONG) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33577 Just had to point something out, somewhat irrelevant to the overall meaning of this post, but important in my Lupin-lovin' mind. --- In HPforGrownups at y..., mlfrasher at a... wrote: As Sirius and the gang basically tried > to have him killed or maimed years ago for "just snooping around", I don't > think that was one of Black and Lupin's best moments (I think Lupin feels > remorseful about that) and I'd hardly call this trivial. Lupin, from the way the story is relayed to the readers, knew nothing about that particular prank. He was busy dealing with being changed into a scary beast, and could have had quite horrible consequences from the whole episode himself had James not intervened. The responsibility for this one lies squarely on the devastatingly hansome shoulders of Sirius Black, who, like Snape himself, has certain character flaws, but still gets my vote for "dead sexy". Wait - did I just imply that I think Snape is dead sexy as well? Darnit! I was intrigued by Snape by the end of GoF, and found him compellingly complicated, but sexy?!? Chalk another one up to perceptions grudgingly changed by fandom. Grr. kimberly, Grumbling Yosemite Sam-style to herself that Snape is *not* sexy, and getting only a knowing grin in reply. From graceofmyheart at hotmail.com Wed Jan 16 21:35:23 2002 From: graceofmyheart at hotmail.com (flower_fairy12) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 21:35:23 -0000 Subject: Is Hogwarts Public or Private? In-Reply-To: <009b01c19ecc$bee23fa0$0b1f073e@j0dhe> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33578 > > START 2nd EMAIL > A friend I was talking to on the Internet (Mandy, also a member of >HPfGU) has come up with an idea that solves the problem of whether >Hogwarts is Public or Private. >Hollydaze Erm, I don't know where you live, but usually here in England, Public and Private schools are the same thing. Public schools *are* private. If you mean a school which the government pays for then it would be called a Mainstream school. Rosie From blenberry at altavista.com Wed Jan 16 22:08:13 2002 From: blenberry at altavista.com (blenberry) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 22:08:13 -0000 Subject: Is Hogwarts Public or Private? In-Reply-To: <009b01c19ecc$bee23fa0$0b1f073e@j0dhe> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33579 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Hollydaze" wrote: >I find it interesting that there should be this difference of >opinion between people in Britain (Public school) and people in >America/Canada etc. (Private school). > Why do you think this is? One thing that would influence me is that you do not have to buy textbooks in an American public school; you use a book for the school year but do not keep it. Also, public schools usually don't have uniforms although they may have dress codes. About the house-elves: I assume they have to be *bought* in the first place? That would be a considerable expense; they also are fed and housed (clothed economically in tea-towels, fortunately). Barbara From blenberry at altavista.com Wed Jan 16 22:44:18 2002 From: blenberry at altavista.com (blenberry) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 22:44:18 -0000 Subject: House-elves and laundry Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33580 I searched for previous discussion of this but didn't find it. In CoS, George says "Yeah, Mum's always wishing we had a house-elf to do the ironing..." In GoF, Moody/Crouch mentions that he "called the elf to the staffroom to collect some robes for cleaning." Now, if freeing an elf can happen as inadvertently (on Malfoy's part) as it did to Dobby, how can elves do any of these jobs handling clothes? I thought one had to be careful not to pass them even a sock. Barbara (who is hoping someone has a really good explanation) From Joanne0012 at aol.com Wed Jan 16 23:54:26 2002 From: Joanne0012 at aol.com (joanne0012) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 23:54:26 -0000 Subject: House-elves and laundry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33581 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "blenberry" wrote: > Now, if > freeing an elf can happen as inadvertently (on Malfoy's part) as it > did to Dobby, how can elves do any of these jobs handling clothes? I > thought one had to be careful not to pass them even a sock. You just have to drop your socks on the floor first! The key is in not directly GIVING an item of clothing to them. From kevinkimball at hotmail.com Wed Jan 16 23:39:08 2002 From: kevinkimball at hotmail.com (kimballs6) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 23:39:08 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Harry_Potter=96A_Worthwhile_series=3F=3F?= Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33582 Much debate is swirling around the Harry Potter books versus C.S. Lewis's and Tolkien's stories. Many argue that these books are all similar--just fantasy, pure and simple. I disagree. They are fantasies (Lewis going into allegory), but that is where the similarity ends. After reading the first book in the Potter series, reading The Hobbit, and brushing up on The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, I see a tremendous gulf between Rowling and the other two writers. This paper discusses the difference between their world views and the incredible gulf between writing abilities. MS. ROWLING'S WORLD VIEW: Rowling presents an arbitrary world in which good and evil are simply two sides of the same sorcery--the "Dark Side" and the other side, although no name is ever given for it. Harry and his friends must choose which side they're on, but of course the line between the two is always moving. Determining where the line is between good and evil becomes an individual choice, leaving the reader wondering why something is okay for this person and not the other. Sometimes breaking rules is honorable, sometimes it must be punished. Sometimes a lie is bad, sometimes it is good. And finally, adult authority is attacked harshly, leaving ultimate authority in the hands of the kid who can grab the most power. First, breaking rules is glorified: "Hermione had become a bit more relaxed about breaking rules since Harry and Ron had saved her from the mountain troll, and she was much nicer for it." But when Malfoy or other "Slytherins" break rules, they are punished--to the cheers of Harry and his gang. At one point Harry is told not to ride on his broom. When he does, instead of any punishment, he is rewarded with a berth on the Quidditch team. Somehow it is a terrible thing for Hagrid to break the rules and raise a forbidden dragon, yet honorable for the students to break the rules and explore the forbidden areas of the school. (Actually, it is not honorable for Malfoy to break the rules, only Hermione and Harry--if they feel the need.) Second, Rowling leaves the option of lying up to the individual, and even glorifies it. If Harry needs to lie, he simply will: "When facing a magic mirror, Harry thinks desperately, `I must lie,..I must look and lie about what I see, that's all.'" And yes, he is rewarded with the Sorcerer's Stone. Yet later, when he asks Headmaster Dumbledore questions, Dumbledore says, "...I shall answer your questions unless I have a very good reason not to, in which case I beg you'll forgive me. I shall not, or course, lie." My immediate response was, why not? It works for Harry. Maybe Ms. Rowling meant this as a teaching point, but it doesn't go anywhere. Does Dumbledore never lie, or maybe he'll just never lie to Harry, or maybe he just won't lie to Harry at this time, or maybe this is itself a lie.... Rowling sometimes glorifies lying, and other times doesn't consider it as an option. Rowling appears confused on the issue of lying. Finally, concerning the adult world, or those who would be in authority, there is only derision. Fred tells his mother, "Honestly, woman, you call yourself our mother?" And another time, "All right, keep your hair on." All the teachers at Hogwarts are either dirty, deranged, deceitful, or all three. "Honestly, Hermione, you think all teachers are saints or something..." and when referring to late notices for library books, Rowling writes: "He [Harry] didn't belong to the library, so he'd never even got rude notes asking for books back." Is it really `rude' to remind a person of a commitment he has made? When presenting the adult human world, Ms. Rowling presents it in such a ridiculously negative light that it becomes completely unrealistic and even offensive. All adults are foolish, bungling, stupid and boringly unimaginative. Why would a child ever look up to them or need them in any way? Rowling's characters twist truth into their own desires--breaking whatever rules necessary to get whatever they want,--become quite adept at lying, and see themselves as the final authority, far superior to any adult wisdom. C.S. LEWIS'S AND J.R.R. TOLKIEN'S WORLD VIEW: In contrast, Lewis and Tolkien present a world where truth is absolute and transcends the individual. Because the world has absolute truth, it is also a world in which order is upheld as an honorable characteristic for which to strive. Good and evil are two distinct things, with the rewards and consequences for the characters' choices reflecting absolute values. And finally, adults can be good or evil, and the good are presented with nobility of character. First, C.S. Lewis presents truth as absolute and transcendent. Even Aslan and the Witch are bound by the ancient laws. When seeking what she claims is rightfully hers, the witch says to Aslan: "You at least know the magic which the Emperor put into Narnia at the very beginning. You know that every traitor belongs to me as my lawful prey and that for every treachery I have a right to a kill." When Susan begs Aslan to work against the `Deep Magic,' C.S. Lewis writes: "`Work against the Emperor's magic?' said Aslan turning to her with something like a frown on his face. And nobody ever made that suggestion to him again." Even Aslan and the Witch are bound by the laws of the Emperor. Second, respect for order is a part of a Judeo-Christian world view. Consider the general anarchy encouraged at Hogwarts, when the students sing the school song: "`Everyone pick their favorite tune,' said Dumbledore, `and off we go!'..... Everybody finished the song at different times... and when they had finished, he [Dumbledore] was one of those who clapped loudest." Compare this to Aslan's words after Peter kills the White Witch's Wolf: "`Hand it [Peter's sword] to me and kneel, Son of Adam,' said Aslan. And when Peter had done so he struck him with the flat of the blade and said, `Rise up, Sir Peter Fenris-Bane. And, whatever happens, never forget to wipe your sword.' Even in the midst of battle there is order. Tolkien also recognizes the role of order in a Judeo-Christian world view. In The Hobbit the goblins "hated everyone and everything, and particularly the orderly and prosperous...." Chaos versus order. Which one draws out the best in us? Thirdly, good and evil are distinct. When Edmund first heard the name Aslan, he "felt a sensation of mysterious horror." It was evil coming face to face with good. When the White Witch controls Narnia, it is "always winter, but never Christmas,"; yet with Aslan's return, the world changes: "...A strange, sweet, rustling, chattering noise... It was the noise of running water. All round them, though out of sight, there were streams chattering, murmuring, bubbling, splashing, and even (in the distance) roaring. And his [Edmund's] heart gave a great leap..." Evil has had its day, and good will now triumph. Good and evil choices also have rewards and consequences. Edmund chooses evil when he decides to serve the White Witch, resulting in a curse that affects all around him, including Aslan, the one who would save him. Payment is always necessary for disobedience, and Edmund realizes the extent of his selfish actions when Aslan sacrifices himself to the witch in place of Edmund. His evil choices have painful consequences. In The Hobbit , Bilbo struggles against the pull of evil, sensing the outcome of his decisions. When he slips the coveted Arkenstone into his pocket, he knows that he is giving in to his greedy desires: "All the same he had an uncomfortable feeling that the picking and choosing had not really been meant to included this marvellous gem, and that trouble would yet come of it." Later Bilbo gives up the Arkenstone for the sake of peace, but "not without a shudder, not without a glance of longing, [he] handed the marvellous stone to Bard...." Gandalf cheers his decision: "`Well done! Mr. Baggins!' he said, clapping Bilbo on the back. `There is always more about you than anyone expects!'" The internal struggle has been great, yet Bilbo eventually chooses the good and right. Finally, in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, the adults either have integrity and nobleness, or they stoop to deceit and treachery. There is no ambiguity in their integrity or lack thereof. Consider the difference between how Dumbledore, Headmaster of Hogwarts School, and Aslan, ruler of Narnia, present themselves in their first appearance before the children. Rowlings writes, "`Welcome!" he [Dumbledore] said. `Welcome to a new year at Hogwarts! Before we begin our banquet, I would like to say a few words. And here they are: Nitwit! Blubber! Oddment! Tweak!'"... Everybody clapped and cheered. Compare this to Aslan's welcome of the children: "`Welcome, Peter, Son of Adam,' said Aslan. `Welcome, Susan and Lucy, daughters of Eve. Welcome He-Beaver and She-Beaver.' His voice was deep and rich and somehow took the fidgets out of them." There is a vast difference between Dumbledore's foolishness and Aslan's nobility. Lewis and Tolkien uphold the values of absolute truth and absolute right and wrong. They acknowledge an orderly world, one which brings out nobility in its heroes. And learning from and submitting to those who have gone before is honored as a right way to gain wisdom. Difference in character development between Harry, and Edmund and Bilbo: At the beginning of Harry Potter, Harry hates his family, laughing at their stupidity and dreaming of revenge - "...the largest snake in the place. It could have wrapped its body twice around Uncle Vernon's car and crushed it into a trash can...." Not much growth in maturity has occurred between the first chapter and the last paragraph. When the other `witchlings' feel sorry for Harry as he goes back to his nasty family, Harry smiles and says, "They don't know we're not allowed to use magic at home. I'm going to have a lot of fun with Dudley this summer...." Contrast that with Edmund and Bilbo. At the beginning of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, Edmund is truly a spiteful, mean-spirited brother: "When Peter suddenly asked him [Edmund] the question he decided all at once to do the meanest and most spiteful thing he could think of. He decided to let Lucy down." Yet by the end of the story, he's a new person: "When at last she was free to come back to Edmund she found him standing on his feet and not only healed of his wounds but looking better than she had seen him look--oh, for ages; ... He had become his real old self again and could look you in the face. And there on the field of battle Aslan made him a knight." In The Hobbit, even Bilbo grows from a timid, somewhat cowardly Hobbit to a humble yet wise warrior. "Already he was a very different hobbit from the one that had run out without a pocket-handkerchief from Bag-End long ago. He had not had a pocket-handkerchief for ages. He loosened his dagger in its sheath, tightened his belt, and went on." All the characters-- Harry, Bilbo and the children--are presented as heroes, yet only Lewis's and Tolkien's live in a world that has true consequences for right and wrong, and thus only they can truly grow in excellence. Although there are many more avenues that can be explored-- including witchcraft versus mythology--the preceding points are enough to show that yes, there is quite a world view gulf between Rowling and Lewis/Tolkien. In handing any book to a child, one must know if the child can discern the world views and not be swept into a view that is counter to the truth being instilled in him. MS. ROWLING'S WORLD VIEW APPARENT IN HER LITERARY STYLE: Ms. Rowling's world view of no absolutes and the flaunting of all authority and rules carries over into her writing. Either she does not have a basic understanding of grammar and writing, or she purposely writes this way in keeping with her world view. Although it can be appropriate to read books with varying world views, encouraging the reading of poorly written books is at best unwise. Pronoun and Antecedent disagreement: "Then he looked quickly around to see if anyone was watching. They weren't." "Someone was knocking to come in. BOOM. They knocked again." "Can you think of nobody who has waited many years to return to power, who has clung to life, awaiting their chance?" Subject confusion: "The dark shapes of desks and chairs were piled against the walls,..." Analogy and Simile struggles: "...weighing a pile of rubies as big as glowing coals." (How big are glowing coals?) "The mountains around the school became icy gray and the lake like chilled steel." Improper verb construction: "He had just thought of something that made him feel as though the happy balloon (?) inside him had got a puncture." "...so he'd never even got rude notes asking for books back." Run on sentences - they are virtually everywhere: "It [ice pop] wasn't bad, either, Harry thought, licking it as they watched a gorilla scratching its head who looked remarkably like Dudley, except that it wasn't blond." - The head looked remarkably like Dudley, or the gorilla? Whose hair is blond? "The idea of overtaking Slytherin in the House championship was wonderful, no one had done it for seven years, but would they be allowed to, with such a biased referee?" And my favorite one: "Hagrid rolled up the note, gave it to the owl, which clamped it in its beak, went to the door, and threw the owl out into the storm." - who went to the door? Lewis and Tolkien both write with an impeccable understanding of and a rightful submission to the English language. Consider this passage: "`It's all right,' he was shouting. `Come out, Mrs. Beaver. Come out, Sons and Daughters of Adam and Eve. It's all right! It isn't her.' This was bad grammar, or course, but that is how beavers talk when they are excited..." Even when Lewis violates a grammar rule, he does it with purpose and does it with style. When I give my children a book to read, I also give them a pencil and ask them to mark anything that stands out to them: clues as to the author's world view, the hero's words or actions that inspire them, sentences or paragraphs that are well written, vocabulary that peaks their interest, etc. My copy of Harry Potter is well marked and even dog-eared, but not because of inspiring passages or quality writing. Rowling's world view is not one to immerse a child in if you are seeking to raise him in a Judeo-Christian ethic. Beyond that, encouraging a child to read poorly written yet "sensational" literature may produce a child who can read Harry Potter stories, but it will not produce a reader. From vmadams at att.net Wed Jan 16 23:58:34 2002 From: vmadams at att.net (torimarie_1216) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 23:58:34 -0000 Subject: House-elves and laundry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33583 "blenberry" wrote: > Now, if > freeing an elf can happen as inadvertently (on Malfoy's part) as it > did to Dobby, how can elves do any of these jobs handling clothes? I > thought one had to be careful not to pass them even a sock. Good question! Maybe the laundry has to be in a bundle or hamper or something and instead of taking it directly from the hands of the witch/wizard, the house elf has to pick it up on his/her own. Maybe it's only when the clothes go from the hands of the master to the hands of the house elf, that the elf is set free. Tori From Whirdy at aol.com Thu Jan 17 00:43:56 2002 From: Whirdy at aol.com (Whirdy at aol.com) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 19:43:56 EST Subject: Where is Dumbledore's Letter? Message-ID: <18.18a5a741.2977784c@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33584 In SS/PS Dumbledore leaves a letter for the Dursleys in Harry's basket. Given VD's penchant for destroying messages from Hogwarts and Dumbledore, is it possible that the letter has survived. It should contain some very interesting information, enough to persuade them to accept HP and keep him in safe, abject misery for 11 years. Perhaps the letter will be uncovered by HP during one of his forthcoming summer sojourns with Dudley, et cie. It may also answer questions about the role of the Dursleys in protecting and caring for HP and why Dumbledore insisted that HP return to the muggles each year. whirdy From cindysphynx at home.com Thu Jan 17 00:47:23 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 00:47:23 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Harry_Potter=96A_Worthwhile_series=3F=3F?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33585 Kimball wrote: > Much debate is swirling around the Harry Potter books versus > C.S. Lewis's and Tolkien's stories. After reading the first book in the Potter > series, reading The Hobbit, and brushing up on The Lion, the > Witch and the Wardrobe, I see a tremendous gulf between > Rowling and the other two writers. I find myself somewhat puzzled by these remarks. The Harry Potter series currently consists of four books, yet you freely admit that you have only read the first book. Doesn't this omission undermine your conclusions just a tad? Cindy From Rebecca.Allen at turner.com Thu Jan 17 00:48:20 2002 From: Rebecca.Allen at turner.com (Allen, Rebecca) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 19:48:20 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry Potter?A Worthwhile series?? Message-ID: <759A085B4DB9AF47AD5BB22098C9172807531D@cnncex01.turner.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33586 Isn't this the thing about the HP series that makes it so engrossing, that the kids do not have good and evil laid out for them in pure black and white, so they *have to* make ethical decisions for themselves (like breaking the rules to save an innocent character)? Good and evil are sometimes a little fuzzy, and all of the characters (children and adults) have flaws and vulnerabilities -- just like real life. That's why it's so compelling! Perhaps this is why it appeals to adults more often than the Narnia series, in which some of us find the morality a little too heavy handed. But I think HP must also appeal to parents who want their children to learn how to weigh out ethical decisions so they can grow up to think for themselves. When I eventually have kids, that's how I plan to present this to them. The Hobbit is actually a little more complex than the preceding analysis, e.g. Bilbo's theft of the Arkenstone wound up being the best thing he did, even if he originally did it for questionable reasons. Plus his adventure sets him at odds with his conservative community after his return -- but this isn't a Hobbit discussion list. ;-) Sorry folks if you've discussed this topic ad infinitum over the years; I'm still a little new to the list, but I just had to reply. Still if this topic suits people, I can recommend an article: http://www.decentfilms.com/commentary/magic.html I disagree 100% with this fellow's conclusions (I happen to like my authority decentralized), but his analysis is pretty accurate. /Rebecca [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Jefrigo21 at aol.com Thu Jan 17 00:54:51 2002 From: Jefrigo21 at aol.com (Jefrigo21 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 19:54:51 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Is Hogwarts Public or Private? Message-ID: <109.be4f94c.29777adb@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33587 In a message dated 1/16/02 5:50:32 PM Central Standard Time, blenberry at altavista.com writes: > One thing that would influence me is that you do not have to buy > textbooks in an American public school; you use a book for the > school year but do not keep it. Also, public schools usually don't > have uniforms although they may have dress codes. > OK, I went to American public schools from Elementary to high school. In primary (Elementary) school you do not pay for books, but then the fee is in the tax system we have, or there might be an extra fee. I think the same goes for middle (junior) high. But when I got to high school we had to buy our books. It really depends on where you are from. Joanna (who shoveled her parents driveway because we just had the first real snow of the season in the Chicago area) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bricken at tenbit.pl Thu Jan 17 01:52:01 2002 From: bricken at tenbit.pl (Ev vy) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 02:52:01 +0100 Subject: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re:_Harry_Potter-A_Worthwhile_series=3F=3F_-_a_reply?= References: Message-ID: <00e801c19ef9$8f66aa40$7208f1d5@OSLII> No: HPFGUIDX 33588 In reply to "kimballs6": I've read your essay and I must say that I not entirely agree with you. And although I find it very superficial, I decided to write a reply. I'm not sending it directly to you, but to the list as I think that some points I make may be worth consideration regardless of being a part of my reply. I'm a student of English literature and currently I'm writing my MA thesis on literature for children. And I'm putting HP series alongside 'The Hobbit' and Narnia Chronicles. And I must say that my professor is not at all surprised about it. None of these books is fantasy and simple, and so as to Tolkien and Lewis there's simply no discussion about that. And I think that Rowling deserves to be put together with those two writers. And I'll try to prove it in my MA thesis by analyzing similarities and differences, by saying in which aspects Tolkien's and Lewis's works are superior to Rowling's and in which aspects Rowling's works are superior to Tolkien's and Lewis's I'd like to make two remarks before I'll refute some points of your essay: 1. Tolkien and Lewis wrote their books in a wholly different convention. They placed their characters in a completely imaginary world which being imaginary may be perfect, with clear divisions, etc. Their write with references to romance genre, epic stories and quest stories. The rules that govern their worlds belong to the chivalric age, to the age of noble knights. Whereas Rowling writes about a contemporary world. It doesn't matter that the wizarding world is imaginary as it's analogous to the Muggle world, it exists within the Muggle world, it's governed by the same rules as our world. It's contemporary story in this respect. 2. Don't forget that Tolkien and Lewis were scholars, they were Oxford University professors and Catholics, so their background had an immense impact on the way they wrote. Lewis created Narnia as an enormous metaphor of Christian worldview, and Tolkien created a completely self-consistent world, with its own history, mythology, etc. And Rowling did not attempt anything like this. >>>>MS. ROWLING'S WORLD VIEW: Rowling presents an arbitrary world in which good and evil are simply two sides of the same sorcery--the "Dark Side" and the other side, although no name is ever given for it.<<< That's exactly what I like about Rowling. It's life. Anything can be either good or evil, or used either for good or evil purposes. Doesn't Rowling try to convince us that our own choices make us what we are? In this sense Tolkien's and Lewis's worlds seem to limited, as their characters are in a way predestined to be either good or evil. Which is BS, but the way you put the differences in your essay make me think of that this way. >>>>Sometimes breaking rules is honorable, sometimes it must be punished. Sometimes a lie is bad, sometimes it is good.<<<< Again different conventions. In chivalric world, lie is always bad. In our world it's not necessarily true. >>>>And finally, adult authority is attacked harshly, leaving ultimate authority in the hands of the kid who can grab the most power.<<<< I'll make a refrence to the convention of romance (a quotation from Derek S. Brewer's essay 'The Lord o the Rings as Romance'): 'The hero has to escape from the domination of his parents and to establish relationship with his peers.' Parents can be either real figurative. And this escape implies breaking the rules. Domination of parents means imposing the rules and conventions. To escape from the parents the hero has to break the rules and conventions. >>>>If Harry needs to lie, he simply will: "When facing a magic mirror, Harry thinks desperately, `I must lie,..I must look and lie about what I see, that's all.'" And yes, he is rewarded with the Sorcerer's Stone.<<<< He is _not_ rewared. He doesn't want the stone for himself, he wants to protect it from Voldemort, so he can't be rewareded with it. The stone is not his goal, his goal is to protect it. >>>>Yet later, when he asks Headmaster Dumbledore questions, Dumbledore says, "...I shall answer your questions unless I have a very good reason not to, in which case I beg you'll forgive me. I shall not, or course, lie." My immediate response was, why not? It works for Harry. Maybe Ms. Rowling meant this as a teaching point, but it doesn't go anywhere.<<<< The point is: if Dumbledore said to Harry 'don't lie because it's wrong' it would be another rule among a number of rules which, as you pointed out, are eagerly broken by all the students of Hogwarts. And in such a way Dumbledore make the boy think why the wizard would not not lie. >>>All adults are foolish, bungling, stupid and boringly unimaginative. Why would a child ever look up to them or need them in any way?<<<< Don't you mean Muggles, perhaps??? I don't see Rowling making the adult wizards boringly unimaginative and stupid. BTW, references to adults or people that Tolikien and Lewis make aren't very nice: Narnia - refers more to adults: 'Grown-ups are always thinking of uninteresting explanations.' The Hobbit - 'when large stupid folk like you and me come blundering along, making noise like elephants which they [hobbits] can hear a mile off.' >>>>C.S. LEWIS'S AND J.R.R. TOLKIEN'S WORLD VIEW: In contrast, Lewis and Tolkien present a world where truth is absolute and transcends the individual. Because the world has absolute truth, it is also a world in which order is upheld as an honorable characteristic for which to strive. Good and evil are two distinct things, with the rewards and consequences for the characters' choices reflecting absolute values. And finally, adults can be good or evil, and the good are presented with nobility of character.<<<< Again convention, they write with strong reference to medieval conventions and genres, where the division to good and evil was a black/white division. In HP, we may find references to these conventions but made more freely, whereas Tolkien and Lewis are meticulous about 'intertextualizing' them. Moreover, Rowling equips her story with more psychological depth. Good and evil are rarely easily divided, the border between them is very blurry. >>>>Consider the difference between how Dumbledore, Headmaster of Hogwarts School, and Aslan, ruler of Narnia, present themselves in their first appearance before the children. Rowlings writes, "`Welcome!" he [Dumbledore] said. `Welcome to a new year at Hogwarts! Before we begin our banquet, I would like to say a few words. And here they are: Nitwit! Blubber! Oddment! Tweak!'"... Everybody clapped and cheered. Compare this to Aslan's welcome of the children: "`Welcome, Peter, Son of Adam,' said Aslan. `Welcome, Susan and Lucy, daughters of Eve. Welcome He-Beaver and She-Beaver.' His voice was deep and rich and somehow took the fidgets out of them." There is a vast difference between Dumbledore's foolishness and Aslan's nobility.<<<< Foolishness??? Why do you call sense of humor foolishness? And why do you compare Dumbledore and Aslan? They don't have the same status in the books. Aslan is the symbol of ultimate goodness and power, while Dumbledore is just considered to be the most powerful good wizard. Aslan is a Father figure while Dumbledore is just a father figure. I would be much wiser to compare Dumbledore with Gandalf. Compare these quotation with those you used: >From 'The Hobbit: 'Gandalf, Gandalf! Not the fellow who used to tell such woderful tales at parties, about dragons and goblins and giants and the rescue of princesses and the unexpected luck of widow's sons? Not the man that used to make such particularly excellent fireworks.' Or: 'He pulled open the door with a jerk, and they all fell in, one on top of the other. More dwarves, four more! And there was Gandalf behind, leaning on his staff and laughing.' >>>All the characters--Harry, Bilbo and the children--are presented as heroes, yet only Lewis's and Tolkien's live in a world that has true consequences for right and wrong, and thus only they can truly grow in excellence. HP is a series so the development of the character has to be somehow broken into parts. Each Narnia book is a completely separate entity so the whole process takes part in each of them in regard to different character. Rowling is much more realistic than Tolkien and Lewis. Harry Potter is a child, an eleven-year- old boy, who needs time to develop. Plus the convention, Narnia and The Hobbit are influenced by texts where the transformation of the hero, his redmption had to happen without paying any heed to psychological truth. Personally, I don't find Narnia and The Hobbit as psychologically convincing. Rwoling is more realistic, the good is not always rewarded and the evil punished. "Then he looked quickly around to see if anyone was watching. They weren't." "Someone was knocking to come in. BOOM. They knocked again." "Can you think of nobody who has waited many years to return to power, who has clung to life, awaiting their chance?" Have you heard of political correctness??? All those instances require the use of pronouns in singular, but if you want to be politically correct (and now it _is_ even grammatically correct) you use the pronouns 'they', 'them', 'their' and plural form of verb instead. Ev vy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lotusmoondragon at aol.com Thu Jan 17 03:32:06 2002 From: lotusmoondragon at aol.com (lotusmoondragon at aol.com) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 22:32:06 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] House-elves and laundry Message-ID: <13.50c980e.29779fb6@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33589 In a message dated 1/16/2002 6:54:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, blenberry at altavista.com writes: > Now, if > freeing an elf can happen as inadvertently (on Malfoy's part) as it > did to Dobby, how can elves do any of these jobs handling clothes? I > thought one had to be careful not to pass them even a sock. I think there is a big difference from handing them clothing to asking them to pick up clothing. I think if a house elf picks up clothing on their own, it's not the same as giving them clothing to wear. Lotus lotusmoondragon at aol.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lotusmoondragon at aol.com Thu Jan 17 03:50:13 2002 From: lotusmoondragon at aol.com (lotusmoondragon at aol.com) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 22:50:13 EST Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re:=20[HPforGrownups]=20Harry=20Potter=E2=80=93A=20Wor?= =?UTF-8?Q?thwhile=20series=3F=3F?= Message-ID: <12c.aedfd96.2977a3f5@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33590 In a message dated 1/16/2002 7:00:26 PM Eastern Standard Time, kevinkimball at hotmail.com writes: > Much debate is swirling around the Harry Potter books versus > C.S. Lewis's and Tolkien's stories. I am more than slightly confused as to the motivation of putting this "essay" on an HP fan list? I, for one, do not feel it appropriate. First and foremost, please don't assume that everyone wants to raise their children with "Judeo-Christian" ethics and viewpoints. Secondly, if you are going to write a critical essay of HP or any other books, it would serve you well not to be so opinionated. Lotus lotusmoondragon at aol.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Thu Jan 17 04:25:43 2002 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 20:25:43 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Is Ron a Seer? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6386597790.20020116202543@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33591 Wednesday, January 16, 2002, 4:12:25 AM, torimarie_1216 wrote: t> Well, they don't start taking Divination lessons until the third t> year, so there wouldn't be any formal predictions. But there may be t> some things he says in normal conversation that come true. I'll be t> on the lookout for them! :-) Well, the one that always stands out for me is when in _CoS_ they're wondering what Tom Riddle got the "Award for Special Services" for, and Ron says, "Maybe he killed Myrtle, that would have done everyone a favor." And bingo! -- It turned out Riddle *DID* kill Myrtle (via the basilisk)!! -- Dave From mdartagnan at yahoo.com Thu Jan 17 05:34:08 2002 From: mdartagnan at yahoo.com (mdartagnan) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 05:34:08 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Harry_Potter=96A_Worthwhile_series=3F=3F?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33592 Good evening, Kevin Kimball wrote: > After reading the first book in the Potter > series, reading The Hobbit, and brushing up on The Lion, the > Witch and the Wardrobe, I see a tremendous gulf between > Rowling and the other two writers. Undoubtely, there are many differences between Rowling, Tolkien and Lewis. Anyway, personally I don't think *any* writer or literary series should be judged on its first volume alone. Most of the times, the first volume is quite "simpler" (for lack of a better word) than those that will follow it. A real analysis should be based on all the series books... but of course, that's just my opinion. > First, breaking rules is glorified It all depends on the purpose of the action. For example... At one point > Harry is told not to ride on his broom. When he does, instead of > any punishment, he is rewarded with a berth on the Quidditch > team. I wonder why there's all a commotion about Harry getting a place on the Quidditch team after breaking a rule and there is not one about Draco not getting punished for breaking that rule before or for taking Neville's remembrall. After all, Harry just wanted to help. And, as it's been pointed before, one of the best points of Rowling's work is that they're "morally realistic"; in real life, I don't doubt some teachers would have given a child a place on the football/soccer/whatever team on a similar situation. > (Actually, it is not honorable for Malfoy to break the rules, only > Hermione and Harry--if they feel the need.) Most of the times, Malfoy breaks the rules to harm or tease others, while Hermione and Harry break the rules to help others. Maybe there lies the difference between why it's sometimes honorable and sometimes not. > Yet later, when he asks > Headmaster Dumbledore questions, Dumbledore says, "...I > shall answer your questions unless I have a very good reason > not to, in which case I beg you'll forgive me. I shall not, or > course, lie." My immediate response was, why not? It works for > Harry. Harry lied to protect the Stone. Some behaviors, like lying, are not good per se, but are necessary ?even in real life. If Harry hadn't lied, Voldemort would have gotten the Stone and the series would have probably ended in book One. On the other hand, remember that Dumbledore knows more about the Potters, Voldemort and what happenned that Halloween night than Harry. He obviously thinks Harry must know the truth, but in that moment, he's not yet ready to learn it. Would it be better to lie to him and them, four or five years later, tell him "Remember Harry, that I told you that Voldemort couldn't kill you because yadda yadda yadda? Well, I lied."? > Rowling appears confused on the issue of lying. Maybe because the issue of lying is confussing in the real world. > When presenting the adult human > world, Ms. Rowling presents it in such a ridiculously negative > light that it becomes completely unrealistic and even offensive. > All adults are foolish, bungling, stupid and boringly > unimaginative. Why would a child ever look up to them or need > them in any way? Well, Muggles might be like that (though I really enjoy the scenes with the Dursleys). In the wizarding world, not "all" adults are as you describe them (what about Molly, or Dumbledore, or Remus, or even Snape in his best moments?). Anyway, in any HP analysis you must remember we see everything from Harry's perspective. That, obviously, won't give us the same images we would get from a third person PoV, > Second, respect for order is a part of a Judeo-Christian world > view. Consider the general anarchy encouraged at Hogwarts, > when the students sing the school song First of all, we're never told the Wizarding World is a Judeo-Christian world. Nor Middle Earth, BTW, or as far as I can remember. And where you see anarchy, I see freedom and creativity and how both are encouraged. You see, my sister is a kindergarten teacher. Sometimes "anarchy", as you call it, must be encouraged to let the kids be creative and develop their personalities. And as long as the important rules (like discipline, or grades, or classes, or respect to teachers and peers) are kept, I can't see any evil in allowing some freedom while singing or drawing or writing (or in any artistic activity). > Chaos versus order. Which one draws out the best in us? With all due respect, last year I saw many persons who showed the best of them amidst the chaos. ^_^ After all, real life is not Black and White. > Payment is always necessary for > disobedience, and Edmund realizes the extent of his selfish > actions when Aslan sacrifices himself to the witch in place of > Edmund. His evil choices have painful consequences. I know you only compared the first books of each series, and yet, the best example I can think of, from the HP series, comes in the third book. Harry uses the Invisibility Cloak and the Marauder's Map to visit Hogsmeade even if he has been forbidden to do so. It's not an evil choice, but a selfish one (just like Edmund's. The White Queen was evil, but he was merely selfish IMO). Harry meets the painful consequences of his choice, just as Edmund. No, nobody died for him, but he was reminded that his parents died for him and that he was foolishly wasting their sacrifice. It's the worst scold Harry has ever recieved, IMO. > There is no ambiguity in their integrity or lack thereof. > Consider the difference between how Dumbledore, Headmaster > of Hogwarts School, and Aslan, ruler of Narnia, present > themselves in their first appearance before the children. I don't think there's a valid comparison here. Aslan is a symbol of Christ, so Lewis treats him with respect (and caution, again IMO). But Dumbledore is not a symbol, but a character. You can't place them on the same league. And with all due respect, as a child, I would have been terrified by Aslan but felt a sort of bond with Dumbledore after such introduction. I prefer people with a good sense of humor. > At the beginning of Harry Potter, Harry hates his family, laughing > at their stupidity and dreaming of revenge Maybe because he's been mistreaten by them all his life? And personally, I can see a difference between the Harry of the beginning and the Harry of the end, even though the real change will become obvious until Book Seven is published. Harry, at the end, is more confident and happy than before, has recovered his past (or at least part of it) and has friends. And now he's smiling more, which is sometimes more important than being brave or strong. ^^ >In handing any book to a > child, one must know if the child can discern the world views and > not be swept into a view that is counter to the truth being instilled > in him. Aren't that what parents are there for? To check whatever their kids are reading/seeing/hearing and guiding them using the books/tv shows/whatever as tools? I clearly remember my mother used to watch TV with me and we would discuss what we saw. She didn't check what I read, though, and fantasy has been with me since I was very young. And now, many years after that, the "contrast" between what I read and what I learned at home has only given me a wider perspective of life and human beings. > Lewis and Tolkien both write with an impeccable understanding > of and a rightful submission to the English language. But weren't they scholars? Wasn't that their job? And, with a sincere apology to Tolkien fans, I HAD to jump some paragraphs that were becoming a bit too boring for my tastes. The same happenned with Victor Hugo, though. ^^UU Oh well, I confess. I couldn't care less about language. English is not my first language and the first copies I had of The Hobbit and The Philosopher's Stone were in Spanish. What draws me to a book are storylines and characters and settings, and the desire to be swept into another world for the time I hold a book in my lap. I enjoyed LotR, I'm enjoying HP and I'm barely in the second book of Narnia. I'm not looking for grammar nor for moral lessons, since I learn about those in real life. I want to enjoy a well-told tale. And from that perspective, I can't say Tolkien is better than Rowling, nor than Lewis is better than Tolkien. I can only say that I love Rowling's characters, that Tolkien's world is flawless and that I'd wish Lewis would have tuned a bit down the allegories, even if his story is quite enjoyable. > Rowling's world view is > not one to immerse a child in if you are seeking to raise him in a > Judeo-Christian ethic. Three questions: a) What if I don't want to give the HP books to a child, but buy them for me? b) What if I prefer to raise a child in a Judeo-Christian ethic by using real-life examples and with my own behavior and decide that books, specially when you're young, are to be enjoyed? c) What if a person couldn't care less about a Judeo-Christian ethic? Beyond that, encouraging a child to read > poorly written yet "sensational" literature may produce a child > who can read Harry Potter stories, but it will not produce a > reader. Oh, my... I know I'm not a child, but know of a lot of children who were drawn to other books after reading the first HP volume (you know, while we wait for Book 5). I was drawn into literature after reading Little Women, which might have been a HP-styled novel on its time. (Don't kill me) I've learned of many persons that read HP and now are reading LotR, or viceversa (like my case). Many of them are reading other kind of books, or read them first and then included HP on their lists much later. Aren't we being a bit, er... exaggerated? ^^UU Take care, Altair aka MJ Sorry about typos, bad grammar, etc... it's late and I should be sleeping. From meckelburg at foni.net Thu Jan 17 07:47:46 2002 From: meckelburg at foni.net (mecki987) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 07:47:46 -0000 Subject: Crouch sr. as a bone (Oh no, not again!) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33593 Hi All! My kids keep me too busy to do more than lurking most of the time, but since the group has grown so imensly, I thought I might throw in my favorite theory again- When I first tried we had about 1500 members, the second time 2000 - so I guess about 1500 people on this list are not bored to death ( sorry to the others :D ) When I read GoF the third or fourth time, I noticed Crouch/Moody had turned his dead father into a BONE and buried him. Voldemort used *his* fathers bone to get his body back. Maybe Crouch sr. as a bone is a little hint from JKR as to what Voldemort can do about Barty's soul??- After all, Barty is not dead, Voldemort wasn't dead either. Voldie had a soul, but his body was gone, Barty has a body, but his soul is gone.- Could the same, or a similar spell that helped V. work on him? Just wondering - now go ahead and tear the theory apart, that's what I'm here for. And, would someone please give me an Acronym for my "Bartys soul is saved by his father's bone"- theory?My english is not good enough. Thanks Mecki From broken at pixicore.org Thu Jan 17 10:11:37 2002 From: broken at pixicore.org (broken at pixicore.org) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 07:11:37 -0300 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Is Hogwarts Public or Private? References: <109.be4f94c.29777adb@aol.com> Message-ID: <006f01c19f3f$59ed8960$a30eddc8@grupotv1.com.br> No: HPFGUIDX 33594 *delurks* It's always been clear to me that JKR never clarifies much in terms of Wizard economy in her books. All we really know, from canon, is that some wizard families are rich and some are poor, and while this is often related to how long the family's been around, there are exceptions (ie, the Weasleys). But other questions are raised, and I'm going to address some of them in this public brainstorm... 1) Do Wizards pay taxes? a. If so, to whom? The ministry of magic would be the most likely answer, but we have been with Harry for four years and are yet to see some kind of magical elections process. Could it be *gasp* taxation without representation? b. If not, how do people like Charlie, who work with Magical field research, get paid? 2) Do Wizards engage in regular Muggle professions, such as dentistry or architecture, but with the use of Magic? I'm not very keen on this theory, since we know that the only Wizard settlement in the UK is Hogsmeade, and the impression one gets from Canon is that it's a very small village. With this in mind, I can't imagine that places like London house a "wizard underground" network, where wizard dentists only attend wizard patients, et cetera, but within the city of London. The only practical solution would be that wizard dentists live and work in London and attend both magic and muggle patients, then convert their muggle money in Gringotts (as JKR indicated can be done). But would someone like Lucius Malfoy attend Muggles? What, exactly, does he do? I've previously thought that, as a governor, Lucius gets paid--and that's all he does, making the title of "governor" equivalent to "cushy government job for rich families". The fact is, I don't really see a practical way for Wizards to have their own working economy within England if Hogsmeade is their only village. 3) Hogwarts most likely requires a tuition--Harry asks Hagrid at one point in Book 1 how he's going to pay for Hogwarts, since the Dursleys never would, and Hagrid then tells him about his parents' Gringotts account. I'm assuming that this is where he draws money to pay the school. Muggle parents would pay by converting their money in Gringotts. Now, as for the Weasleys, who knows? Perhaps the reason they have little spending money is that most of Arthur's income goes to paying for his many children's tuition fees. 4) Now, Hogwarts is clearly affected by the Ministry of Magic to some extent, and if we consider that to be the wizard government, then it would mean that Hogwarts is a public school (British terminology). I still can't figure out how money works, though--Yes, they have house-elves to do their work, but we've seen that House Elves are a rare commodity even though they don't get paid a salary (Molly Weasley tells us she wishes she's had one, but that only rich families do). One assumes that they have to be bought somewhere, for what is most likely an exhorbitant amount of money. So Hogwarts definitely has quite a large bank account somewhere. Erm. Yes, that's it for now. *relurks* [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From broken at pixicore.org Thu Jan 17 10:40:03 2002 From: broken at pixicore.org (broken at pixicore.org) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 07:40:03 -0300 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_=5BHPforGrownups=5D_Harry_Potter-A_Worthwhile_seri?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?es=3F=3F?= References: Message-ID: <009a01c19f43$55ec9dc0$a30eddc8@grupotv1.com.br> No: HPFGUIDX 33595 I agree with Evvy(?), who thought your literary theory was superficial. I will reply to the snippets I found most controversial below. Rowling presents an arbitrary world in which good and evil are simply two sides of the same sorcery--the "Dark Side" and the other side, although no name is ever given for it. Harry and his friends must choose which side they're on, but of course the line between the two is always moving. Determining where the line is between good and evil becomes an individual choice, leaving the reader wondering why something is okay for this person and not the other. Sometimes breaking rules is honorable, sometimes it must be punished. Sometimes a lie is bad, sometimes it is good. And finally, adult authority is attacked harshly, leaving ultimate authority in the hands of the kid who can grab the most power. That has a rather simple answer. It is not the lie itself which is bad or good, but the purpose behind it. Yes, this is antagonistic to what you call the Judeo-Christian tradition has evolved into, but that is what makes JKR unique. Although we are told, as children, that "lying is bad," here the author presents a scenario where NOT lying would most likely bring about something very similar to the "Judeo-Christian" armageddon. As for breaking rules, that follows the same basic skeleton--before Harry breaks any school rule, he always assesses the rule itself and the situation he is in. Not all rules carry the same weight--we know this. Murdering a human being is far "worse" than getting a parking ticket. So if a less-significant rule is stopping Harry from doing something important, yes, he will think about how this rule-breaking will affect others then make a decision of whether to ignore it or not. If your wife suffered a life-threatening head trauma, would you not go past several red traffic lights in order to get her there faster? The thing about Harry, though, is that he will always arc with the consequences of his rule breaking, if there are any. Dumbledore often decides that his activities don't warrant one, because in this case the ends justify the means. Malfoy's gang get punished because of the REASON why they break their rules. They do it, as someone else stated, to tease and generally make nuisances out of themselves. Hagrid cannot raise the dragon because of the threat that it imposes to the students of the school. Finally, concerning the adult world, or those who would be in authority, there is only derision. Fred tells his mother, "Honestly, woman, you call yourself our mother?" And another time, "All right, keep your hair on." All the teachers at Hogwarts are either dirty, deranged, deceitful, or all three. "Honestly, Hermione, you think all teachers are saints or something..." and when referring to late notices for library books, Rowling writes: "He [Harry] didn't belong to the library, so he'd never even got rude notes asking for books back." Is it really `rude' to remind a person of a commitment he has made? When presenting the adult human world, Ms. Rowling presents it in such a ridiculously negative light that it becomes completely unrealistic and even offensive. All adults are foolish, bungling, stupid and boringly unimaginative. Why would a child ever look up to them or need them in any way? Here your assumptions are absurd. Thes quotes from Fred are a joke--implying the positive relation they have with their mothers, where one can play a harmless, funny prank and be okay with it. Saying something like this to a dysfunctional "Judeo-Christian" mother would make her rather angry, because she might find a bit of truth it in, but here it's okay, because it's a *joke*. Get it? All of the teachers are NOT "dirty, deranged, [or] deceitful." Most of them are perfectly normal persons. Flitwick, McGonagall, Sprout, Hooch, all come to mind as examples of teachers one may find in ANY schools, although sometimes caricaturized. The position of DADA teacher is reserved for the weird teachers, but that is not a reflection of adults. Dumbledore is regarded by Harry and his friends as THE HIGHEST authority, not because of his position but of what he stands for. This is why you seem to be... erm, confused about the role of adults. They are not to be seen with deference merely BECAUSE they are adults--rather, they are judged by the persons they are. I think the only offensive element in your dissertation is the lack of insight you have. I agree to some extent that JKR does portray the Muggle world a bit like this ("bungling, stupid..."), but I've observed that muggles are seen this way exclusively by Wizards, who do not really "know" them. Harry, who has lived amongst muggles, has no qualms with them. Most wizards also have no problems with muggle-borns, either. I don't know, this makes sense to me in a way I can't quite explain. ... And really, who cares if JKR says refers to "someone" in the plural "they"? It's called colloquialism. But to use it an example of the rebellious nature of her work is really far-fetched. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mediaphen at hotmail.com Thu Jan 17 09:55:03 2002 From: mediaphen at hotmail.com (Martin Smith) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 10:55:03 +0100 Subject: Divination - Fred and George's wager + the significance of the number six References: <1011239420.2706.52104.m3@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33596 pbeider asked: < Theory #2: they divined the result. But JKR has led us to believe that true divination is very rare, and they haven't shown predictive powers any other time.>> Zorb picked up the thread: <> Hi everybody! A while back I picked up the Ron-might-be-the-seventh-son-and-therefore-a-seer-thread by pointing out the possibility that a hitherto unknown older Weasleybrother was picked by an evil wizard in his youth and trained by him, not attending Hogwarts and thus turning to the Dark side. That would make him a son non grata in the Weasley household and also explain why Ron can say "I'm the sixth brother to go to Hogwarts in my family" without lying. Now, even if that is a possibility not yet opposed by canon, there might be another possibility. In Muggle folklore, the seventh son of a seventh son employs great magical abilities, including Seeing. In Terry Pratchett's world, the same goes for the *eighth* son of an *eighth* son. What if, in JKR's world, the ultimate Seer is the *sixth* son of a *sixth* son? JKR is doubtlessly the ultimate Creator and big Kahuna in the Potterverse, and she has shown constantly that she can utilise Muggle folklore traditions with a unique twist of her own. She makes the rules, doesn't she? Now, if only I could find evidence of the significance of the number six in canon. At a first glance, the number seven seems far more important, and the following spring to mind: * Seven years at Hogwarts * Seven players on a Quidditch team * Seven Weasley kids * Seven locks on Crouch Jr's trunk * Seven departments in MoM * Seven registered Animagi in the century Now, finding number six is harder. You will have to use various multiples: * 2x6 times with the Put-outer * 4x6 letters to Harry in 4x6 eggs * 2x6 uses of dragon's blood * 2x6 Malfoys are worth about the same as one Neville * 111x6 is the age of Nicholas Flamel in PS (him being 665 last year) * 2x6 members of the Board of education (or whatever it's called) * 2x6 Muggles killed by Pettigrew when he framed Black * 2x6 years in Azkaban for Black * 6 trained wizards to overcome a dragon * 6 years old when JKR started writing * 6/2 members of The Trio * 6/2 remaining members of MWPP Seeing as how multiples are often used in any form of number-related magic, especially the multiples 1/2, 2 and squared, in the case of finding significance of the number six, we are also allowed to look for the numbers three, twelve, thirty-six, two hundred and sixteen and so forth. Especially the number twelve seems vital in JKR's world, as we can see in Steve's Sacred Source of Several Sorcerous Stuff (from which some of the above are derived): http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/number_twelve.html Add to that the fact that the sixth son of a sixth son is twelve people, I think it is fair to at least consider the possibility that JKR has decided that such a person has what it takes to be a true Seer. And Ron might be. If anyone wants to locate any further listings of the number six in the book, please do! On a sidenote, though: For me, as a Swede, the number six is not only important, it is also vital for the survival of humankind: The swedish word for 6 is the same as the Swedish word for what man and woman do when they want to become Mum and Dad. Sex, that is. Martin (who, as an experienced poker player can't for the world see how F&G:s wager is motivated by the ratio of the implicit odds (the propability of having the best remaining hand) and the pot odds (the size of the bet/the size of the possible winnings) without magic involved) From john at walton.vu Thu Jan 17 11:09:56 2002 From: john at walton.vu (John Walton) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 11:09:56 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry Potter=?ISO-8859-1?B?lg==?=A Worthwhile series?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33597 Minor ADMINy note on this thread -- Please, folks, remember to be considerate of others' opinions and feelings, even if they differ from your own. Remember not to make it personal -- argue about opinions and interpretations, not about the person making them. > And finally, adult authority is attacked harshly, leaving ultimate authority > in the hands of the kid who can grab the most power. I wonder to which "adult authority" you refer. If it is the abusive Dursleys, then yes, it does. If it is the Hogwarts Professors, I disagree heartily. > First, breaking rules is glorified: "Hermione had become a bit > more relaxed about breaking rules since Harry and Ron had > saved her from the mountain troll, and she was much nicer for > it." But when Malfoy or other "Slytherins" break rules, they are > punished--to the cheers of Harry and his gang. At one point > Harry is told not to ride on his broom. When he does, instead of > any punishment, he is rewarded with a berth on the Quidditch > team. Somehow it is a terrible thing for Hagrid to break the rules > and raise a forbidden dragon, yet honorable for the students to > break the rules and explore the forbidden areas of the school. > (Actually, it is not honorable for Malfoy to break the rules, only > Hermione and Harry--if they feel the need.) You neglect to mention that many of the Hogwarts rules are created by Argus Filch, the vile caretaker. No reasonable person would accept that "Looking Cheerful" was breaking a rule -- much like many rules in our own society are sometimes silly. > Second, Rowling leaves the option of lying up to the individual, > and even glorifies it. If Harry needs to lie, he simply will: "When > facing a magic mirror, Harry thinks desperately, `I must lie,..I > must look and lie about what I see, that's all.'" And yes, he is > rewarded with the Sorcerer's Stone. As Ev vy said, the Stone is not his reward -- Harry does not want to use the Stone, so it cannot be a reward. Harry does not *get* a reward for saving the world from evil. > Rowling sometimes glorifies lying, and other times doesn't consider it as an > option. Rowling appears confused on the issue of lying. To the contrary -- lying is acceptable to thwart the forces of evil, and is unacceptable at other times. That seems a clear distinction to me; where are you getting confused? > Finally, concerning the adult world, or those who would be in authority, there > is only derision. Fred tells his mother, "Honestly, woman, you call yourself > our mother?" And another time, "All right, keep your hair on." Derision? No. Sarcasm? Yes. You also seem not to understand that the first quote is part of a joke Fred and George are playing on their mother in the best Shakespearean ethic of twins' mistaken identity. > All the teachers at Hogwarts are either dirty, deranged, deceitful, or all > three. Despite the fact that you have only read the first book (and in its American edition, not the original British), you should at least have noticed that Professors Dumbledore, McGonagall, Flitwick and Hooch are neither dirty, deranged or deceitful. > and when referring to late notices for library books, Rowling writes: "He > [Harry] didn't belong to the library, so he'd never even got rude notes asking > for books back." Is it really `rude' to remind a person of a commitment he > has made? If you had read more widely in the Rowling oeuvre, you would have noticed that Madam Irma Pince has a reputation for threatening particularly gruesome and excessive punishments to people who do not take perfect care of their books. > When presenting the adult human world, Ms. Rowling presents it in such a > ridiculously negative light that it becomes completely unrealistic and even > offensive. Actually, Harry's aunt and uncle are abusive to him. Given current events in the UK (see the Victoria Climbi? case), it is not unreasonable to assume that the Dursleys have slipped through the social services system. > All adults are foolish, bungling, stupid and boringly unimaginative. Why > would a child ever look up to them or need them in any way? I disagree completely with your argument as it pertains to adults. The Dursleys, yes, are horrible people. The adults to whom one is supposed to look up (the Professors) are neither foolish, bungling, stupid nor unimaginative. > Rowling's characters twist truth into their own desires--breaking whatever > rules necessary to get whatever they want,--become quite adept at lying, and > see themselves as the final authority, far superior to any adult wisdom. I think you over-generalise and over-conclude here. > Second, respect for order is a part of a Judeo-Christian world view. Consider > the general anarchy encouraged at Hogwarts, when the students sing the school > song: "`Everyone pick their favorite tune,' said Dumbledore, `and off we > go!'..... Everybody finished the song at different times... and when they had > finished, he [Dumbledore] was one of those who clapped loudest." Again, I feel that you might have missed the point JKR is trying to make -- many schools in the UK have their own school songs. These are often trite and come with absurdly happy tunes. The fact that Hogwarts' song does not is a *joke*, not a sign of any anarchy. > Thirdly, good and evil are distinct. Good and evil are not always distinct in our lives. Consider, perhaps, the priest who abuses children, or the upstanding citizen who is an alcohol addict, or the prostitute who saves somebody's life. > Evil has had its day, and good will now triumph. Yes, and in "Philosopher's Stone", evil's day is not yet entirely over -- we are in the twilight of evil's day, with the bright light of Dumbledore's power of Good shining through Voldemort's evil. The fact that we come to Lewis' and Rowling's stories at different points does not mean that one is intrinsically more or less Christian/Good/Evil than the other. > Good and evil choices also have rewards and consequences. > Edmund chooses evil when he decides to serve the White Witch, > resulting in a curse that affects all around him, including Aslan, > the one who would save him. No, Edmund does not *choose* evil. He is corrupted by the Witch in one of Lewis' oh-so-subtle allegories. (Don't misunderstand, I adore Narnia, and am appalled by the idea of making an allegory-free Narnia, but just wish sometimes that C.S. Lewis wouldn't be so obvious.) > His [Edmund's] evil choices have painful consequences. Again, his *choices* are not evil -- rather, he is lured into evil by the Witch. > There is a vast difference between Dumbledore's foolishness and Aslan's > nobility. Again, you misunderstand JKR's parody of the typical British Headmaster's Speech as "foolishness". > Lewis and Tolkien uphold the values of absolute truth and absolute right and > wrong. They acknowledge an orderly world, one which brings out nobility in > its heroes. And learning from and submitting to those who have gone before is > honored as a right way to gain wisdom. Harry does learn from his elders -- had you read, for example, "Prisoner of Azkaban", you would know that Harry voluntarily seeks out Professor Lupin to learn how to defend himself from the Dementors. > At the beginning of Harry Potter, Harry hates his family, laughing > at their stupidity and dreaming of revenge - "...the largest snake > in the place. It could have wrapped its body twice around Uncle > Vernon's car and crushed it into a trash can...." Not much growth > in maturity has occurred between the first chapter and the last > paragraph. When the other `witchlings' feel sorry for Harry as he > goes back to his nasty family, Harry smiles and says, "They > don't know we're not allowed to use magic at home. I'm going > to have a lot of fun with Dudley this summer...." As I say elsewhere, the Dursleys are abusive carers who should rightly be taken into custody for child abuse. As you would know if you had read past the first book, Harry does not, in fact, use magic at home. He obeys the rules. Now, doesn't that show him as an upstanding paragon of morality? Confronted with abusive guardians, he does not use the easy way out. How admirable. > In The Hobbit, even Bilbo grows from a timid, somewhat cowardly Hobbit to a > humble yet wise warrior. Yes, and then in "The Fellowship of the Ring", he almost attacks Frodo, his own nephew, for Sauron's Ring. He also lies to Gandalf in FoTR, and attempts to leave his home with the Ring when Gandalf has told him to leave it behind. I'm not arguing that Bilbo is evil; rather, he has flaws like any character. > All the characters-- Harry, Bilbo and the children--are presented as heroes, > yet only Lewis's and Tolkien's live in a world that has true consequences for > right and wrong, and thus only they can truly grow in excellence. I disagree. Harry's world has *realistic* consequences for right and wrong. Sometimes, when we do the right thing, we are punished for it because others do not see the whole picture. (I'm thinking the Norbert incident here.) On the other hand, Malfoy is punished for telling tales to Professor McGonagall when he too is made to serve detention with Harry and Co. > Although there are many more avenues that can be explored-- including > witchcraft versus mythology--the preceding points are enough to show that yes, > there is quite a world view gulf between Rowling and Lewis/Tolkien. In passing to your comment about mythology -- there is far more reference to myth in Rowling than in either Lewis or Tolkien. Just take the character names of Argus Filch (Argus is a many-eyed monster from Greek myth), Minerva McGonagall (Minerva is the Roman Goddess of Wisdom), and Remus Lupin (Remus is the brother of Romulus, and was brought up by a wolf; Lupin is a werewolf). > In handing any book to a child, one must know if the child can discern the > world views and not be swept into a view that is counter to the truth being > instilled in him. Of course one must. That is why I will challenge my children to find the Christian allegory in Lewis, the moralism in Tolkien, and the issues of what is Right/Good and Wrong/Evil in Rowling. > Ms. Rowling's world view of no absolutes and the flaunting of all > authority and rules carries over into her writing. Either she does > not have a basic understanding of grammar and writing, or she > purposely writes this way in keeping with her world view. Actually, she writes in a way that is, simply, modern. It is a widely-accepted literary convention, and has been since the 1960s or so, to use "they"/"their" instead of "him"/"his" when gender is not specified even though the former is a plural form. Would you prefer the even more progressive "s/he"/"hir" forms? I must say, in literature, these tend to jar me out of the narrative. If we reject modernisms, your own thesis would must be decried in a similar light for its use of split infinitives -- this sentence: > Rowling's world view is not one to immerse a child in if you are seeking to > raise him in a Judeo-Christian ethic. is quite incorrect if you are rejecting modern literary conventions. It should be (caveat about infinitive use of "to immerse"): > Rowling's world view is not one in which to immerse a child if you are seeking > to raise him in a Judeo-Christian ethic. Those of us who view language as an ever-evolving dynamic concept, however, can feel free to split infinitives as to do otherwise in some places in modern speech sounds affected and pretentious. I also noticed some particularly questionable usage of commas and predicate clauses in your text. One really should ensure when criticising others' language that one's own language is up to scratch. [snip page-and-a-half of amusing nitpicks of modern literary convention described above and similar] It rather amuses me that you deride JK Rowling's literary style while making the subject of your own message "Harry Potter^A Worthwhile series??" [sic punct.] Remember that, in non-HTML email, the em-dash (a dash as long as a lower-case m) is unfortunately lost -- and we must use two hyphens instead. Similarly, if you are capitalising "A" and "Worthwhile", you should also capitalise "series"; alternatively, you should not capitalise anything beyond "Harry Potter", which you should in fact include in quotes to signify that it is a title (as italicisation, the proper indicator of a title, is lost in email). Moreover, two question marks are excessive and give a teenybopperish air to one's question. One is quite sufficient. > Rowling's world view is not one to immerse a child in if you are seeking to > raise him in a Judeo-Christian ethic. Beyond that, encouraging a child to > read poorly written yet "sensational" literature may produce a child who can > read Harry Potter stories, but it will not produce a reader. Oh dear. Perhaps some of the many strong Jews or Christians on this list could dispute the religious aspect of this, quoting chapter and verse; however, as someone who shares neither of those religions, I would be more than happy for my children (should I be blessed with some someday) to read Rowling, Tolkien, Lewis, or in fact almost any literature they -- and I -- feel is appropriate to their reading and social level. As someone who has taught children with dyslexia, autism and other special needs, I must disagree strongly with your final sentence. I saw children who had literally never voluntarily picked up a book before devour Harry Potter and then turn to lengthier tomes like The Hobbit, Narnia, Lemony Snicket, Susan Cooper, David Eddings, Madeleine L'Engle, Ursula LeGuin and others. --John ____________________________________________ *"Quidditch Through The Ages" by Kennilworthy Whisp: 14 Sickles 3 Knuts *New Firebolt Broom: just over 100 Galleons *Watching Draco Malfoy being bounced up and down after being turned into a ferret: Priceless The best things in life are free. For everything else, there's Harry Potter. John Walton -- john at walton.vu ____________________________________________ From jbryson at richmond.infi.net Thu Jan 17 01:13:35 2002 From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 01:13:35 -0000 Subject: Math (was R&D) in the Wizard World In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33598 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ftah3" wrote: > Ah, I see the difference between Trelawney's divination and > arithmancy. But it makes me wonder still more at Hermione enjoying > it. It has going for it that it doesn't attempt to pin things down > too narrowly, making it seem, on one hand, a bit less wishy-washy; > yet it's still incredibly vague, and seems to be to be > somewhat...useless. > > I guess I imagine Hermione enjoying classes with much more basis in > concrete & reliable evidence/outcome. Arithmancy has the concrete, > in that you have formula = theoretical outcome. But > reliability...you could just as well toss the dice, and say that if > you get snake eyes you will have a terrible accident...sometime, > somewhere, maybe. And it doesn't seem like the kind of thing that > would appeal to Hermy. Arithmancy sounds to me an awful lot like muggle statistics. I wonder if the class covers experiment design, sample size, analysis of variance, etc.? Actually, I'd guess Arithmancy would operate more like numerology, with certain numbers having magical meaning. ANYway, arithmancy might give better odds than having no information on some important subject at all. Tex From fiatincantatum at attbi.com Thu Jan 17 01:32:56 2002 From: fiatincantatum at attbi.com (Fiat Incantatum) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 20:32:56 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape's Skill at Potions and Curses (WAS Snape's Childhood//Royals/R&D) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3C45E378.7091.38AC46@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 33599 On 16 Jan 2002 at 19:01, cindysphynx wrote: > How interesting! Boy, this is a tough one. I can't imagine Snape > setting out to discover a werewolf potion given his apparent dislike > of werewolves. Perhaps he discovered it accidently? If so, how > would he test it? Would he ask Lupin to volunteer? I can't imagine > one could make a great deal of money off of such a potion, as the > target market consists of werewolves who can't find paid work. It could be a control issue. Think how sweet it would be to have that much control over someone you hate so much ... well, sweet if you were Snape, I guess. "Here I have this lovely potion that will control your unfortunate malady. Sit up and beg, there's a good boy ... " From hermione_ew at yahoo.com Thu Jan 17 03:52:06 2002 From: hermione_ew at yahoo.com (hermione_ew) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 03:52:06 -0000 Subject: Magic Gene Pool In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33600 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "blenberry" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "david_p2002ca" wrote: > > > we're looking at a magical population of no more than 22 000 in the > > UK, with over 59 million muggles. > > This does raise another question: can the magic community survive? > > Is their gene pool diverse enough? > > > > David P. > > > Aha! Ron already addressed that in CoS (between slug belches): "Most > wizards are half-blood anyway. If we hadn't married muggles we'd've > died out." > > > Barbara Aside from Ron's declaration that "most wizards are half-blood anyway, there seems to be a significant number of muggle-born wizards at hogwarts: Justin Finch-Fletchly, Dennis and Colin Creevey, Dean Thomas, and many others. I suspect that part of the reason that Wizards survive, apart from inter-marrying, is the large number of Muggle-born wizards out there. Hannah From judyshapiro at earthlink.net Thu Jan 17 08:16:22 2002 From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 08:16:22 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Harry_Potter=96A_Worthwhile_series=3F=3F?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33601 Kevin Kimball listed a number of objections to the Harry Potter series, writing: > ...Rowling presents an arbitrary world in which good and evil are > simply two sides of the same sorcery.... > First, breaking rules is glorified:..... > Second, Rowling leaves the option of lying up to the individual, > and even glorifies it... > Finally, concerning the adult world, or those who would be in > authority, there is only derision. Fred tells his mother, > "Honestly, woman, you call yourself our mother?" And another time, > "All right, keep your hair on." All the teachers at Hogwarts are > either dirty, deranged, deceitful, or all three... > ...In contrast, Lewis and Tolkien present a world where truth is > absolute and transcends the individual. Because the world has > absolute truth, it is also a world in which order is upheld... Kevin, you may be surprised by this, but I actually see the Harry Potter series as very much a Christian Allegory. However, this does not become clear until Book 4, and according to your post, you have only read the first book. My guess is, many of the people who object to the lack of Christian ethics in the "Potterverse" would like the series much better if they got further into it. (I'm not saying they have a responsibility to do so; the books are quite long, after all.) Book 4 puts a lot of emphasis on forgiveness. The demonic (or satanic) figure, Voldemort, is back to full strength. He is angry that his followers have not helped him sooner. One of his followers begs for forgiveness, and Voldemort responds by torturing him, saying "I do not forgive." Notably, he does not torture the followers who don't ask for forgiveness. He seems to feel that being asked for forgiveness is an insult. On the other hand, the good figure, Dumbledore, makes it clear that he is willing to forgive anyone who is sorry for past deeds, and will welcome them back. A lot of the plot emphasis (and the discussion here!) focuses on Snape, who has been a Voldemort follower in the past but has now redeemed himself and is trusted completely by Dumbledore. In addition to the theme of forgiveness in Book 4, the whole series strongly emphasizes the theme of love. Like you, I was a bit appalled by the first scene with the Weasley family, where the twins seem so disrespectful to their mother. However, in later scenes with the Weasleys (we get to see them quite a lot in subsequent books) it becomes clear that they are a very loving family, who are secure enough to joke around. Also, it becomes clear that the Weasley children actually have a lot of respect for Mrs. Weasley's authority; they *don't* want her mad at them. I agree with you that JK Rowling rather explicitly prefers chaos to order. The loving, chaotic Weasley household is contrasted with the orderly but cruel Dursley household. It seems to me that JKR is an "Act Utilitarian", that is, she believes that each action must be judged on its own merits, rather than believing that there is one set of rules that will provide guidance in all situations. If an action is determined by love, if it is done to help others, then it is good, in her worldview. Actions that are done out of cruelty or selfishness are bad. This is what determines whether a particular instance of rule-breaking should be "glorified" or condemned. In the Flying lesson scene, Draco's rule-breaking was motivated by malice, whereas Harry just wanted to help Neville; therefore, Draco's rule-breaking was wrong and was punished (Draco is left on the sidelines while Harry gets to play Quidditch, and we find in book 2 that this bothers Draco a lot), whereas Harry's rulebreaking was rewarded. In the rare cases where *Harry* breaks a rule out of selfishness, JKR makes it clear that he is wrong. "Altair aka MJ" pointed out an excellent example of this from the 3rd book, where Harry breaks rules for selfish reasons and feels very guilty. (He is also punished in that a valuable item is taken from him.) There is no question that the children in the Potter series often have to decide things on their own, without rules or adults to guide them. This happens because the either because the parental figure (Dumbledore) wants it that way, or because he is not there to help them. This is in marked contrast to, say, the Narnia Series, where God is the authority figure and his presence (the Emperor's Magic) pervades everything. The Potter series presents a world where the devil is very real (Voldemort "no longer has enough human in him to die") but the existence of God is uncertain (Dumbledore is good, but he's not God -- he's very clearly human and mortal.) I consider myself a very religious person, yet I see nothing wrong with Rowling's books. It is normal for young people to question the existence of God as they grow up and see how much evil is in the world. I think these books may help them to cope with this problem. The books show that even if one questions (religious or secular) laws, one should still be guided by love and concern for others. Furthermore, the series presents the possibility that God is not absent, but simply has a good reason for leaving us on our own. Harry eventually realizes that Dumbledore leaves him to his own devices not out of lack of concern, but because this is an important part of Harry's training. Furthermore, we get glimpses of a good power, beyond human authority -- Fawkes, Dumbledore's phoenix, is a purely good, immortal, magical being (like an angel); a true prophecy warns of Voldemort's return; Harry's escapes are nothing short of miraculous; the love of Harry's mother casts a protective spell on him. I think the Potter series sends the message that even when evil seems to have the upper hand, God is not absent, just subtle. Ultimately, I think the series strenthens faith, not weakens it. By the way, I see the JKR books as a Christian allegory, but not a Jewish one; this is why I didn't use the term "Judeo-Christian." I'm Jewish (I hope that doesn't lead you to discount what I've just said), and I see the literal existance of Satan as contrary to Jewish teachings. However, I'd have no problem letting my kids (if I ever manage to have any!) read the books; I'd just point out that Voldemort can't be real. From fiatincantatum at attbi.com Thu Jan 17 01:21:31 2002 From: fiatincantatum at attbi.com (Fiat Incantatum) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 20:21:31 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape redeemed? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3C45E0CB.18452.2E3A33@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 33602 On 16 Jan 2002 at 15:57, christi0469 wrote: > Snape may have come far in renouncing his DE > ways, but judging by his behavior and attitude I do not get the > feeling that he has tied up all the lose ends. This formula leaves > room for further redemption on his part. Have we discussed the possibility that his current behavior (or rather, the personal consequences thereof) *is* his penance? Fiat Incantatum From christi0469 at hotmail.com Thu Jan 17 03:51:45 2002 From: christi0469 at hotmail.com (christi0469) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 03:51:45 -0000 Subject: Harry's Wand Hand Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33603 I got the impression from the scene when Harry gets his wand (SS/PS) that he holds his wand in his right hand, but the illustration for PoA12 shows him holding his wand in his left hand. Did the illustrator make a mistake? Could the illustration have gotten flipped when the book was layed out? Or did I just misunderstand which hand Harry holds his wand in? Ah, the things you notice when you are trying to do anything other than clean the house... Christi From IAmLordCassandra at aol.com Thu Jan 17 04:21:04 2002 From: IAmLordCassandra at aol.com (IAmLordCassandra at aol.com) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 23:21:04 EST Subject: Monty Python in HP Message-ID: <37.2142419b.2977ab30@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33604 I don't know if this'll merit any long, thought provoking discussions, however I thought this was an interesting bit of information. While watching 'Monty Python's Flying Circus' I noticed in one of the sketches the name 'Cockroach clusters' came up. And what's more, I'm sure the title of the volume has 'Chocolate Frogs' in it. ^-^ ~Cassie~ From midwife34 at aol.com Thu Jan 17 08:24:15 2002 From: midwife34 at aol.com (jrober4211) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 08:24:15 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter- A Worthwhile Series??? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33605 Well Kimball, never having done in depth study of literatire,and since it has been twenty years since I read the Narnia books and The Lord of the Rings , I won't even get into a debate about the facts about the differences between the stories. I do have just a few questions though.....If your co-worker came in to work one day with a hideous dress on, would you tell her the truth or make up something nice to say? Do you really make your children correct the grammar in the books they read, and if so, don't you think this would go a long way towards killing the "joy" of reading if you are having to stop every five minutes to dissect a sentence? I know it would break my chain of thought, and I would lose my mental movie of the story I was reading. Did your children enjoy the Potter series? I do agree with you about being careful about what you hand your children to read. I have studied many child development theories as a midwife , and its IMHO that the Potter series is probably inappropriate for a child under the age of 12 , give or take a year, depending on their maturity. JKR has said many times that she did not write her stories for an age specific market. It just happened that her story was judged more suitable as children's literature, and was marketed that way by the publisher who bought SS, as I understand it from the interviews I have read. Jo Ellen From lav at tut.by Thu Jan 17 04:51:11 2002 From: lav at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 06:51:11 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Slytherin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1442127200.20020117065111@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 33606 Greetings! > mlfrasher wrote to us in his (her?) wisdom: mac> Hello All! mac> Catching up on a few things that caught my eye..... mac> Well, I think it has something to do with the fine line between 'dark' and mac> 'light'. Looking at Gryffindor and Slytherin and opposite sides of the same mac> coin. Your argument on the DA almost seems like the "ends justifies the mac> means". I just believe that there are more than meets the eye in the GH/SH mac> relationship, foregoing what the hat says in a few stanzas. Ahh, interesting. Does the end justifies the means or not? I could talk LONG about it - after all I was raised in the country that considered the only possible answer as "YES!"... :) About Dark and Light, I can do nothing but cite one of my neighbours - "And remember! We are the forces of Light - but not necessarily Good!". mac> I do not think that the Unforgivable curses could be used by a Gryffindor or mac> anyone else for that matter for noble ends. They're the UN-forgivable curses mac> for a reason. Someone could use many many other counter curses for self mac> defense or to save another's life without resorting to any one of those. I mac> think Harry understood that when he stopped Sirius and Lupin from killing mac> Wormtail. Something that Dubmledore praised him for, and also stated that mac> James would have approved of Harry's decision. As much as I would have liked mac> to see them zap Pettigrew with some green light, it doesn't justify it mac> (although I would want some death if I'd been stuck in Azkaban for that long) mac> they could have put the immobilization spell on him and that would have mac> alleviated any chances of him turning to the rat and running away. A better mac> chance of bringing him to justice and proving Sirius' innocence. Still from what I have read so far, Avada is the most potent combat spell in Potterverse. From purely historical point of view, it's strange it was forbidden at all - I cannot remember any examples in history of peoples declaring a potent weapon illegal. Perhaps Wizards have stronger sense of ethics than we mere humans... unlikely. The fact that they are "unforgivable" curses doesn't mean the least for me - that's just the term in Wizard's Law to describe them, IMHO nothing more. Indeed could any of these three be used in a situation where negative results would be aither absent or minimal? CRUCIO - Highly unlikely. At least I cannot imagine such situation. Maybe someone else does? IMPERIO - Powerful thing, but with lots of negative psychological consequences (for both caster and victim). Difficult to tell anything here. KEDAVRA - A useful combat spell, unless it has some aspects Rowling didn't explain to us so far (does the caster receives actual pleasure while casting this spell? or maybe something else in similar evil vein?). Don't forget that on the war, some of ethical laws cease to function (primarily the taboo to kill). All right, handling this topic to others in the group, more skilled in the questions of ethics. Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, (Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed), always happy to throw weird ideas into the community. From pigwidgeon37 at yahoo.it Thu Jan 17 14:21:59 2002 From: pigwidgeon37 at yahoo.it (=?iso-8859-1?q?pigwidgeonthirtyseven?=) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 14:21:59 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape redeemed? In-Reply-To: <3C45E0CB.18452.2E3A33@localhost> Message-ID: <20020117142159.64308.qmail@web14703.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33607 Fiat Incantatum wrote: I'm afraid I can't quite follow you. Do you mean that his penance might be to make himslef be hated by everybody? If anything, I'd say that having to see his victims' children every single day might be his idea of self- inflicted punishment; Hogwarts as refuge and hell, something of the kind. But deliberately hurting and bullying students in order to be loathed? Seems a bit far-fetched to me. Susanna/pigwidgeon37 Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT ________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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service. "And how come those portraits seem to be alive?" "What'ya mean? All paintings move." "No, they don't. We have lots of paintings in our villa, among them a real Chagall, and none of them..." "And d'ya expect that something painted by a jackal will move? Now really..." --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Get personalised at My Yahoo!. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From pigwidgeon37 at yahoo.it Thu Jan 17 14:24:21 2002 From: pigwidgeon37 at yahoo.it (=?iso-8859-1?q?pigwidgeonthirtyseven?=) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 14:24:21 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Monty Python in HP In-Reply-To: <37.2142419b.2977ab30@aol.com> Message-ID: <20020117142421.10175.qmail@web14706.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33608 IAmLordCassandra at aol.com wrote: Great! I spotted that, too. The Cockroach Cluster *is* Monty Python, but their other creation is "Crunchy Frog", not Chocolate Frog. Susanna/pigwidgeon37 (who thinks that young Eric Idle would have made a great Lockhart) Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT ________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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service. "And how come those portraits seem to be alive?" "What'ya mean? All paintings move." "No, they don't. We have lots of paintings in our villa, among them a real Chagall, and none of them..." "And d'ya expect that something painted by a jackal will move? Now really..." --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Get personalised at My Yahoo!. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bonnie.abrams at cwine.com Thu Jan 17 13:03:51 2002 From: bonnie.abrams at cwine.com (sing2wine) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 13:03:51 -0000 Subject: The Blame Game (WAS: Snape and McGonagall) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33609 It is possible that we are too philosophical in our desire to assign blame. I also didn't understand why McGonagall could not act - even 3rd year Harry was able to temporarily hold off a dementor. One would have thought - listening to McGonagall shout at Fudge about bringing "that thing in here" - that she had no magical powers at all! As I read Crouch's potion induced confession, I pictured a trial in book 5 - where Harry would identify Malfoy, Crabbe & Goyle as Death Eaters - in conjunction with Crouch's confession. I was very upset when Crouch received the dementer's kiss and would therefore be unable to take part in my scenario. Then I realized - formulaic as it was - it was necessary to create some question about the return of Voldemort - so that the furtive battle could begin anew. This could not have happened if Crouch could still tell his story. Bonnie From foran at vangor.de Thu Jan 17 15:35:34 2002 From: foran at vangor.de (Magister Foran) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 16:35:34 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Arithmancy in the Wizard World References: Message-ID: <3C46EF46.14D6DB70@vangor.de> No: HPFGUIDX 33610 Hi all, What is Arithmancy? Mahoney suggested it might be the science of spellcraft, while Bonnie supplied the historical definition of "Divination by numbers". Arithmancy can well be both liquids in the same potion. As far as I can tell from what little information there is in the book and what little insight I may have into JK Rowlings mind ;-) Arithmancy was always used to calculate the outcome of something, rather than just take a foggy guess out of a crystal ball or from rather vague symbols in tea-leaves. In the Hogwarts world, it could well be used to calculate the specific outcome for the process of spell-creation, where you'd be especially nervous about the possible side-effects if something went awry... remember Flitwicks comments on pronounciation... Bonnie wrote: > > Not to burst your bubble or anything, but here's a muggle-world > > definition of Arithmancy: > > "Divination by numbers. The ancient Greeks examined the number and > the > > values of letters in each name of two combatants. They predicted the > > combatant having the name of the greater value would be victorious. > It > > was by using this science that some diviners foretold that Achilles > > would defeat Hector. (Mahoney answered:) > If arithmancy is straight divination per the definition above, why > doesn't Trelawney teach it? And why does Hermione, who absolutely > poo-poo's Trelawney's class, love her arithmancy class? > Mahoney Because Arithmancy is based on SCIENCE and exact calculations, something you can learn by the book, while Trelawneys Predictions are based on INTUITION which she lacks. As simple as that. Kind Regards, Magister Foran, Dept. of International Relations and New Ideas in the Ministry of Magic of HogwartsOnline.de/HP-FC.de - Webmaster http://hogwartsonline.de From lav at tut.by Thu Jan 17 14:54:34 2002 From: lav at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 16:54:34 +0200 Subject: Ron Weasley & His Brothers Message-ID: <837643364.20020117165434@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 33611 Greetings! While rereading Philosopher's Stone, I have stumbled upon some phrase which I think needs some checking. There has been a lot of talk in the newsgroup about Ron Weasley being the seventh son, and about a possible Ron's older brother. Yet while I was reading SS6 ("Platform 9 3/4") Ron says that he is *sixth* son in the family. I'm reading a translation, so just want to be sure - can anyone check that up? I mean is it so in original English book, or maybe in American version, or maybe it's a mistake of translation into Russian? Thanks in advance. Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, (Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed), always happy to throw weird ideas into the community. From lav at tut.by Thu Jan 17 15:14:23 2002 From: lav at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 17:14:23 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's Wand Hand In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1568832710.20020117171423@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 33612 Greetings! > Christi wrote to us in her wisdom: c> I got the impression from the scene when Harry gets his wand c> (SS/PS) that he holds his wand in his right hand, but the c> illustration for PoA12 shows him holding his wand in his left hand. c> Did the illustrator make a mistake? Could the illustration have c> gotten flipped when the book was layed out? Or did I just c> misunderstand which hand Harry holds his wand in? Ah, the things you c> notice when you are trying to do anything other than clean the c> house... c> Christi I don't think that's so important. After all, wand is just a tool, though a demisentient one (at least it's the impression I got). Orders to hold the wand in the right hand could easily have no direct connection to magic, but to psychology (that is, to persuade Harry that if he will hold the wand in right hand, something will happen, to make him confident enough to create something indeed). But my version is that it's not important at all - you can hold your wand by your right or left arm with no troubles. Did anyone consider an alternative punishment for wizard criminals? I mean, why bother with Dementors and Azkaban, when you can simply cut bad dude's arms off and break his wand (just in case)? Despite the cruelty, I think this to be a much more humanistic approach to punishment than to let the guy go insane and die in 1-2 years... Of course, this still doesn't guarantee the punishment if one can hold a wand by his foot fingers, or in the mouth... Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, (Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed), always happy to throw weird ideas into the community. From lav at tut.by Thu Jan 17 14:55:20 2002 From: lav at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 16:55:20 +0200 Subject: Harry's Connection With Voldemort Message-ID: <1427690181.20020117165520@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 33613 Greetings! I don't know if this was ever discussed here, but I just want to know: did anybody thought about what Voldemort is doing? I mean, from book to book he is tying himself with Harry, more and more. Now that he has reborn, he's got even some kind of blood relation with the boy. The question is: what will be the result? Will they two end up in a situation like that in "Dragon Heart" (both can only die simultaneously)? There are certain other possibilities as well. Be it some action-based fantasy, I would even suppose that they two might exchange their bodies some day... :) Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, (Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed), always happy to throw weird ideas into the community. "To fight the monstrous Evil, one has to be the monstrous Good." Stas the Knight of Avalon. (Sergei Lukyanenko, "Dances on the Snow"). From tabouli at unite.com.au Thu Jan 17 17:49:48 2002 From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 04:49:48 +1100 Subject: The Worthless Harry? Message-ID: <009801c19f7f$759a6440$e430c2cb@price> No: HPFGUIDX 33614 kevinkimball: >In contrast, Lewis and Tolkien present a world where truth is absolute and transcends the individual. Because the world has absolute truth, it is also a world in which order is upheld as an honorable characteristic for which to strive. Good and evil are two distinct things, with the rewards and consequences for the characters' choices reflecting absolute values. And finally, adults can be good or evil, and the good are presented with nobility of character.< Ahaa! Here we have it! A mere day or two after my musings on utopianism, an illustration burgeons forth! (and one that looks suspiciously like something carefully prepared in advance and launched into the list to shock us out of our Satan-driven denial). Is HP a worthwhile series? As all of us who have read the ongoing saga of book-bannings and burnings will know, obviously *not* to people who believe that the role of literature (and especially literature for children) is to be a vehicle for clear, unambiguous moral instruction in a world full of temptation. In the world view of such people, children are infinitely Naive and Impressionable (and rather Stupid). Therefore, any such vehicle must be infinitely simplistic. People and their actions must be absolutely Good, or absolutely Evil. It must be utterly crystal clear which is which, preferably by identifying Evil Characters with distinguishing physical features or fashion choices, such as shifty eyes, thin lips, black clothing, a pentagram necklace, a sinister voice, etc. Parents, senior religious figures (of the right religion, of course!) and teachers are by definition Good. All their actions are unambiguously Good, whether the children think so at the time or not. Children should show absolute reverence for this Goodness. All Good actions must be shown to be rewarded. The characters in black clothes with shifty eyes, pentagram necklaces and sinister voices, literal or figurative (e.g. the wicked waywards who tries to tempt the wee ones into the cinema to watch Harry Potter) are by definition Evil. All Evil characters and actions must be shown to be punished. Laying even a toe outside this structure might confuse children into Straying Into Evil, and therefore any book which shows any moral ambiguity is dangerous (er, doesn't the Bible itself contain accounts of incest, rape, sex, theft and so on, some of it inflicted by the Good Guys? Better keep it away from the children...)(and as for grammatical errors, is there no end to JKR's malevolence?) Ahhh yes. Of course. The people of the world can be divided into two categories, right? Good and Evil? Good people are noble of character and do only Good, Evil people are ignoble of character and do only Evil? Good people are always rewarded for their Goodness, Evil people are always punished for their Evil? You can tell the difference by the way people look, speak and dress?? Awww, come on Kevin. I love the Narnia books, but the morally unambiguous world they present is a fantasy. There are plenty of people who would *like* their children to inherit such a world, but let me tell you a secret... the real world isn't, and won't ever be like that! First we have the dangerous assumptions objection. There are some parents who, like the Dursleys, ill-treat children (quite often with perfectly good intentions). There have been innumerable documented cases of parents, senior religious figures and teachers abusing their positions of power and damaging children horribly. If children are raised to believe that such people are Good by definition, and should be respected and revered without question, what will happen to them if they encounter some of these? In fact, we know what happens: the child, unable to comprehend that a Good person could be doing something that feels so Bad to him/her (note: no use of "them"!), dares not tell anyone (my parents won't believe me: they know he's Good and I'm Bad for suggesting such a thing), seeks refuge in self-blame and eventually self- and other-abuse. Not a great advertisement for the "Children should be taught to give unquestioning respect and reverence to their elders". As for "Good happens to the Good, and Evil to the Evil", it's pretty obvious that in some cases evil *can* pay (especially if you have the right lawyer), and that bad things *do* happen to good people. As an agnostic raised going to a Christian church (who hopes she isn't going to offend Christians terribly by saying this), I theorise that heaven and hell are a response to this. Surely Bad people must get their just deserts in the end... if they die happy they'll be punished all the same; likewise, the Good who die after a lifetime of pain and suffering needn't worry, because their "goodness" will ultimately be rewarded. If the most important thing in the world is to know who the Good people are and stick with and trust them, how do you figure out who's Good and who's Bad? Is it the books you read, or your parents, or your pastor? Are people Good until proven Bad, or vice versa? Who gets to define Good and Evil? Even if the answer is "God" or "The Bible", no-one can deny that even people of the same basic religion and religious text define Good and Evil differently. I've known Christians who have been raised to believe that all secular movies are Evil, and are not allowed to watch them. I know one devout Christian who is a "practising homosexual" and argues that to deny the way God made him is to deny God. Catholics define them differently from Baptists, who define them differently from people belonging to the Greek Orthodox Church. Whose interpretation of the Bible is the right one? Then there's the difference between "goodness" and "godliness". Time and time again in church services we were told that you only went to heaven if you'd accepted Jesus into your heart, no matter how Good you were, and yet a lot of Evil has been done in the name of Jesus. Who gets to go to heaven, the Evil or Sanctimoniously Neutral Christian or the Good Heathen? If Christianity is by definition Good, does that mean the entire non-Christian world must therefore be Evil by definition? Even a token look at this subject reveals the Terrible Truth... the real world is *NOT* like Narnia. It is a complex place, and people are complex creatures, full of conflicting motivations and ideas and behaviour. Narnia might be a better vehicle for bringing Judeo-Christian morality to children than Harry Potter, but Harry Potter, with its individualist/humanist focus on personal choice and responsibility, is the better vehicle for helping children explore the complexity of the real world. It allows for the fact that not all "rules" are equal (Harry lies to protect himself and the Wizarding World, but he cannot bring himself to commit murder, even in a case where the victim would quite likely face a death penalty in some Judeo-Christian societies), the fact that different situations can be judged completely differently depending on perspective, that not all authority figures are well-meaning and infallible, and that people cannot immediately be boxed into "Good" or "Evil" on the basis of superficialities. Perhaps the problem so many see in HP is that it teaches children that they can think and judge situations for themselves. Sometimes their judgments and actions will misfire, sometimes they will need the guidance of a Dumbledore, and so on, but ultimately, HP tells children that they have the power to make their own decisions. A scary thought, perhaps, but if they're going to function as independent adults (particularly in the individualist societies where most HP readers live), isn't this a pretty good idea? Tabouli. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From andrew_macian at yahoo.com Thu Jan 17 18:22:18 2002 From: andrew_macian at yahoo.com (Andrew MacIan) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 10:22:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] House-elves and laundry In-Reply-To: <13.50c980e.29779fb6@aol.com> Message-ID: <20020117182218.58826.qmail@web9505.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33615 Greetings from Andrew! A 'yes, but' comment, alas.... --- lotusmoondragon at aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 1/16/2002 6:54:11 PM Eastern > Standard Time, > blenberry at altavista.com writes: > > > > Now, if > > freeing an elf can happen as inadvertently (on > Malfoy's part) as it > > did to Dobby, how can elves do any of these jobs > handling clothes? I > > thought one had to be careful not to pass them > even a sock. > > I think there is a big difference from handing them > clothing to asking them > to pick up clothing. I think if a house elf picks up > clothing on their own, > it's not the same as giving them clothing to wear. A question of intent, perhaps. I read that being the case when Crouch Sr. sacks Winky (who, oddly enough, is called 'Whiney' in these parts). Yet, the opposite side is represented when Lucius Malfoy inadvertantly tosses Harry's sock to Dobby; I seriously doubt that he intended to free his 'slave'. Comments on this occur in GoF at the World Cup game, of course. So, I would offer that if the human intended to free the house elf, then giving him/her a piece of clothing carries one significance, whereas simply handing the house elf a bundle of laundry carries another. Cheers, Drieux PS Emails follow to those I owe responses. Blame my undergrads for the delay; I certainly do! {grin}... ===== 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 video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ From bonnie.abrams at cwine.com Thu Jan 17 17:12:46 2002 From: bonnie.abrams at cwine.com (sing2wine) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 17:12:46 -0000 Subject: Arithmancy in the Wizard World Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33616 I also wondered if Arithmancy was a form of numerology. The Jewish book of mysticism, "The Kabbalah", also uses numerology for divination. In my musings, I thought it would be interesting to have a Kabbalist teach Arithmancy at Hogwarts - it would add another level of "diversity" to the faculty....Perhaps a Dybbuk or two? Bonnie / sing2wine From midwife34 at aol.com Thu Jan 17 17:50:23 2002 From: midwife34 at aol.com (jrober4211) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 17:50:23 -0000 Subject: Harry's Connection With Voldemort In-Reply-To: <1427690181.20020117165520@tut.by> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33617 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Alexander wrote: > Greetings! > > I don't know if this was ever discussed here, but I just > want to know: did anybody thought about what Voldemort is > doing? I mean, from book to book he is tying himself with > Harry, more and more. Now that he has reborn, he's got even > some kind of blood relation with the boy. > > The question is: what will be the result? Will they two > end up in a situation like that in "Dragon Heart" (both can > only die simultaneously)? There are certain other > possibilities as well. Be it some action-based fantasy, I > would even suppose that they two might exchange their bodies > some day... :) > > Sincerely yours, > Alexander Lomski, > >From reading GoF, Pettigrew tried to talk V into using any other wizard but Harry because of the difficulty in getting to Harry to obtain his blood for the regeneration spell. V agreed that that would be easier , but I think he specifically preferred Harry for reasons that were never really fleshed out in the text. The conclusion that I came to was that perhaps the blood from whatever wizard he obtained added to whatever powers V already had, and since Harry has been successful thus far in blocking V's efforts ( whether via luck vs. ability, I think its inconclusive at this point) he chose Harry on the off chance that Harry truly has amazing powers. I think he wants those powers as his own in the new body as V sees Harry as his only real possible future enemy that could beat him. As for what V's ultimate goal is, other than gaining a new body and reclaiming his strength and ability prior to his discorporation, I have no idea. I gathered that other than gaining control over the wizarding world, that V resents having to hide from muggles as he sees them as inferior and has deep psychological hang-ups regarding his muggle father rejecting his wizard mother. In reading GoF , Dumbledore mentions reading the muggle news because he is looking for any odd instances where muggles have had run-ins with the weakened V( ex- the caretaker who was killed under mysterious circumstances, Mr Weasley having to memory wipe the muggles who saw the trash cans attacking Moody when captured by Crouch Jr.)V having grown up as TR in muggle surroundings probably wants to take over both wizarding and muggle worlds with wizards being the ruling race. I suppose that is his ultimate way of recociling the total lack of control he had as a child growing up in an orphanage, but thats just a guess. So why is it so important to V to be doing what he is doing, in gaining immortality? What will having immortality help him achieve? What kind of crazy is that? Anyone else out there have any better explainations or theories? Jo Ellen From ambiradams at hotmail.com Thu Jan 17 18:40:36 2002 From: ambiradams at hotmail.com (Ambir Adams) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 10:40:36 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry Potter- A Worthwhile Series??? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33618 >I do agree with you about being careful about what you hand your children >to read. I have studied many child development theories as a midwife , and >its IMHO that the Potter series is probably inappropriate for a child under >the age of 12 , give or take a year, depending on their maturity. JKR has >said many times that she did not write her stories for an age specific >market. It just happened that her story was judged more suitable as >children's literature, and was marketed that way by the publisher who >bought SS, as I understand it from the interviews I have read. > >Jo Ellen Also just because the main characters are children doens't mean the story specifically for children. Take Stand By Me (American movie about children between 12-14 growing up) That is totally not for kids but the characters are kids. Ryoko-- _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx From gte510i at prism.gatech.edu Thu Jan 17 18:01:14 2002 From: gte510i at prism.gatech.edu (Catherine Peisher) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 13:01:14 -0500 Subject: Harry Potter a worthwhile series In-Reply-To: <1011239420.2706.52104.m3@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33619 Lotus says: Lotus, This site isn't just a fan list. It is a site for adult discussion of the Harry Potter series. Adult discussions lend themselves to a much broader range of topics than nitpicking and shipping. Kimball was discussing the first book's literary merit. Shouldn't we, as adults who have read the entire series, be able to respond to his/her critigue in an adult fashion? If we just respond by saying that 'this shouldn't be posted here and you are too close-minded' that doesn't promote valid discussion. Any attempt to do so seems like (forgive me) childish defensiveness due to a lack of a resonse. I have printed out Kimballs posting and will spend the weekend coming up with a valid response. Kimball has raised some very good points. I think I can refute them, but it will take time to do it well. catydid who has enjoyed defending the books to some of her skeptical friends. From blenberry at altavista.com Thu Jan 17 19:11:58 2002 From: blenberry at altavista.com (blenberry) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 19:11:58 -0000 Subject: Ron Weasley & His Brothers In-Reply-To: <837643364.20020117165434@tut.by> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33620 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Alexander wrote: > ...while I was reading SS6 ("Platform 9 3/4") Ron says that > he is *sixth* son in the family. > I'm reading a translation, so just want to be sure - can > anyone check that up? Also, "Martin Smith" wrote: >A while back I picked up the >Ron-might-be-the-seventh-son-and-therefore-a-seer-thread by pointing >out the >possibility that a hitherto unknown older Weasleybrother was picked >by an >evil wizard in his youth and trained by him, not attending Hogwarts >and thus >turning to the Dark side. That would make him a son non grata in the >Weasley >household and also explain why Ron can say "I'm the sixth brother to >go to >Hogwarts in my family" without lying. To be nitpicky, Ron doesn't just say "I'm the sixth in our family to go to Hogwarts" but that he has five *wizard* brothers. (Harry: "Wish I'd had three wizard brothers." "Five," said Ron.) Perhaps he had an evil squib brother, who was disowned? Barbara From hollydaze at btinternet.com Thu Jan 17 20:25:53 2002 From: hollydaze at btinternet.com (Hollydaze) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 20:25:53 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Is Hogwarts Public or Private? References: Message-ID: <002101c19f95$2a0998a0$f30c073e@j0dhe> No: HPFGUIDX 33621 > >I find it interesting that there should be this difference of > >opinion between people in Britain (Public school) and people in > >America/Canada etc. (Private school). > > Why do you think this is? > One thing that would influence me is that you do not have to buy > textbooks in an American public school; you use a book for the > school year but do not keep it. Also, public schools usually > don't have uniforms although they may have dress codes. Yes but that is just it, Hogwarts ISN'T an American school, it is a British one. At most British schools you have to wear a uniform (even in Infant/junior school although it isn't enforced quite so much). Also I have had to buy my text books this year and I go to a public (US)/State run (UK) school. I generally think this is where a lot of things get confused in the books is where something is "British" and people in other countries automatically think of their own country to make similarities (I'm not being rude just stating a point) would other people agree with me or am I completely off? HOLLYDAZE!!! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jbryson at richmond.infi.net Thu Jan 17 19:13:39 2002 From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 19:13:39 -0000 Subject: Wizard Economics In-Reply-To: <006f01c19f3f$59ed8960$a30eddc8@grupotv1.com.br> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33622 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., wrote: > 1) Do Wizards pay taxes? > a. If so, to whom? The ministry of magic would be the most likely answer, but we have been with Harry for four years and are yet to see some kind of magical elections process. Could it be *gasp* taxation without representation? There may be magical ways of finding the wizards' consensus without formal ballots. likewise, if there is for example, a sales tax, it may be collected and distributed magically without JKR needing to discuss it. > b. If not, how do people like Charlie, who work with Magical field research, get paid? The money may get distributed magically from magically collected taxes after buget concensus is magically determined. Also, there may be endowments. That's what I figgure is the case for Hogwarts: The four founders funded it, for the most part. > 2) Do Wizards engage in regular Muggle professions, such as dentistry or architecture, but with the use of Magic? I'm not very keen on this theory, since we know that the only Wizard settlement in the UK is Hogsmeade, and the impression one gets from Canon is that it's a very small village. With this in mind, I can't imagine that places like London house a "wizard underground" network, where wizard dentists only attend wizard patients, et cetera, but within the city of London. The only practical solution would be that wizard dentists live and work in London and attend both magic and muggle patients, then convert their muggle money in Gringotts (as JKR indicated can be done). But would someone like Lucius Malfoy attend Muggles? What, exactly, does he do? I've previously thought that, as a governor, Lucius gets paid--and that's all he does, making the title of "governor" equivalent to "cushy government job for rich families". The fact is, I don't really see a practical way for Wizards to have their own working economy within England if Hogsmeade is their only village. Wizard occupations we have seen: 1) those employed by Hogwarts 2) Shopkeepers and innkeepers in Diagon Alley and Hogsmeade 3)Bureaucrats in MoM 4) The guys on the Night Bus, also, the Hogwarts Express may have a crew. 5) There may also be farmers who provide raw materials for the craftsmen in the shops. 6) Other activities to cause circulation of wizard money within the wizard world. > > 3) Hogwarts most likely requires a tuition--Harry asks Hagrid at one point in Book 1 how he's going to pay for Hogwarts, since the Dursleys never would, and Hagrid then tells him about his parents' Gringotts account. I'm assuming that this is where he draws money to pay the school. >Muggle parents would pay by converting their money in Gringotts. This means that the Muggle world has something the wizards want to buy with the Muggle money, i.e. there is trade with the Muggles; or else Gringotts would be choking in "useless" Muggle money. >Now, as for the Weasleys, who knows? Perhaps the reason they have little spending money is that most of Arthur's income goes to paying for his many children's tuition fees. I figure this is probably the case. Large family=poverty. > > 4) Now, Hogwarts is clearly affected by the Ministry of Magic to some extent, and if we consider that to be the wizard government, then it would mean that Hogwarts is a public school (British terminology). I still can't figure out how money works, though--Yes, they have house-elves to do their work, but we've seen that House Elves are a rare commodity even though they don't get paid a salary (Molly Weasley tells us she wishes she's had one, but that only rich families do). One assumes that they have to be bought somewhere, for what is most likely an exhorbitant amount of money. So Hogwarts definitely has quite a large bank account somewhere. Probably a large endowment. Tex23236 From judyshapiro at earthlink.net Thu Jan 17 19:33:35 2002 From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 19:33:35 -0000 Subject: Monty Python in HP In-Reply-To: <20020117142421.10175.qmail@web14706.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33623 > > IAmLordCassandra at a... wrote: > >I don't know if this'll merit any long, thought provoking > > discussions, however I thought this was an interesting bit of > > information. While watching 'Monty Python's Flying Circus' I > > noticed in one of the sketches the name 'Cockroach clusters' came > > up. And what's more, I'm > > sure the title of the volume has 'Chocolate Frogs' in it. And pigwidgeonthirtyseven replied: > Great! I spotted that, too. The Cockroach Cluster *is* Monty Python, > but their other creation is "Crunchy Frog", not Chocolate Frog. I recall that JKR confirmed in an interview that she got the ideas for these candies from Monty Python. She even did a piece of the "Crunchy Frog" routine: "Well, if you took the bones out, they wouldn't be crunchy, would they?" (On Monty Python, the frogs were real frogs dipped in chocolate. Maybe she thought that was too gross?) Unfortunately, I can't find the interview.... -- Judy From mlfrasher at aol.com Thu Jan 17 20:15:39 2002 From: mlfrasher at aol.com (mlfrasher at aol.com) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 15:15:39 EST Subject: Slytherin/ the use of Unforgivible Curses/ HP Worthwhile Message-ID: <120.9e3c84e.29788aeb@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33624 Hello! Hello fellow list members! alexander Lomski replied to my comment about DA and the "ends justifies the means" argument: >Ahh, interesting. Does the end justifies the means or not? I could talk LONG about it - after all I was raised in the country that considered the only possible answer as "YES!"... :) LOL. I still have to look at it on a case by case basis. I LOVE my grey areas. So much fun to muse over than the black and whites! ;) I still contend that using the Unforgivable Curses is not the only way to go. Although I'm always intrigued by DA, perhaps simple *because* it's a no no. >About Dark and Light, I can do nothing but cite one of my neighbors - "And remember! We are the forces of Light - but not necessarily Good!". Argh! Who is this? I'm drawing a blank! >Still from what I have read so far, Avada is the most potent combat spell in Potterverse. From purely historical point of view, it's strange it was forbidden at all - I cannot remember any examples in history of peoples declaring a potent weapon illegal. Perhaps Wizards have stronger sense of ethics than we mere humans... unlikely. The fact that they are "unforgivable" curses doesn't mean the least for me - that's just the term in Wizard's Law to describe them, IMHO nothing more. Well muggles have declared weapons illegal, or recognized that they needed to be forbidden in many circumstances. Here are a few examples that come to mind. The Kellog-Briand Pact 1928 which was initially signed by 15 nations and eventually ratified by 62, aimed for the "renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy". The Washington naval conference of 1921-22 limited and scrapped much of the naval arsenal of the Pacific powers. (i.e. Five power and four powers treaties). And then there were the provisions of the Versailles Treaty that limited Germany to a skeleton military force. I don't think I need to mention that these were an obvious failure, but the point is that throughout history, there have been attempts to destroy or limit the use and manufacture of hazardous materials. This is why I put the Unforgivable curses (UC) in the field of nuclear weapons (which are probably more applicable for this argument and there have been more restrictions in this area) and other big bang for little buck ticket items. You can say that ethically it's up to the person who uses the curse/weapon, but some things are so horrible that no matter who uses them -- you are automatically put in the arena of public opinion. I can't think of an instance where kedavara was used and someone said, "Oh what a great idea!" The impression I get is that it's so bad, people don't even like to mention it, let alone use it. There have been constant reminders throughout the series that curses like AK and much of the DA aren't widely talked about (except in hushed tones or for ppl specially trained in them - far and few) and students were shocked when Moody said he was going to teach them. Heck, the Weasley's aren't even allowed to walk down Knockturn Alley. >Don't forget that on the war, some of ethical laws cease to function (primarily the taboo to kill). I'll argue that this depends on the culture. Ethical standards vary from region to region and a dip on one culture's 'standards' might *be* the standard for another. Similarly, as in the case of Manifest Destiny, many cultures didn't even consider that there were ethical guidelines in the regions they conquered, and vice versa. I think for Harry and the wizarding world there's an absolute power issue. You know - absolute power corrupts absolutely. Voldemort feels that it is his right to decide who lives and who dies, and that's the strongest power to have over an entire populace. *That's* tyranny to me. So, I could easily see why UC aren't widely taught. Although not teaching them leaves the average man/woman quite unprepared. Know thyne enemy..... Tabouli declared: >Ahaa! Here we have it! A mere day or two after my musings on utopianism, an illustration burgeons forth! (and one that looks suspiciously like something carefully prepared in advance and launched into the list to shock us out of our Satan-driven denial). Hear hear! I felt that it was a baited attempt to provoke a reaction. garaeta (short for Margaraeta, as there has been some confusion over my gender ;) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From CRSunrise at aol.com Thu Jan 17 20:16:05 2002 From: CRSunrise at aol.com (CRSunrise at aol.com) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 15:16:05 EST Subject: Harry's Family Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33625 Is there any mention of Harry family besides those we know of? I've only noticed that there's mention of Vernon, Petunia & Dudley, and also James and Lily Potter. At the end of SS/PS, Hagrid says that he got the pictures from friends of his parents. Couldn't he have gotten them from maybe James family, or maybe family of Lily's? Anyone know? Crystal AIM/AOL=CRSunrise, OneLastW1sh Hotmail=CRSunrise_98 at hotmail.com ~~Life's a constant roadway. There are many twists and turns. You also have to watch out for the potholes~~ ~~Take one step at a time or you'll fall flat on your face~~ ~~A life lived in chaos is an impossibility...~~Madeleine L'Engle A League of Their Own -- This is my fanfiction site http://members.tripod.com/~CRSunrise_98/ Join my Mailing Lists A League of Their Own Updates-for updates and such on the above site leagueupdates-subscribe at yahoogroups.com For the Newsie Lover out there newsie-lovers-subscribe at yahoogroups.com From judyshapiro at earthlink.net Thu Jan 17 20:23:56 2002 From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 20:23:56 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's Motivations (was Harry's Connection w/V) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33626 Jo Ellen raised some very interesting points about Voldemort's motivations, saying: > ....I gathered that other than gaining control over the > wizarding world, that V resents having to hide from muggles as he > sees them as inferior and has deep psychological hang-ups regarding > his muggle father rejecting his wizard mother.... > V having grown up as TR in muggle > surroundings probably wants to take over both wizarding and > muggle worlds with wizards being the ruling race. I suppose that is > his ultimate way of recociling the total lack of control he had as a > child growing up in an orphanage, but thats just a guess. So why is > it so important to V to be doing what he is doing, in gaining > immortality? What will having immortality help him achieve? What > kind of crazy is that? Very good insight into Voldy! I'd add that he seems to have deep psychological hang-ups regarding his father rejecting *him*. After all, Voldy obviously is very magical; if his father was unwilling to have magic-users in the family, that means he didn't want his son, as well as not wanting his wife. And Tom Riddle Sr. did in fact abandon his son to an orphanage, despite obviously having financial resources to support him. I agree that some of Voldemort's motivations seem contradictory. If he wants world domination, why make enemies of muggle-born wizards and witches, some of whom (like Hermione) are obviously very powerful? Of course, contradictory motivations have in fact been a feature of many power-mad tyrants in the past. For example, in WWII, Hitler opened a second front with the Soviets for no discernable reason. I think Voldemort's quest for immortality can be interpreted one of two ways. It can be seen as a plausible desire for someone who is power-hungry; power over death is in some ways the ultimate power. Or, it can be seen just as a plot device, which allows Harry to destroy Voldemort's power for a time, without permanently killing him. -- Judy From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com Thu Jan 17 21:13:05 2002 From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 15:13:05 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's Family References: Message-ID: <3C473E61.FBB8F8EE@kingwoodcable.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33627 CRSunrise at aol.com wrote: > > Is there any mention of Harry family besides those we know of? I've only > noticed that there's mention of Vernon, Petunia & Dudley, and also James and > Lily Potter. At the end of SS/PS, Hagrid says that he got the pictures from > friends of his parents. Couldn't he have gotten them from maybe James > family, or maybe family of Lily's? > I'm sure he had other family, like grand parents and such, but Petunia, Vernon, and Dudley are "They only family he has left now", as D states in SS/PS. I'm beginning to think that James was an only child, and so Hagrid must've had to go to friends, since no "family" was left. Makes you wonder what happened to James' family. Were they wiped out by V also? -Katze From judyshapiro at earthlink.net Thu Jan 17 20:59:27 2002 From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 20:59:27 -0000 Subject: Wizard Economics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33628 broken at p wrote: >> I can't imagine that places like >> London house a "wizard underground" network, where wizard >> dentists only attend wizard patients, et cetera, but within the >> city of London... >> What, exactly, does [Lucius Malfoy] do? Well, I'd say Diagon Alley and Knockturn Alley are, in fact, underground wizard areas within London. We don't see any dentists or architects there, but perhaps those alleys are just the shopping district, and the professional offices are on another street. The Ministry of Magic has offices somewhere in London; perhaps there is a large wizard office district hidden away someplace. As for Lucius Malfoy, I've assumed he inherited his money, and spends his time counting the return on his investments. Tex23236 said, in regards to changing Muggle money at Gringotts': > This means that the Muggle world has something the wizards want to > buy with the Muggle money, i.e. there is trade with the Muggles; or > else Gringotts would be choking in "useless" Muggle money... Well, wizard money seems to be actual metal -- gold, silver, bronze. So, presumably, muggle money is used to buy gold and other metals; that's how it gets exchanged into wizard money. Perhaps the Gringotts' goblins employ a "normal looking" witch or wizard to buy gold for them; we know they employ humans such as Bill Weasley. There does seem to be a problem with the exchange rate that JKR has mentioned in interviews. (I think it was about $7 per galleon.) The amount of gold per galleon is too small for a useful coin. Gold has been trading at around $280 an ounce and there are 31 grams in a ounce of gold (believe it or not), so gold is about $9 a gram currently. Gold is very dense and a gram of gold is tiny; 7/9th of a gram would be a teensy coin. Also, things seem awfully cheap in the wizarding world. Harry's wand cost 10 galleons. $70 for a vital tool like a wand, with a rare item inside such as a phoenix feather? That's less than half the cost of a single night in a decent Muggle hotel in London. However, the exchange rate hasn't been mentioned in the books, so we can ignore the interviews and assume a higher value per galleon. Tex23236 also said: > ...Hogwarts definitely has quite a large bank account somewhere. > Probably a large endowment. Someone pointed out earlier on this list that Nicholas Flamel had unlimited access to gold, due to his Philospher's Stone. Given his friendship with Dumbledore, he could have provided Hogwarts with a very large endowment. And, given that Flamel had the Stone for centuries, he could have endowed Hogwarts a long time ago. It wouldn't have really cost him anything, after all. -- Judy From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Thu Jan 17 21:24:52 2002 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 21:24:52 -0000 Subject: Monty Python in HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33629 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "judyserenity" wrote: > > I recall that JKR confirmed in an interview that she got the ideas for > these candies from Monty Python. She even did a piece of the "Crunchy > Frog" routine: "Well, if you took the bones out, they wouldn't be > crunchy, would they?" (On Monty Python, the frogs were real frogs > dipped in chocolate. Maybe she thought that was too gross?) I've also wondered if GoF's House-Elf Liberation Front might owe something to the several highly fractious fronts (the Judean People's Front, the People's Front of Judea, the Judean Popular Front, etc) from MP's The Life of Brian. - CMC From zoehooch at yahoo.com Thu Jan 17 21:14:37 2002 From: zoehooch at yahoo.com (zoehooch) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 21:14:37 -0000 Subject: Harry's Family In-Reply-To: <3C473E61.FBB8F8EE@kingwoodcable.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33630 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Katze wrote: > I'm sure he had other family, like grand parents and such, but Petunia, > Vernon, and Dudley are "They only family he has left now", as D states > in SS/PS. I'm beginning to think that James was an only child, and so > Hagrid must've had to go to friends, since no "family" was left. Makes > you wonder what happened to James' family. Were they wiped out by V > also? > > -Katze I must say, I've been puzzling about this very topic for while. What happened to James' parents? Cousins? Aunts and uncles? I hope JKR addresses this soon. Book 5, I hear, is supposed to contain more information about James and Lily; perhaps some of these questions can answered. Zoe Hooch From moongirlk at yahoo.com Thu Jan 17 21:41:11 2002 From: moongirlk at yahoo.com (moongirlk) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 21:41:11 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Harry_Potter=96A_Worthwhile_series=3F=3F?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33631 Hello Mr. Kimball, I noticed that so far nobody has addressed certain aspects of your post, and I thought I'd give it a shot, as a Christian first and a Harry Potter fan second, I wanted to speak to some issues. --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "kimballs6" wrote: > > MS. ROWLING'S WORLD VIEW: > > Rowling presents an arbitrary world in which good and evil are > simply two sides of the same sorcery--the "Dark Side" and the > other side, although no name is ever given for it. Harry and his > friends must choose which side they're on, but of course the line > between the two is always moving. Is this so different from the Judeo-Christian tradition that interests you? Addressing the Judeo portion of it - before Moses received the 10 commandments, what criteria did the Hebrew people have for good and evil? The line was vague, at best, and God granted his favor simply to those who loved and feared Him, each of their individual actions not being as important as their intentions toward God and the world around them. Determining where the line > is between good and evil becomes an individual choice, leaving > the reader wondering why something is okay for this person and > not the other. Sometimes breaking rules is honorable, > sometimes it must be punished. Sometimes a lie is bad, > sometimes it is good. Once again, how does this in any way contradict Judeo-Christian reality? It was forbidden to eat the bread in the temple, but David and his men did so, and were not punished (1 Samuel 21). The parallel to this in Christian tradition was made by Jesus himself when the Pharisees confronted him over his followers "working" on the sabbath (Mark 2). As for lies, think of Rahab the prostitute in Jericho who lied about the Israelite spies in order to protect them. She wasn't punished, but blessed by God, becoming the ancestor of Kind David, and of Jesus himself (Joshua 2) and honored by Paul in the New Testament (Hebrews 11) as one of the great people of faith. Sure, we are not supposed to lie, but it is clear that even in the Bible, "Sometimes a lie is bad, sometimes it is good.", as you said, or as Jesus said "God created the Sabbath for people, not the other way around." >And finally, adult authority is attacked > harshly, leaving ultimate >authority in the hands of the kid who > can grab the most power. The only adult authority that is attacked in the Potter books is the adult authority that is used to abuse children. In the Bible, even when children are admonished to obey their parents (note - not "obey adult authority"), the passage says: "Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. Honor your father and mother--which is the first commandment with a promise--that it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life on the earth." Ephesians 6:1-3 Which precludes obeying those who put you at risk not to enjoy a long life on the earth, and what's more is followed by: "Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord." Eph 6:4 Therefore I don't believe that Christian (I may be wrong about the Judeo portion of it) tradition says that children must obey all adult authority regardless of the situation or consequences. In fact, if it did, then Jesus incited children to break God's law by encouraging them to come to him when his desciples told them not to. Mark 10:13-16 > First, breaking rules is glorified: "Hermione had become a bit > more relaxed about breaking rules since Harry and Ron had > saved her from the mountain troll, and she was much nicer for > it." But when Malfoy or other "Slytherins" break rules, they are > punished--to the cheers of Harry and his gang. At one point > Harry is told not to ride on his broom. When he does, instead of > any punishment, he is rewarded with a berth on the Quidditch > team. Somehow it is a terrible thing for Hagrid to break the rules > and raise a forbidden dragon, yet honorable for the students to > break the rules and explore the forbidden areas of the school. > (Actually, it is not honorable for Malfoy to break the rules, only > Hermione and Harry--if they feel the need.) I think Jesus' words bear repeating: "God created the Sabbath for people, not the other way around." The *purpose* of the rule breaking *does* make a difference, both in Harry Potter, and in Judeo- Christian tradition. > Second, Rowling leaves the option of lying up to the individual, > and even glorifies it. If Harry needs to lie, he simply will: "When > facing a magic mirror, Harry thinks desperately, `I must lie,..I > must look and lie about what I see, that's all.'" And yes, he is > rewarded with the Sorcerer's Stone. Yet later, when he asks > Headmaster Dumbledore questions, Dumbledore says, "...I > shall answer your questions unless I have a very good reason > not to, in which case I beg you'll forgive me. I shall not, or > course, lie." My immediate response was, why not? It works for > Harry. Maybe Ms. Rowling meant this as a teaching point, but it > doesn't go anywhere. Does Dumbledore never lie, or maybe > he'll just never lie to Harry, or maybe he just won't lie to Harry at > this time, or maybe this is itself a lie.... Rowling sometimes > glorifies lying, and other times doesn't consider it as an option. > Rowling appears confused on the issue of lying. God leaves this option up to the individual as well, allowing us all free will, and in the case of Rahab, glorifies her decision enough that she is listed in the very elite group of people of great faith in the book of Hebrews because she had the faith in God to lie to protect His people. Also included in that list is someone else known for lying, and not for good reasons. Twice Abraham lied about the identity of his wife. This is wrong, and God doesn't glorifiy him for it, but nor does it keep him becoming the spiritual father of all Judeo-Christians. My point is that sometimes lying is necessary and is not wrong, and sometimes it is clearly wrong, but does not necessarily make one a bad person. > Finally, concerning the adult world, or those who would be in > authority, there is only derision. Fred tells his >mother, "Honestly, > woman, you call yourself our mother?" And another time, "All > right, keep your hair on." I wish you could read the other books - the Weasley family is blessed with a lively sense of humor, but they all love and respect their mother very much - respect her in certain cases even more than they love her, as she is a force to be reconed with, and not at all depicted as an object of derision. >All the teachers at Hogwarts are either dirty, deranged, deceitful, >or all three. The only ones who are dirty are Sprout and Hagrid, who work outdoors, and Snape, who is presented that way for a reason. I don't know of any who are deranged, and the one who is deceitful is effectively possessed, and rather a large plot-point in the book in that without him there'd be no story. In all cases except for the last, the teachers act in the best interests of the students and are, barring Snape who, as I said, is unpleasant for a literary reason, reasonable and respectable. > "Honestly, Hermione, you think all teachers are saints or something..." This was said when they believed (rightly, if misdirectedly) that one of the teachers was evil. Even if that were not the case - I certainly wouldn't want to raise a child who thought that all teachers *were* saints, as teachers are just as human as the rest of us, and some are even nasty, bad people who might do them harm. > When presenting the adult human > world, Ms. Rowling presents it in such a ridiculously negative > light that it becomes completely unrealistic and even offensive. > All adults are foolish, bungling, stupid and boringly > unimaginative. Why would a child ever look up to them or need > them in any way? Ok, we're going in circles a bit, but I include this to mention the overwhelming majority of adults in the first book alone who are nothing of the sort. First there's Hargrid, who, while he does make mistakes, also rescued Harry from the rubble when his parents were killed, introduced him to his new world, gives him good advice regularly, and is the first person since his parents' death to show him the kind of love that God intended children to have. Then there's Dumbledore, who, as the wisest and most powerful of wizards, can't easily be described in any of the ways you mentioned, and McGonagall, who I won't even try to defend as it's obvious she doesn't fit the description either. I'd say it's easier to count those who do fall under the categories you listed than those who don't. There's the Dursleys, who are abusive, hateful people to begin with, then there's Filch, the caretaker, who is the same. I must make an aside here to say that boringly unimaginative is about the least possible thing one could say about Dumbledore. > > C.S. LEWIS'S AND J.R.R. TOLKIEN'S WORLD VIEW: > > Second, respect for order is a part of a Judeo-Christian world > view. Consider the general anarchy encouraged at Hogwarts, > when the students sing the school song: "`Everyone pick their > favorite tune,' said Dumbledore, `and off we go!'..... Everybody > finished the song at different times... and when they had > finished, he [Dumbledore] was one of those who clapped > loudest." First comment - this is nothing but a good bit of fun, and I can't see anyone seriously considering it a bad thing. I can see someone having little patience for it, if they're unimaginative, but the idea that there is anything intrinsically wrong with it makes me giggle. > Compare this to Aslan's words after Peter kills the > White Witch's Wolf: "`Hand it [Peter's sword] to me and kneel, > Son of Adam,' said Aslan. And when Peter had done so he > struck him with the flat of the blade and said, `Rise up, Sir Peter > Fenris-Bane. And, whatever happens, never forget to wipe your > sword.' Even in the midst of battle there is order. How do these two things compare in the least? One is talking about battle and *killing* for heaven's sake (As an aside I find it interesting that there is so much emphasis on lying in Harry Potter, but none on killing in other stories.), the other is talking about singing an innocuous little song. The comparison is more like apples and paperclips than even apples and oranges, so I won't go on with this part, and the next bit about good and evil choices was adequately addressed by others, so all I will add is that there is a *big* difference between bad choices (like those made by Abraham when his fear caused him to lie or by Peter who denied Jesus) and *evil* choices. > Finally, in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, the adults > either have integrity and nobleness, or they stoop to deceit and > treachery. There is no ambiguity in their integrity or lack thereof. > Consider the difference between how Dumbledore, Headmaster > of Hogwarts School, and Aslan, ruler of Narnia, present > themselves in their first appearance before the children. > Rowlings writes, "`Welcome!" he [Dumbledore] said. `Welcome > to a new year at Hogwarts! Before we begin our banquet, I > would like to say a few words. And here they are: Nitwit! > Blubber! Oddment! Tweak!'"... Everybody clapped and cheered. > Compare this to Aslan's welcome of the children: "`Welcome, > Peter, Son of Adam,' said Aslan. `Welcome, Susan and Lucy, > daughters of Eve. Welcome He-Beaver and She-Beaver.' His > voice was deep and rich and somehow took the fidgets out of > them." There is a vast difference between Dumbledore's > foolishness and Aslan's nobility. I submit that that is because Aslan represents Jesus, the son of God (not a particularly ambiguous figure), whereas Dumbledore represents a slightly dotty yet good and strong *man* with a wacky sense of humor. Again, we're comparing things that have no business being compared. Aslan cannot convincingly be used as an example of how regular adults are treated in Lewis's work, as he's not a regular adult. Use their uncle, and we've got something worth comparing. > Lewis and Tolkien uphold the values of absolute truth and > absolute right and wrong. They acknowledge an orderly world, > one which brings out nobility in its heroes. And learning from > and submitting to those who have gone before is honored as a > right way to gain wisdom. My world is very, very disorderly, because my world is one where humans live, and we humans have a tendency to be messy, confused, weak, moody and generally disorderly, even while we often manage to do great things and have integrity and show love and stand up for what is good despite the odds. I see that world reflected well in Rowling's work, *and*, by the way, in Lewis's. I can't comment on Tolkien, as I'm quite possibly the last living person who's read Lewis and Rowling but not Tolkien. > Difference in character development between Harry, and > Edmund and Bilbo: > Not much growth in maturity has occurred between the first chapter and the last >paragraph. ...Harry smiles and says, "They > don't know we're not allowed to use magic at home. I'm going > to have a lot of fun with Dudley this summer...." > > Contrast that with Edmund and Bilbo. At the beginning of The > Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, Edmund is truly a spiteful, > mean-spirited brother: Yet by the end of the story, he's a new person: "When at last she was free to come back to Edmund she found him standing on his feet and not only healed of his wounds but > looking better than she had seen him look--oh, for ages; ... He > had become his real old self again and could look you in the > face. And there on the field of battle Aslan made him a knight." I think this, too, is a poor comparison. Edmund needed to be a new person. The person Harry was was *not* spiteful or mean-spirited. Edmund is the cruel one in relation to his little sister. In the case of Harry Potter, Dudley and his parents are the ones who have tortured and threatened and bullied him his whole life. Harry has not only never been cruel to Dudley in the past, he has been turning the other cheek his whole life. The fact that Harry has not learned to love his persecutors during the course of a story that is not *about* that, cannot be compared to Edmund, who needed redemption because he *was* the persecutor and betrayor, and that was a major portion of what the story was about. He also didn't come back to a family that had and would continue to mistreat and harm him, he came back to a family that had loved him dearly all along and that he had chosen to betray despite this. So I can't buy into the comparison. It wouldn't even be the same lesson learned. The lesson you seem to be bemoaning Harry's failure to learn is "love your enemy", and it's true, he hasn't quite learned that, but I think that's premature for a child who started the book never having had an example of any kind of love at all. That lesson comes later when he saves the life of the person who killed his parents - you haven't read that far in the series. What he learns in book 1 is that there are people who can and will love him, and that he can trust and love in return without fearing that they will attack him physically and emotionally, and that he has some power to make decisions about his life and what he does. What decisions has he made? *Not* to hang out with kids who mock and tease and seek to hurt others, and instead *to* risk his life to protect others. All the characters-- > Harry, Bilbo and the children--are presented as heroes, yet only > Lewis's and Tolkien's live in a world that has true > consequences for right and wrong, and thus only they can truly > grow in excellence. Can you explain the cause and effect in this statement? In our world, wrong acts often go unpunished, and what's more, *good* deeds often have dire consequences, up to an including death, as is evidenced every day by people who risk their lives saving others. And yet they themselves are examples of people who have "truly grown in excellence." I would submit that, as Dumbledore implies, it's the decisions one makes that allow one to grow in excellence, since often we have to make these decisions *despite* the consequences. > In handing any book to a child, one must know if the child can >discern the world views and not be swept into a view that is counter > to the truth being instilled in him. As a Christian, I look forward to someday reading with my children. It's one of the things that excites me most in thinking about having kids. I will be thrilled to read C.S. Lewis's works and JK Rowlings, and if I ever get around to reading it first, Tolkien's work as well. I will also be reading the Bible with them, and poetry and the newspaper and Dr. Suess and Dahl and Harper Lee and cereal boxes and anything else that I think might give them pleasure, instruction or food for thought. I won't address the grammar issues, as someone else has already addressed them more than adequately. But I can't stop myself commenting on this line: > Lewis and Tolkien both write with an impeccable understanding > of and a rightful submission to the English language. I have a smile on my face here. Submission? To a language? Language is a tool, a means to an end. Should I also submit to my toaster oven? My mittens? Language in and of itself has no function. It is not until it is put to use that it has value, and it's value can range from the simply utilitarian: "Pass the salt." to the life-saving: "Look out!" to the poetic: "... wholly to be a fool while Spring is in the world ..." (-ee cummings) JK Rowling does things with language that make me laugh and cry and think. That's enough for me. > Rowling's world view is not one to immerse a child in if you are >seeking to raise him in a Judeo-Christian ethic. Beyond that, >encouraging a child to read poorly written yet "sensational" >literature may produce a child who can read Harry Potter stories, >but it will not produce a reader. You are, of course, entitled and more than welcome to your opinion, but I couldn't disagree with you more, on all of these last points. Especially that Harry Potter "will not produce a reader." I introduced my cousin's two sons to Harry Potter, and they have become voracious readers. They have since read the "Chronicles of Narnia" series, as one example, and quite enjoyed it as well, although one commented that it wasn't nearly as realistic. Probably since I started this post there have been a ton of others that have answered these issues better than I have or could, but I felt the need to try, nevertheless, to point out a few things that stood out to me, especially where they concerned my own Judeo- Christian world view. kimberly From gwynyth at drizzle.com Thu Jan 17 21:44:59 2002 From: gwynyth at drizzle.com (Jenett) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 13:44:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry's Family In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33632 On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, zoehooch wrote: > I must say, I've been puzzling about this very topic for while. What > happened to James' parents? Cousins? Aunts and uncles? I hope JKR > addresses this soon. Book 5, I hear, is supposed to contain more > information about James and Lily; perhaps some of these questions can > answered. I think this is one of the 'your mileage might vary depending on background' questions. I *have* no aunts, uncles, or cousins - in fact, I'm currently related by blood to only about 5 people on the planet that I know of. (Obviously, I'm related to more people genetically, but none that I directly know of or who would know of their connection to me) Both my parents were only children. They both came from very small immediate families. (My mother had a much larger extended family, but most of them died in the Holocaust and her father's brother and his wife never had children) My parents were older when they had me - 3 of my 4 grandparents had died before I was born (all in their mid-60s). It doesn't leave room for a whole lot of close kinship ties. Thus, for me, it doesn't seem particularly unusual at all that something similar might have happened in Harry's family in some way - that either there just weren't many kids or that for whatever reason, they met with misfortune. Likewise, James might just have been an only child, and had either older parents, or parents who had died before he did (whether simple bad luck or act of malice, who knows.) We obviously know that Lily had a sister - but the indications seem to me to clearly indicate that there aren't any other family members around now, whether or not there ever were. Whether that's because of simple life events (nothing 'causing' them) or misadventure, I don't know - but I've never read it (again, probably due to my own background) as anything completely off the wall. On the other hand, I admit to wanting to know a lot more about both James and Lily, regardless of whether they had siblings, so I'm scarcely going to complain about more information. -Jenett From blenberry at altavista.com Thu Jan 17 21:49:49 2002 From: blenberry at altavista.com (blenberry) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 21:49:49 -0000 Subject: Wizard Economics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33633 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "judyserenity" wrote: > Well, wizard money seems to be actual metal -- gold, silver, bronze. >snip< >There does seem to be a problem with the exchange rate that JKR has > mentioned in interviews. (I think it was about $7 per galleon.) The > amount of gold per galleon is too small for a useful coin. > Gold is very dense and a gram of gold is tiny; 7/9th of a gram >would be a teensy coin. Is it possible that the coins are not solid gold, but sandwich coins such as the American dime? Perhaps galleons are just a gold *colored* coin. Barbara From fluxed at earthlink.net Thu Jan 17 21:54:10 2002 From: fluxed at earthlink.net (fluxed at earthlink.net) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 16:54:10 -0500 Subject: a worthwhile series? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33634 "kimballs6" wrote Much debate is swirling around the Harry Potter books versus C.S. Lewis's and Tolkien's stories. Many argue that these books are all similar--just fantasy, pure and simple. I disagree. They are fantasies (Lewis going into allegory), but that is where the similarity ends. After reading the first book in the Potter series, reading The Hobbit, and brushing up on The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, I see a tremendous gulf between Rowling and the other two writers. Well, this has been said before but I just wanted to underline it: It's _impossible_ to draw reliable conclusions about an entire series after having only read the first book in each. If all the important aspects of the story could have been told in one book alone, the author would have done so. It's rather like trying to draw conclusions about marine life after wading up to one's waist at the beach. Second, Rowling leaves the option of lying up to the individual, and even glorifies it. If Harry needs to lie, he simply will: "When facing a magic mirror, Harry thinks desperately, `I must lie,..I must look and lie about what I see, that's all.'" And yes, he is rewarded with the Sorcerer's Stone. Yet later, when he asks Headmaster Dumbledore questions, Dumbledore says, "...I shall answer your questions unless I have a very good reason not to, in which case I beg you'll forgive me. I shall not, or course, lie." My immediate response was, why not? It works for Harry. Maybe Ms. Rowling meant this as a teaching point, but it doesn't go anywhere. Does Dumbledore never lie, or maybe he'll just never lie to Harry, or maybe he just won't lie to Harry at this time, or maybe this is itself a lie.... Rowling sometimes glorifies lying, and other times doesn't consider it as an option. Rowling appears confused on the issue of lying. As does Tolkien, even in "The Hobbit"--remember, Bilbo not only steals the Ring from Gollum and then deceives him in order to escape, but he lies to all his friends about it too. And yes, this does become an important plot point in "The Lord of the Rings"--but Bilbo doesn't get the instructive moral comeuppance your interpretation would seem to demand. "LOTR" is a far more morally complex (and hence, if I dare say, realistic) story than "The Hobbit"--that's in good part why it, and not "The Hobbit," is considered Tolkien's masterpiece. >Finally, concerning the adult world, or those who would be in authority, there is only derision. Fred tells his mother, "Honestly, woman, you call yourself our mother?" And another time, "All right, keep your hair on." All the teachers at Hogwarts are either dirty, deranged, deceitful, or all three. Fred and George have a relationship with their mother that allows them to tease and goad each other. They do respect her and love her very much, but it's also in their nature to be pranksters and test the limits constantly (as is normal among very bright adolescents). She understands this, it exasperates her, but she loves them of course anyway (and they know this). It's a very realistic portrayal of a truly loving family dynamic in which the parents do their best to set limits while at the same time not quashing their children's passions and talents (they don't do this perfectly of course--who does?). As opposed to the Dursleys, who are rather loathesome, shallow, uptight child abusers (and a very grimly funny caricature). Regarding the chaos of the Weasley household--how could any household with seven bright, troublesome children and an eccentric father be otherwise? What matters most to Rowling isn't order, it's love, and the Weasleys have no shortage of that--whereas the Dursleys have none. "Honestly, Hermione, you think all teachers are saints or something..." and when referring to late notices for library books, Rowling writes: "He [Harry] didn't belong to the library, so he'd never even got rude notes asking for books back." Is it really `rude' to remind a person of a commitment he has made? When presenting the adult human world, Ms. Rowling presents it in such a ridiculously negative light that it becomes completely unrealistic and even offensive. All adults are foolish, bungling, stupid and boringly unimaginative. Why would a child ever look up to them or need them in any way? I think this is really stretching it here. First off, there's nothing at all wrong with McGonagall, Flitwick, Sprout, Hooch, Madam Pomfrey, or presumably Sinistra or Vector. The adults at Hogwarts who do have something or other "wrong" with them (very different things in each case--I'm thinking of Quirrell, Filch, Hagrid, and Snape) are that way for reasons that serve the plot, and for characterization, which are things that good authors take into consideration far and away above moral instruction. No child would believe for a second in a fictional world in which all the adults were kind and wise, because they already know for a fact that that would be absurd. C.S. LEWIS'S AND J.R.R. TOLKIEN'S WORLD VIEW: In contrast, Lewis and Tolkien present a world where truth is absolute and transcends the individual. Does it, in Tolkien's world? Remember, first off, Lewis and Tolkien knew each other, were close friends, and critiqued each other's works in progress. Also remember (BIG ASS SPOILER ALERT) that "LOTR" does NOT really have a completely happy ending. Frodo, the heroic everyman who submits to his destiny nobly, ultimately at the very end FAILS the quest--were it not for the selfish, treacherous, corrupted Gollum acting completely out of greed and *accidentally* doing the right thing, the ending would be grim indeed. Because the world has absolute truth, it is also a world in which order is upheld as an honorable characteristic for which to strive. Good and evil are two distinct things, with the rewards and consequences for the characters' choices reflecting absolute values. And finally, adults can be good or evil, and the good are presented with nobility of character. So the ending of Tolkien's greatest work does not support your thesis. Frodo is indeed a good man at heart, but NO ONE is immune to the corruptions of evil. All along, good and powerful characters like Gandalf, Galadriel, and Aragorn are offered the Ring, and refuse because they know their very goodness is subject to corruption and would not survive the temptation of absolute power. A good thing for adults to remember when they have children in their charges (and not a bad thing for children to be aware of as well)--power corrupts. For that reason, authority figures are to be trusted only insofar as they can resist that corruption. Back to HP, Dumbledore resists it very well (his sense of humor and childlike qualities serve to _diffuse_ the effect of his power, to shrink himself back down to human size, to not place himself on a pedestal above others--Gandalf does something very similar, although he himself is not actually human); Quirrell crumbles; Snape has oscillated; Voldemort embraces the corruption (and the power) eagerly. So readers are provided with a spectrum of possibilities here, and examples of how different people might react. >Second, respect for order is a part of a Judeo-Christian world view. Is it? Consider the general anarchy Christ provoked when he went around causing chaos in the Temple, preaching against the established order, forgiving criminals, and healing people willy-nilly. >Chaos versus order. Which one draws out the best in us? That's open to question. One could easily argue that people show their true colors in chaotic situations (I believe someone pointed that last year, sometime in the fall, we saw numerous examples of people being at their best in chaos. Some no doubt acted their worst as well), and in fact, that heroism is only possible when there is something to strive against and a need for individual wise decisions to be made. Finally, in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, the adults either have integrity and nobleness, or they stoop to deceit and treachery. There is no ambiguity in their integrity or lack thereof. Consider the difference between how Dumbledore, Headmaster of Hogwarts School, and Aslan, ruler of Narnia, present themselves in their first appearance before the children. Rowlings writes, "`Welcome!" he [Dumbledore] said. `Welcome to a new year at Hogwarts! Before we begin our banquet, I would like to say a few words. And here they are: Nitwit! Blubber! Oddment! Tweak!'"... Everybody clapped and cheered. Compare this to Aslan's welcome of the children: "`Welcome, Peter, Son of Adam,' said Aslan. `Welcome, Susan and Lucy, daughters of Eve. Welcome He-Beaver and She-Beaver.' His voice was deep and rich and somehow took the fidgets out of them." There is a vast difference between Dumbledore's foolishness and Aslan's nobility. Ah, but compare Dumbledore's speech at the end of Goblet of Fire....oh wait, you haven't read that. Nonetheless, I still fail to see how having a sense of humor is somehow associated with moral weakness. >Although there are many more avenues that can be explored-- including witchcraft versus mythology-- Rowling's notion of witchcraft is drawn almost entirely from mythology (pop-cultural as well as classical and medieval); she uses many of the exact same historical and mythological sources as Lewis. (Tolkien is a special case, because he truly invented his own--which, incidentally, he did as an outgrowth of his professional study of linguistics. He invented his fictional languages first, and _then_ created the worlds and cultures that would speak them.) >In handing any book to a child, one must know if the child can discern the world views and not be swept into a view that is counter to the truth being instilled in him. Ah, but in my experience, if kids really love books, no one "hands" books to them. They just take 'em! -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From Seiryuu_Avatar at msn.com Thu Jan 17 22:27:04 2002 From: Seiryuu_Avatar at msn.com (Brian Yoon) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 14:27:04 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Is Hogwarts Public or Private? References: Message-ID: <00a401c19fa6$290eae20$7f28fea9@yoonabomber> No: HPFGUIDX 33635 Barbara wrote: > >I find it interesting that there should be this difference of > >opinion between people in Britain (Public school) and people in > >America/Canada etc. (Private school). > > Why do you think this is? > > One thing that would influence me is that you do not have to buy > textbooks in an American public school; you use a book for the > school year but do not keep it. Also, public schools usually don't > have uniforms although they may have dress codes. Perhaps it's just _my_ public school, but the more advanced you get in the course (like Advanced Placement classes), the more likely that you have to buy the book. You have to start buying the textbook from 3rd year foreign language onwards, and a lot of AP classes. And, sadly enough, uniforms. > About the house-elves: I assume they have to be *bought* in the > first place? That would be a considerable expense; they also are fed > and housed (clothed economically in tea-towels, fortunately). Perhaps they refuse to work for anyone that _isn't_ rich? Not neccessarily bought, but they only migrate to those who are rich. --------------- Seiryuu Brian Yoon http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HP_Seiryuu/ --------------- Douglas Adams died 4-12-01. So long, and thanks for all the Books! --------------- Jack: For heaven's sake, don't try to be cynical. It's perfectly easy to be cynical. -Oscar Wilde, The Importance of Being Earnest "Pacey, you fool! Can't you see she doesn't love you?" -- Spike, Buffy the Vampire Slayer Jack: Well, I won't argue about the matter. You always want to argue about things. Algernon: That is exactly what things were made for. Jack: Upon my word, if I thought that, I'd shoot myself... -Oscar Wilde, The Importance of Being Earnest "'Doubt that the stars are fire Doubt that the sun doth move Doubt truth to be a liar. But never doubt I love" - Hamlet, Act 2 Scene 2 --------------- From ChaserChick at hotmail.com Thu Jan 17 22:59:38 2002 From: ChaserChick at hotmail.com (Liz Sager) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 16:59:38 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ron Weasley & His Brothers Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33636 > While rereading Philosopher's Stone, I have stumbled upon >some phrase which I think needs some checking. There has >been a lot of talk in the newsgroup about Ron Weasley being >the seventh son, and about a possible Ron's older brother. >Yet while I was reading SS6 ("Platform 9 3/4") Ron says that >he is *sixth* son in the family. I was listening to my audio tape of PS, and Ron says he is a sixth son. However, this doesn't necessarily mean that there wasn't a child between Charlie and Percy, or even somewhere else. Let's call him Son X. I have used the example that I had an aunt that was still-born, before my dad and uncle were born. But my dad says, "I have one brother," not, "I have one brother and an older sister who was still-born," and my grandmother says that she has two children, rather than three, but one died. And since this is Ron that we're getting this from, its very possible that: a-He's in the scenario I mentioned in the above paragraph b-He knows, but doesn't say anything. c-He doesn't know about Son X (if there is indeed one). I believe that any of these three could be very plausible. In a, its very easy to not remember about someone that you never really knew, and it can be very frustrating. To refer to another source, in the Alice McKinley books by Joan Lowery Nixon, Alice's mother died when she was four and her brother was about 11. Alice is constantly mixing up her mother with her aunt, and it is very frustrating to her that her brother and father can remember her mother, but she cannot. In b, this would be just a matter of wanting to keep something 'swept under the rug' so to speak. If Son X had died a particularly violent death, then it would not be something that the family would speak of, especially 10 or so years after the fact. In c, he might not even know about Son X. This may even be the case with Fred and George, who would have been rather young. If they remembered a particular thing that Son X did, it would have been easy to write it off as something one of their other older brothers did. Off to tap class now, please poke holes gently. Liz _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com From marybear82 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 18 00:06:57 2002 From: marybear82 at yahoo.com (Mary Shearer) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 16:06:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry_Potter?A_Worthwhile_series?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020118000657.82397.qmail@web14006.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33637 --- kimballs6 wrote: >When I give my children a book to read, I also give them a pencil and ask them to mark anything that stands out to them: clues as to the author's world view, the heroes words or actions that inspire them, sentences or paragraphs that are well-written, vocabulary that peaks their interest, etc. My copy of Harry Potter is well marked and even dog-eared, but not because of inspiring passages or quality writing. Rowling's world view is not one to immerse a child in if you are seeking to raise him in a Judeo-Christian ethic. Beyond that, encouraging a child to read poorly written, yet "sensational" literature may produce a child that can read Harry Potter stories, but will not produce a reader. Dear Kevin- I'm de-lurking after a week or so to share a few thoughts about your closing comments. But before I get to that, I would like to point out that though your subject-heading questions the worth of the Harry Potter series, your comments are only directed to the first book. I would strongly encourage you to read on, as PS/SS is just the beginning. And, as there are many wonderful postings that argue your points most eloquently, I will just comment that I agree wholeheartedly with those who support the series' worth. Now - about your closing comments: You offered those of us who are parents the advice to keep this literature from our children if we wish to raise them in a Judeo-Christian ethic. As a fellow parent, a devout Christian and an English teacher, I would like to offer you some advice in return: put down the pencils, pick up the next book in the series, and lose yourselves in this compelling story *before* you seek out its flaws. First allow the story to be told through the simple joy of reading - then go back and deconstruct it if you must. I think you will find that the books *do* contain a moral center - themes of friendhsip, loyalty, self-sacrifice, self-introspection and trust are all present. Yes - the line between good and evil constantly shifts, just as it does in the real world. No - the characters do not always do the right thing, but the denouncement of evil and the upholding of good stand firmly as the books' major themes. These children are not perfect - nor should they be - for if they were, their struggle to determine what is right or wrong would have no value. This is just my opinion, but I don't think that Rowling's work is of poor quality at all. I am thrilled to see students who would rather chew glass than pick up a book, immersed in JKR's 700+ page tome. Believe me - I see plenty of literary crap in kids' hands, and though I'm glad to see them reading anything, they could do far worse than Harry Potter! There are clear themes, a brilliant story arc, and well-defined characters that continue to evolve, all written in language that does not have to be plowed through, and is often very eloquent. Perfect sentence structure is important when writing an essay or a doctoral thesis, but does not always lend itself well to creating a natural flow in narrative or dialogue. Finally - the Potterverse is a world that explores serious issues against a whimsical backdrop. Don't mistake whimsy or emotional drama for "sensationalism." Harry Potter is an entity unto itself - it was never meant to be allegorical, as Lewis's work is. If we can draw parallels - great! But don't try for a direct scriptural cross-reference...you'll be disappointed. I'm sure that by now, you are sick of the negative commentary on your essay - though I'm pretty sure you must have expected it! My own response is in no way meant to be negative - I am merely encouraging you to read on through the series if you truly want to make an accurate assessment of its worth, and keep an open heart and mind. Then, if you still can't stomach Harry, feel free to leave him on the bookshelf. I, on the other hand, will feel free (in spite of your advice) to read another chapter to my family who I am seeking to raise in a humanistic, compassionate, open-minded, and open-hearted Judeo-Christian ethic. Peace - Mary __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jan 18 01:17:13 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 01:17:13 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Harry_Potter=96A_Worthwhile_series=3F=3F?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33638 In HPforGrownups at y..., "kimballs6" wrote: > After reading the first book in the Potter > series, reading The Hobbit, and brushing up on The Lion, the > Witch and the Wardrobe, I see a tremendous gulf between > Rowling and the other two writers. > > Finally, concerning the adult world, or those who would be in > authority, there is only derision. When presenting the adult human > world, Ms. Rowling presents it in such a ridiculously negative > light that it becomes completely unrealistic and even offensive. > All adults are foolish, bungling, stupid and boringly > unimaginative. Why would a child ever look up to them or need > them in any way? I think you might have picked a more comparable Narnia book to brush up on. The Harry Potter series is a romance of the "child exile" genre. The story begins when the child is deprived of his or her (awkward, isn't it?) parents and cast out of h.o.h. rightful place. It ends when the child has been restored to h.o.h. inheritance and rightful place in society. In contrast, The Hobbit begins with Bilbo Baggins enjoying a quiet, settled life in the Shire. Lewis's Pevensey children do live in unsettled times, but they have the care and protection of their parents. In both these stories the protagonists are sent into danger in order to learn something they can not learn while they are safe and protected: that there are more important things than being well-off and comfortable. Harry Potter's story begins in a much different situation and therefore his quest has a different purpose. If you want to compare the treatment of adults in Lewis and Rowling, a better choice might be The Silver Chair, which is also a child exile story. Jill and Eustace begin the book in a miserable situation. They are bullied unmercifully, like Harry at the Dursleys, and the adults around them are no help. In both books, the protagonists escape their initial plight only to find themselves in a still more dangerous world, but one in which they discover they can resist evil, provided they make the right choices. Those choices are not presented as unambiguous absolutes. Aslan warns Jill: "Here on the mountain I have spoken clearly: I will not often do so down in Narnia." Even in Narnia, good and evil aren't always easily distinguished and rules may sometimes need breaking. The kids find Narnia in the charge of Trumpkin the Dwarf, whose major fault is that "You could never make him see that this might be the time for making an exception to the rule." They have to sneak off without his permission in order to fulfill their quest. All the adults whom Jill and Eustace meet on their quest to find the lost Prince Rilian are either wicked, weak-willed or rather ridiculous. The children call their helper Puddleglum a "wet blanket." The Prince himself is helpless to counter the enchantment of the Witch who holds him captive. Not until Prince Rilian is freed from enchantment and the quest nearly won do we see adults in their proper role. In Rowling's first book also, Dumbledore comes to the rescue only after Harry has found his way to the Stone. >Difference in character development between Harry, and > Edmund and Bilbo: > > At the beginning of Harry Potter, Harry hates his family, laughing > at their stupidity and dreaming of revenge - "...the largest snake > in the place. It could have wrapped its body twice around Uncle > Vernon's car and crushed it into a trash can...." Not much growth > in maturity has occurred between the first chapter and the last > paragraph. When the other `witchlings' feel sorry for Harry as he > goes back to his nasty family, Harry smiles and says, "They > don't know we're not allowed to use magic at home. I'm going > to have a lot of fun with Dudley this summer...." At the beginning of The Silver Chair, Jill and Eustace hate their school. "Look here, Pole, you and I hate this place about as much as anybody can hate anything, don't we?" At the end of the story they still hate it, and set out to punish their tormentors. They are under orders to use only the flats of their swords...ah, but the Head and the bullies don't know that, do they? The situations are parallel, as you will discover if you read the second HP book. Character development in a child exile story does not require the hero to redeem himself or return home less dependent on the comforts there. Rather, the character returns with a new power to resist evil, but also with the maturity to use that power for justice, not revenge. Of course, this distinction is quite lost on the villains left behind, who aren't morally capable of discerning it. MoongirlK wrote: >>I don't believe that Christian (I may be wrong about the Judeo portion of it) tradition says that children must obey all adult authority regardless of the situation or consequences. << In Judaism, any of the commandments may be broken in order to save life except the commandments against murder and idol-worship. The Jewish tradition calls for the child to honor the parent and it places an obligation on the parent to make this possible. Anyone who makes it difficult for someone to obey a commandment has sinned, "You shall not place a stumbling block before the blind."Lev.19:14. A child may sometimes have to defy a parent to do God's will, as the legend of Abraham smashing his father's idols shows. Pippin From jbryson at richmond.infi.net Fri Jan 18 01:24:04 2002 From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 01:24:04 -0000 Subject: Wizard Economics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33639 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "judyserenity" wrote:Tex23236 said, in regards to changing Muggle money at Gringotts': > > This means that the Muggle world has something the wizards want to > > buy with the Muggle money, i.e. there is trade with the Muggles; or > > else Gringotts would be choking in "useless" Muggle money... > > Well, wizard money seems to be actual metal -- gold, silver, bronze. > So, presumably, muggle money is used to buy gold and other metals; > that's how it gets exchanged into wizard money. Perhaps the > Gringotts' goblins employ a "normal looking" witch or wizard to buy > gold for them; we know they employ humans such as Bill Weasley. > Right, never thought of that. Wizards sans robes seem to look like normal people, so, it wouldn't be a problem. Probably even a Goblin would "pass," if he were buying gold. Judy also said: > There does seem to be a problem with the exchange rate that JKR has > mentioned in interviews. (I think it was about $7 per galleon.) The > amount of gold per galleon is too small for a useful coin. Gold has > been trading at around $280 an ounce and there are 31 grams in a ounce > of gold (believe it or not), so gold is about $9 a gram currently. > Gold is very dense and a gram of gold is tiny; 7/9th of a gram would > be a teensy coin. Also, things seem awfully cheap in the wizarding > world. Harry's wand cost 10 galleons. $70 for a vital tool like a > wand, with a rare item inside such as a phoenix feather? That's less > than half the cost of a single night in a decent Muggle hotel in > London. However, the exchange rate hasn't been mentioned in the > books, so we can ignore the interviews and assume a higher value per > galleon. IOW, it's not cannon. OTOH, the Grangers exchanged Muggle money for goods and services in the wizard world, so their money doesn't leave the wizard world. Then Gringotts buys more gold with the Muggle money. So, the wizard world is accumulating gold, making it "cheaper" in real purchasing power. That, plus Flamel's production Judy mentions below. Argh, so now we have the wizard world overflowing with precious metals! They need to buy something else from the Muggles. My guess is that they buy some foodstuffs and other items from Muggle markets--probably not produce, with the engorgement charm Hagrid (illegally) uses on his pumpkins; but dry goods and, possibly, meat. 10 Galleons might be the "standard" price for a wand, from whatever it was made. We also read that Fawkes "gave" the feather, so maybe the cost of the core doesn't enter into the cost of producing a wand. > > Tex23236 also said: > > ...Hogwarts definitely has quite a large bank account somewhere. > > Probably a large endowment. > > Someone pointed out earlier on this list that Nicholas Flamel had > unlimited access to gold, due to his Philospher's Stone. Given his > friendship with Dumbledore, he could have provided Hogwarts with a > very large endowment. And, given that Flamel had the Stone for > centuries, he could have endowed Hogwarts a long time ago. It > wouldn't have really cost him anything, after all. > > -- Judy Gold and more Gold! A Kruegerand might well be worth US$7 in the wizard world. OTOH, might it be possible that precious metals are consumed in the use of magic? Tex From meepmeepziptang at hotmail.com Fri Jan 18 02:40:52 2002 From: meepmeepziptang at hotmail.com (sayse22) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 02:40:52 -0000 Subject: Harry's Wand Hand In-Reply-To: <1568832710.20020117171423@tut.by> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33640 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Alexander wrote: > Greetings! > > > Christi wrote to us in her wisdom: > > c> I got the impression from the scene when Harry gets his wand > c> (SS/PS) that he holds his wand in his right hand, but the > c> illustration for PoA12 shows him holding his wand in his left hand. > c> Did the illustrator make a mistake? Could the illustration have > c> gotten flipped when the book was layed out? Or did I just > c> misunderstand which hand Harry holds his wand in? Ah, the things you > c> notice when you are trying to do anything other than clean the > c> house... > > c> Christi > > But my version is that it's not important at all - you can > hold your wand by your right or left arm with no troubles. I disagree. I am not really left-handed or right-handed. I bat with my left, but throw with my right, etc. When I learn a new activity I basically have to somehow discern if I should do it left or right handed, and usually one way seems a lot more natural than the other. I feel, for whatever reason, that I would definetly hold a wand in my right hand. Not that I have or need a wand, sadly. Yet I feel really sure that handedness would matter. Think of it like this, can you write with your left or right hand at will? No, most people have to choose on or the other, and I think the same would stand for wands. > > Did anyone consider an alternative punishment for wizard > criminals? I mean, why bother with Dementors and Azkaban, > when you can simply cut bad dude's arms off and break his > wand (just in case)? Despite the cruelty, I think this to be > a much more humanistic approach to punishment than to let > the guy go insane and die in 1-2 years... > Of course, this still doesn't guarantee the punishment if > one can hold a wand by his foot fingers, or in the mouth... Well, wizards don't necessarily need wands to commit crimes, so taking away their wands wouldn't quite do the job. I mean they could still do damage in the same ways that nonmagical people do. Sandi (right-handed wand holder) From lotusmoondragon at aol.com Fri Jan 18 02:42:02 2002 From: lotusmoondragon at aol.com (lotusmoondragon at aol.com) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 21:42:02 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] re: Harry Potter a worthwhile series Message-ID: <16a.7528afa.2978e57a@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33641 In a message dated 1/17/2002 2:00:44 PM Eastern Standard Time, gte510i at prism.gatech.edu writes: > This site isn't just a fan list. Oh? I have seen very little on this list that would support this. As a matter of fact, Kimball's post is the only one I recall that wasn't in support of HP. (But that doesn't really mean anything, as I often get behind, and have to just start deleting e-mails.) The reason I didn't post a longer response is that what I would have said has already been said by others (morality isn't black and white, grammar evolves, Fred and George were just kidding, Harry didn't want to use the Stone, etc.) I didn't think the mods would appreciate me basically restating what others had said, so I posted the only thoughts I had on the subject that weren't already duplicated. Debating the literary merit of the HP series is great, but from the tone of Kimball's e-mail, I didn't come to the conclusion that he is a fan. As a matter of fact, I got the sneaking suspicion that he came on here merely to show us how "dumb" we are for liking HP so much. Lotus lotusmoondragon at aol.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From djdwjt at aol.com Fri Jan 18 02:52:41 2002 From: djdwjt at aol.com (elfundeb) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 02:52:41 -0000 Subject: Is Ron a Seer? In-Reply-To: <6386597790.20020116202543@mindspring.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33642 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Dave Hardenbrook wrote: > > Wednesday, January 16, 2002, 4:12:25 AM, torimarie_1216 wrote: > > t> Well, they don't start taking Divination lessons until the third > t> year, so there wouldn't be any formal predictions. But there may be > t> some things he says in normal conversation that come true. I'll be > t> on the lookout for them! :-) > > Well, the one that always stands out for me is when in _CoS_ they're > wondering what Tom Riddle got the "Award for Special Services" for, > and Ron says, "Maybe he killed Myrtle, that would have done everyone a > favor." And bingo! -- It turned out Riddle *DID* kill Myrtle (via the > basilisk)!! > > Dave -- Though they are not necessarily related to the future, and so maybe don't qualify as "predictions" here are two more from CoS: When Harry and Ron find Riddle's diary in Moaning Myrtle's bathroom, Ron tries to stop Harry from picking it up because "it might be dangerous." He's right; it's very dangerous. (But when nothing happens, he backs off, and starts commenting on how it's useless.) Also, I believe Ron was the first to suggest that Lockhart had not performed the exploits chronicled in his books. (CoS, Ch. 6, last line) I'm sure there are better examples than this, and I'll be looking for them too. Debbie (who believes that Ron has hidden talents and could do great things if he would only take himself seriously) From mlacats at aol.com Fri Jan 18 03:58:47 2002 From: mlacats at aol.com (mlacats at aol.com) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 22:58:47 EST Subject: Harry: Great or Lucky? Message-ID: <161.750f429.2978f777@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33643 In a message dated 12/29/2001 7:16:29 AM Pacific Standard Time, mandm at discover-net.net writes: > "In The GoF, we learn that when V killed Harry's parents, Harry > survived the attack due to his mother's loving sacrifice. V explains > that in 'His mother died in the attempt to save him - and unwittingly > provided him with a protection I had not forseen...I could not touch > the boy (p652). As a result of surviving that attack, Harry is labeled > a great wizard, but has Harry truly earned that title? To what extent > would you say that Harry is not so much 'great' as lucky? In all that > Harry does, how much is he acting of his own free will, and how much > is he simply living out what from birth has been his destiny?" > I'm going to respond a little now and will think on this and add more at a later time....Well, here goes..........I've always thought that Harry got away because his wand matched that of V's.......there is luck but there is also bravery (Harry was prepared to die.......he was "not going to die crouched like a child........." behind the headstone of V's father - Harry stood up and faced V......Harry was also stronger that V already because he (Harry) was able to force the balls of light back into V's wand, something he would not have been able to do had he not been a powerful wizard already (he just doesn't know it yet!)..........Also, Harry was able to escape V (however he did it) when fully grown wizards had not been able to do so at the height of their power!......Also, Harry is cool under pressure...he conjured the Triwizard cup - remembering that it was a portkey (how many of us would have been under a blind panic and not remembered that, at least not in time to get away from V!).......And let us remember the goodness of Harry.....he did "what was right instead of what was easy" when he grabbed Cedric's arm, putting himself in mortal danger at the same time.........I think that's the mark of a great wizard in anybody's book!..........More food for thought..........? Harriet (A hopeless HP fan!) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Ryjedi at aol.com Fri Jan 18 03:18:02 2002 From: Ryjedi at aol.com (rycar007) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 03:18:02 -0000 Subject: Is Ron a Seer? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33644 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "torimarie_1216" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "david_p2002ca" wrote: > > I've lent out ms PS/SS and CoS - can someone else take a look for > > more of Ron's predictions? Perhaps he has The Sight - though I'm > > sure he'd deny it. > > Well, they don't start taking Divination lessons until the third > year, so there wouldn't be any formal predictions. But there may be > some things he says in normal conversation that come true. I'll be > on the lookout for them! :-) > He tells Malfoy to "eat slugs" during one mealtime, and later a confrontation with Malfoy (and Ron's wonky wand) lead to Ron belching up slugs for a chapter or two. -Rycar From ChaserChick at hotmail.com Fri Jan 18 02:55:15 2002 From: ChaserChick at hotmail.com (Liz Sager) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 20:55:15 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Voldemort's Motivations (was Harry's Connection w/V) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33645 Judy wrote: >I agree that some of Voldemort's motivations seem contradictory. If >he wants world domination, why make enemies of muggle-born wizards and >witches, some of whom (like Hermione) are obviously very powerful? Of >course, contradictory motivations have in fact been a feature of many >power-mad tyrants in the past. For example, in WWII, Hitler opened a >second front with the Soviets for no discernable reason. It seems to me that Voldy is prejudiced against anything related to muggles. Hence Hermione, no matter how powerful she may be (this isn't limited to Hermione, goes for other muggle-borns), she is still the enemy. >I think Voldemort's quest for immortality can be interpreted one of >two ways. It can be seen as a plausible desire for someone who is >power-hungry; power over death is in some ways the ultimate power. >Or, it can be seen just as a plot device, which allows Harry to >destroy Voldemort's power for a time, without permanently killing him. Or both. :) [There was a part in the original post about Voldemort getting Harry's blood when he could have had almost any other wizard. (Sorry I can't cite it! :( )] I think we can pretty well say that Voldemort wants Harry dead. If the little incident with that scar isn't enough proof, we have kidnapping him to a graveyard for use of his blood and then planning to kill him afterward. I think it has something to do with Harry's bloodline (Heir of Gryffindor, anybody? But that's a totally different subject matter). If Harry were the heir to Gryffindor, he would obviously be standing in the way of Voldemort's rise to power (this would also give us the reason for him slaying James). And for reasons cited by Dumbledore in the last chapter of PS/SS, Harry was protected him from Voldemort's touch. This can be seen in chapter 17 of PS/SS, Quirrell couldn't even touch Harry with Voldemort in his body without causing pain to himself. When Voldemort has Harry's blood, Harry no longer has that kind of protection. Er...going to bed, flame gently, tis rather cold here in Iowa. Liz _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. From Ryjedi at aol.com Fri Jan 18 02:05:41 2002 From: Ryjedi at aol.com (rycar007) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 02:05:41 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Harry_Potter=96A_Worthwhile_series=3F=3F?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33646 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "kimballs6" wrote: >Sometimes breaking rules is honorable, > sometimes it must be punished. Sometimes a lie is bad, > sometimes it is good. and > First, breaking rules is glorified: "Hermione had become a bit > more relaxed about breaking rules since Harry and Ron had > saved her from the mountain troll, and she was much nicer for > it." But when Malfoy or other "Slytherins" break rules, they are > punished--to the cheers of Harry and his gang. and > Second, Rowling leaves the option of lying up to the individual, > and even glorifies it. If Harry needs to lie, he simply > will: "When > facing a magic mirror, Harry thinks desperately, `I must lie,..I > must look and lie about what I see, that's all.'" And yes, he is > rewarded with the Sorcerer's Stone. Yet later, when he asks > Headmaster Dumbledore questions, Dumbledore says, "...I > shall answer your questions unless I have a very good reason > not to, in which case I beg you'll forgive me. I shall not, or > course, lie." I happen to disagree with almost all of this paper (except the praise of Lewis and Tolkien's storytelling abilities, with which I heartily agree) First, the paper completely ignores the motivation behind any of Harry or Dumbledore's actions. The author considers the act of lying to be wrong without considering the circumstances, much like those who consider magic to be wrong, thus plainly inserting his/her own beliefs into a paper that begins by sounding objective. Let's look at the circumstances the author mentioned, rule breaking for starters. Harry, Ron, and Hermione (HRH) break rules generally for altruistic reasons: ie, returning Norbert to the wild, preventing a theft - a sensitive person would most likely also forgive Harry's desire to see his murdered parents for the first time in his life. The Slytherins' motivations, however, are fueled primarily by dislike. Malfoy breaks the rules in order to get Hagrid fired and HRH expelled, simply because he dislikes them both. When Harry says to himself, "I must lie,..I must look and lie about what I see," consider the motivation for this too. He's speaking to Lord Voldemort, the most evil wizard the world has known in ages, who teeters on the brink of immortality - Harry is the only one who can prevent this. Does the author seriously expect Harry to tell Voldemort that he now possesses the stone, just so he won't commit the "sin" of lying? To do so would doom the wizarding world! When Dumbledore, however, has no reason to lie to Harry; no good would come of it, and it would adversely affect a good person. There must be a distinction between lying to Voldemort and lying to Harry; one cannot expect to conclude that the "lie" is itself a bad thing, but the motivation behind it determines is goodness. > Finally, concerning the adult world, or those who would be in > authority, there is only derision. and > All the teachers at Hogwarts are either > dirty, deranged, deceitful, or all three. and >When presenting the adult human > world, Ms. Rowling presents it in such a ridiculously negative > light that it becomes completely unrealistic and even offensive. > All adults are foolish, bungling, stupid and boringly > unimaginative. Why would a child ever look up to them or need > them in any way? While this may be a failing of only having read the first book, and also with the plain intent of criticism, it seems the author has ignored several points. Let's look at some examples of the good teachers at Hogwarts, and the good wizarding people all around: Molly Weasley, Albus Dumbledore, Professor McGonagall, Hagrid, Madame Hooch, Madame Pomfrey, and perhaps more, but since the author seems to base his/her assumptions purely on the first book, I wouldn't want to ruin any surpises. Now let's look at the bad adults in the book: Voldemort, Snape, Quirrel, Madame Pince, The Dursleys...and, oh, look at that, that's all. The author seems to believe that position and age are the basis for respect, that one should not care what the person is if he is in a position of power. Does the author want Harry to pay blind devotion to an order that is "dirty, deranged, deceitful, or all three?" The Dursleys do not deserve respect from Harry just because they are older than him. > Second, respect for order is a part of a Judeo-Christian world > > view. This and many other parts of the essay plainly show that to the author is speaking within the context of the Judeo-Christian worldview and would define what is good literature by this. (Not that I in any way would say anything bad about Lewis or Tolkien, on the contrary, Narnia was the driving factor behind my becoming a writer, although I admit it did leave a bad taste in my mouth, still not quite driven out, when I realized the allegory) > Chaos versus order. Which one draws out the best in us? Hmm, that last one is quite arguable. Millions of people followed Hitler because he was higher up on the scale, and look what happened? Order is important of course, but never when it props up an unjust system just because it's orderly. > Not much growth in maturity has occurred between the first chapter >and the last > paragraph. When the other `witchlings' feel sorry for Harry as he > goes back to his nasty family, Harry smiles and says, "They > don't know we're not allowed to use magic at home. I'm going > to have a lot of fun with Dudley this summer...." In this way, I suppose the author means that since Harry has not accepted child-abuse as the right of his aunt and uncle because of their position and age that he has not grown. If anything, I believe the fact that he has grown more defiant of an unjust patriarch means that he has become stronger. > > Although there are many more avenues that can be explored-- > including witchcraft versus mythology--the preceding points are > enough to show that yes, there is quite a world view gulf > between Rowling and Lewis/Tolkien. In handing any book to a > child, one must know if the child can discern the world views and > not be swept into a view that is counter to the truth being > instilled > in him. Is the truth instilled or trancendental? --I won't remark upon the grammer, I happen to feel that, that speaking as a writer, grammer comes second - after the expression of the story.-- > Rowling's world view is > not one to immerse a child in if you are seeking to raise him in a > Judeo-Christian ethic. Which is exactly why, when I have a child, I will give it Harry Potter. I would want my child to embrace freedom, to take stand against things that are wrong, not caring whether that injustice is done by an adult or a child or a god, to realize that an action is not wrong, it is the circumstances that determine it - and to realize that this does not make good and evil relative either. -Rycar, who edited this from a much angrier version :) From gte510i at prism.gatech.edu Fri Jan 18 01:44:19 2002 From: gte510i at prism.gatech.edu (gte510i) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 01:44:19 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter : a worthwhile series. (long) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33647 In a previous post I said that I would work on my response to Kevin Kimball over the weekend. However, I couldn't stop thinking about it. So-physics homework and microbiology studying be damned! Here's my attempt at refuting Kimball. I think he raised excellent points. Others have addressed some of them. Here's my `stab' at it. BTW, I think Kimberly did a wonderful job in her response. In this response to Kimball's posting there are two points that I really want to get across. I want to show that while they are not perfect, Rowling's work in many ways presents a more accurate Christian worldview than C.S. Lewis' or Tolkien's work. I also want to get across that the Harry Potter series is a `multi-volume bildungsroman' its not fair to criticize Harry's development when you are only a couple hundred pages into his story. Humanity isn't easy. Distinction between good and evil isn't always evil either. From the viewpoint of an omniscient and absolute holy being such as God, the division is obvious. But when you are down in the muck and mire of human schemes and desires it's hard. People sometimes think that what they are doing is good and that they have God's approval for them. A prime example of this is the Pharisees. They believed Jesus to be a troublemaker and a rabble-rouser. They had him executed. Clearly executing the Son of God was evil, but these were upstanding members of the Church, evil from them? The distinction blurs again when people who would later become Christians realize: God intended for it to have happened. And a much greater good came of it. This of course leaves some Christians to ponder `how evil was Jesus' execution if it lead to something so wonderful came of it?' Another example of upstanding adults who think they are acting for the good but aren't: Saul. He held the cloaks for those who were stoning Stephen, the first martyr for Christ. It took divine intervention to show him that he was in fact, wrong. I bring up these examples from the Bible to show that 1) Goodness and Morality can only be absolute when one knows the whole picture. There is only one who knows the whole picture: God. In Harry Potter, children are confronted with a battle between good and evil. It isn't always apparent to them what's going on. All through the Sorcerer's Stone the trio believes Professor Snape to be working for Voldemort, yet surprise! He was working undercover to protect Harry and the Stone. My point here is that in the Harry Potter the distinction between good and evil is vague because in real life it often is. You say that when you are trying to raise your children with a Christian worldview Harry Potter should be avoided because of its lack of distinction between good and evil. You praise Narnia because "good and evil are distinct things, with the rewards and consequences for the characters' choices reflecting absolute values? the adults either have integrity and nobleness, or the stoop to deceit and treachery. There is no ambiguity in their integrity or lack thereof". Not to insult Lewis, I think that most of his works are wonderful (especially Screwtape letters), but I think you are doing your children a disservice by showing them only works that show good as distinct from evil. As I have shown above real life is fraught with ambiguity. Your children may get the impression that evil adults are obvious because they are `treacherous' and the good people are equally as obvious. This could be dangerous. They may also have the idea that bad things only happen to bad people and vice versa, leaving them very confused when they see someone their age dies or cheaters get praised in school. This is one of the reasons Harry Potter is wonderful. Despite its whimsy (which I dearly love) it is more realistic that the absolute world of Middle-Earth or Narnia. This is perhaps why the Harry Potter series is considered too `dark' for children, whereas LotR is not, despite much, much more bloodshed. Harry Potter, in all its whimsical, wonderful glory pulls back the curtain and exposes to children that the real world isn't fair. People die for no more reason than that they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Characters in these books deal with real concepts of grief and moving on. As Dumbledore so wisely instructs his students in the memorial/ leaving feast in Goblet of Fire: Cedric was a person who exemplified many of the qualities that distinguish Hufflepuff house?He was a good and loyal friend, a hard worker, he valued fair play. His death has affected you all, whether you knew him or not. I think that you have the right to know how it came about?Cedric Diggory was murdered by Lord Voldemort. ?The ministry of magic?does not wish me to tell you this. It is possible that some of your parents will be horrified that I have done so? either because they will not believe that Lord Voldemort has returned, or because they will think I should not tell you so, young as you are. It is my belief, however, that the truth is generally preferable to lies, and that any attempt to pretend that Cedric died as the result of an accident, or some sort of blunder of his own, is an insult to his memory?In the light of Lord Voldemort's return, we are only as strong as we are united, as weak as we are divided. Lord Voldemort's gift for spreading discord and enmity is very great. We can fight it only by showing an equally strong bond of friendship and trust?Remember Cedric. Remember, if the time should ever come when you have to make a choice between what is right and what is easy, remember what happened to a boy who was good, and kind and brave, because he strayed in the path of Lord Voldemort. Remember Cedric Diggory This is the most powerful seen in the whole series to date. Dumbledore, (you don't think him so foolish now do you?) has issued out his challenge to the student body and visitors: just because you are young doesn't mean you will be spared hardship. Being good isn't easy or obvious. But if you should have to make a choice between what is right and what is easy remember the evil that happens when too many people choose the easy route. In Lord of the Rings, with few exceptions those that were evil are so because they were created that way. That makes it so easy and safe. That person is an Orc, they are evil. It's comforting to think that those who are evil are so because they were preordained to be so. Makes your choice obvious doesn't it: `should I side with `ugly orc' or the fair Galadrieal?' Yet in Harry Potter, from the beginning readers and characters are faced with hard choices. The right route isn't so obvious. In the second book, when Harry is taunted that he is like the boy who eventually became Lord Voldemort Dumbledore tells him: (I paraphrase) You have certain traits that Voldemort prized in his followers: brains, courage, drive and a certain disreaguard for rules. You were not put in Slytherin for a important reason. Do you know what that is? Harry replies `because I asked not to placed in Slytherin?' `Precisely. It's our choices that determine what we become." I think telling children that they must actively choose good presents a more accurate Christian worldview than middle-earth where the bad guys (with a few exceptions) were born evil. The Minister of Magic, Cornelius Fudge does evil by his choice to do nothing. He doesn't mean to do evil. He thinks he is doing the right thing. That is a hard lesson for children: you cannot hope to remain good if you merely passively refrain from sin. You must actively fight for the good. You criticize Harry for not having undergone much growth and maturing going on during basically his 6th grade year. You're right he hasn't. But look at most 7th graders; other than size differences can you notice that much difference between them and 6th graders? Right. It's hard to tell. What about eighth graders and 6th graders? 9th graders (Harry at the end of the most recent book) and 6th graders, you get my point. It's hard to tell maturation over the span of one year because it's slight. But judging over the span of two or three years you start to see a difference. Bilbo had reached `maturity' long before Gandalf had come looking for a burgler. The change in him was due to his adventure and suffering. I think Harry is maturing faster than a lot of his classmates (which is more apparent in book 4) because he has been exposed to the hardships of the grownup world more so than his sheltered classmates. But he is still on the early side of adolescence. That is what makes Rowling an unbelievable writer. In each book, Harry's view of the world gets a little wider. Other characters take on more depth. Harry's understanding of his past is a little clearer. Rowling writes about all the awkwardness of adolescence in first person. That is extraordinarily hard to do. In third person, its okay to laugh at 14 year olds attempts at flirtation. Yet from first person you feel the blushes and tongue tying. Harry doesn't realize what he sees is typical adolescent awkwardness. To write that takes subtlety and knowledge of the age group. Contrast that to Tolkein, where the characters don't change much. They adjust to hardship, but Gollum was Gollum throughout. Prof. Snape, on the other hand, starts out as a cartoonish character. Yet as Harry matures, his understanding of him deepens. Suddenly, Snape isn't this evil teacher out to get him, but someone who once chose poorly. Yet despite this poor decision, Snape repented before it was too late and became trusted. Yet we also learn that Snape still hasn't faced the ultimate consequences of siding with LV originally, and will do so soon. Another interesting lesson for children: just because you say you're sorry, there are still consequences for our actions. I don't think you can say that Tolkien or Lewis created superior works. They have surpassed Rowling in some areas. But in others, Rowling leaves them far behind. Tolkein takes the cake for the meticulous-ness and consistency of his world. (By consistency I am referring to Rowling's occasional lapse in following her own rules she set up for the world). Yet Rowling's characters are more realistic than Peter, Edmund, Susan and Lucy. Harry is much more believable because he is more human. Unlike Lucy, he is subject to jealousy, resentment, pettiness as well as good traits. I noticed that as of this writing, you (Kevin) haven't responded to any of his essay's response. I probably haven't convinced you that the Harry Potter books are wonderful. But I hope that I have convinced you that in order to criticize them and be airtight in that criticism, you need to know the whole story. Maybe you will think that the other 6 books should be read. Maybe after reading the others, you might decide that these books are so bad for your children to read after all. I hope that you didn't post that message just to anger fans. I would really like to hear your opinion on our responses. catherine From zoehooch at yahoo.com Fri Jan 18 00:31:38 2002 From: zoehooch at yahoo.com (zoehooch) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 00:31:38 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Harry_Potter=96A_Worthwhile_series=3F=3F?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33648 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "moongirlk" wrote: > You are, of course, entitled and more than welcome to your opinion, > but I couldn't disagree with you more, on all of these last points. > Especially that Harry Potter "will not produce a reader." I > introduced my cousin's two sons to Harry Potter, and they have become > voracious readers. They have since read the "Chronicles of Narnia" > series, as one example, and quite enjoyed it as well, although one > commented that it wasn't nearly as realistic. I couldn't agree with you more. At my office, there are many parents with children ages 6-13 or so. Almost all of them have related, in conversation, that their children have grown to love books and reading since they first started reading the Harry Potter books. In one case, which I find remarkable, the 12-year daughter of a co- worker, both avid Harry Potter fans, is teaching herself French and Dutch (the languages of her great-grandparents), by reading translations of the Harry Potter books in those languages. Zoe Hooch From sweetusagi76 at yahoo.ca Fri Jan 18 00:27:57 2002 From: sweetusagi76 at yahoo.ca (sweetusagi76) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 00:27:57 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Harry_Potter=96A_Worthwhile_series=3F=3F?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33649 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "moongirlk" wrote: > Hello Mr. Kimball, > > I noticed that so far nobody has addressed certain aspects of your > post, and I thought I'd give it a shot, as a Christian first and a > Harry Potter fan second, I wanted to speak to some issues. I just wanted to commend Kimberly and many of the other people on this list who have responded to Mr. Kimball's post. Although I do not agree with Mr. Kimball's views (I lean heavily toward the opinions of Kimberly et. al.), I respect Mr. Kimball's right to his own opinion and do hope that he posted it in the spirit of this group and not merely to cause a sensation. And though I'm not going to go through and give my opinion on all of Mr. Kimball's views, there is one thing I do want to comment on, and that is this: In handing any book to a child, one must know if the child can > >discern the world views and not be swept into a view that is counter > > to the truth being instilled in him. A child discerning the world views? Now, don't get me wrong, I think children are inherently intelligent in a way that only children can be. They feel and see things in a way that adults will never fully understand, having lost that ability with adolescence. However, children's "world" is only what they know. They know nothing of Judeo-Christian ethics and what is refered to as "the world view". The world to them is their backyard, their bedroom, their schoolroom, etc. I was an avid reader as a child and do not ever remember seeking out "the world view" in any book I read...and I read everything. I did not see Lewis's Narnia to be particularily moral, it was just a story. I did not see Tolkien's "The Hobbit" to be high literature, it was just a story. And Harry Potter is not meant to be a moral statement, perse, but just a story. If the "truth" (which is a VERY subjective thing) has been properly taught to the child, they will not sway from that. And if they have questions, you can almost be assured that they will ask you about it. I have not presented my view on this as well as I had hoped, as it is something I find hard to put into words, but I do hope people understand where I'm coming from. Angela From bassace77 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 18 04:29:08 2002 From: bassace77 at yahoo.com (bassace77) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 04:29:08 -0000 Subject: Is Ron a Seer? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33650 > > some things he says in normal conversation that come true. I'll > > be on the lookout for them! :-) > He tells Malfoy to "eat slugs" during one mealtime, and later a > confrontation with Malfoy (and Ron's wonky wand) lead to Ron > belching up slugs for a chapter or two. > -Rycar Mmm, I think that is a bit of a stretch... after all, he himself cast that spell, didn't he? I think that it would be more likely that he had been thinking of cursing Malfoy that way should they ever get into it. From hermione_ew at yahoo.com Thu Jan 17 22:34:03 2002 From: hermione_ew at yahoo.com (hermione_ew) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 22:34:03 -0000 Subject: Ron Weasley & His Brothers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33651 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "blenberry" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Alexander wrote: > > > > ...while I was reading SS6 ("Platform 9 3/4") Ron says that > > he is *sixth* son in the family. > > I'm reading a translation, so just want to be sure - can > > anyone check that up? > > > Also, "Martin Smith" wrote: > > >A while back I picked up the > >Ron-might-be-the-seventh-son-and-therefore-a-seer-thread by pointing > >out the > >possibility that a hitherto unknown older Weasleybrother was picked > >by an > >evil wizard in his youth and trained by him, not attending Hogwarts > >and thus > >turning to the Dark side. That would make him a son non grata in the > >Weasley > >household and also explain why Ron can say "I'm the sixth brother to > >go to > >Hogwarts in my family" without lying. > > > To be nitpicky, Ron doesn't just say "I'm the sixth in our family to > go to Hogwarts" but that he has five *wizard* brothers. (Harry: "Wish > I'd had three wizard brothers." "Five," said Ron.) Ron states that he is the sixth "person" from his family to attend: 1: Bill, 2: Charlie, 3: Percy 4&5: Fred and George, 6:Ron. > Perhaps he had an evil squib brother, who was disowned? > > > Barbara I think that the "evil suib brother" is absurd for two reasons: 1) Ron IS the sixth Weasly child to attend hogwarts, and 2) Judging by the fact that all of the Weaslys accept harry right away, they don't seem the type to turn away a family member who is a squib. Also, If some unknown member of the Weasly family was a squib, it is unlikeley that Ron would have been laughing if he had a squib for a brother, even if he was disowned. To play devil's advocate against myself: However, Ron mentions a second cousin of his mothers who is an accountant, and the fact that they never talk about him. even though, this may just be because he is a distant relative, not having to do with Muggle-Wizard relations. Hannah From gte510i at prism.gatech.edu Fri Jan 18 04:03:50 2002 From: gte510i at prism.gatech.edu (gte510i) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 04:03:50 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter a worthwhile series In-Reply-To: <16a.7528afa.2978e57a@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33652 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., lotusmoondragon at a... wrote: > In a message dated 1/17/2002 2:00:44 PM Eastern Standard Time, > gte510i at p... writes: > > > > This site isn't just a fan list. > > Oh? I have seen very little on this list that would support this. As a matter > of fact, Kimball's post is the only one I recall that wasn't in support of > HP. (But that doesn't really mean anything, as I often get behind, and have > to just start deleting e-mails.) This is a quote from the homepage of hpforgrownups. "This group is dedicated to in-depth, thought-provoking and fun discussions among adults of the Harry Potter books." Reguardless of whether or not kimball likes the books or not. you cannot argue that his discussion wasn't thought-provoking. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but even if it provokes anger having someone say something different 1) keeps this from being an adult groupie site and 2)I think his well-thought essay deserved a well thought response. catherine ] From ambiradams at hotmail.com Thu Jan 17 23:55:12 2002 From: ambiradams at hotmail.com (Ambir Adams) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 15:55:12 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Is Hogwarts Public or Private? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33653 > > One thing that would influence me is that you do not have to buy > > textbooks in an American public school; you use a book for the > > school year but do not keep it. Also, public schools usually don't > > have uniforms although they may have dress codes. I live in the US and we have to buy our text books also, but if they are in good condition at the end of the year we get our money back. And alot of public schools wear uniforms, it's to keep the sanity of the students down to a dull minimum :) People can get pretty crazy at seeing what someoen else has that they want. I kind of agree with Brian about the house elves, maybe they do only work of the wealthy, in fact Mrs. Weasley has always wanted a house elf, but she could never afford one. I don't understand why Ron got so mad at Hermions about S.P.E.W he said something like you've never had house elves or something along those lines. But she kinda knows what it is like not to have house elves since she lives in a muggle household and does chores and stuff just like he does I'm sure. Ryoko-- _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. From katilian at earthlink.net Fri Jan 18 04:09:13 2002 From: katilian at earthlink.net (katilian) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 04:09:13 -0000 Subject: Harry PotterA Worthwhile series?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33654 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "kimballs6" wrote: > Much debate is swirling around the Harry Potter books versus > C.S. Lewis's and Tolkien's stories. Many argue that these > books are all similar--just fantasy, pure and simple. I disagree. > They are fantasies (Lewis going into allegory), but that is where > the similarity ends. I don't think you can ignore, either, the differences in subgenre. While they are all fantasy, the Narnia books are, as you say, allegory, and LotR is epic fantasy. While there are differences in those subgenres, they do have in common a tendency to paint a somewhat black and white picture of the universe in which the story is set. They also tend to have 'flatter' characters (in the literary sense of not having as many fully developed character traits as a real person would). Harry Potter is more of a children's fantasy set in modern times. Like most modern tales (whether for children or adults) the lines between right and wrong are blurred, much like they are in the real world. Also, because it is a children's tale, the focus is necessarily on the children, who live a life where adults are often only of peripheral concern (which, IMO, reflects the thought processes of real children in their preteen and teenage years). Comparing the three books effectively would require, IMO, not only a consideration of the traditions of the different subgenres, but also the time period in which the stories were written and the backgrounds of the authors. Both Lewis and Tolkien were writing in the '40's and 50's, while Rowling is writing in the '90's/00's. Differences in world view are to be expected, given the generational gap and the changes in the world itself over that approximately fifty year span. If those differences aren't considered, then I don't believe that the books can fully be understood in comparison to one another. > MS. ROWLING'S WORLD VIEW: > Rowling presents an arbitrary world in which good and evil are > simply two sides of the same sorcery--the "Dark Side" and the > other side, although no name is ever given for it. I personally don't see this in the series. Admittedly, at times one doesn't know what side a character is on, but using suspense as a writing technique is not something I can see faulting an author for. There is a very distinct 'good' side (represented by Dumbledore, McGonagall, etc. as adults and by Harry, Ron, Hermione, etc. as children) and a distinct 'bad/evil' side (represented by Voldemort, Quirrell, Draco, etc.). > Harry and his > friends must choose which side they're on, but of course the line > between the two is always moving. Determining where the line > is between good and evil becomes an individual choice, leaving > the reader wondering why something is okay for this person and > not the other. Sometimes breaking rules is honorable, > sometimes it must be punished. Sometimes a lie is bad, > sometimes it is good. Oddly, this sounds like my life :-). More seriously, this is simply a reflection of how the real world works. Speeding through a stop light is wrong, except when you have a person bleeding to death in your passenger seat. Lying is wrong, but what if you're lying to the irate and abusive husband of your best friend so that he doesn't find out she's hiding in your bedroom? The real world contains a lot of relativity, as does Harry's world. Anyone who tries to write about a realistic or semi-real world must take that into consideration. (And I would argue that allegories and epic fantasies are not, by definition, attempts at writing a semi-real world, although they might be realistic in and of themselves.) > And finally, adult authority is attacked > harshly, leaving ultimate authority in the hands of the kid who > can grab the most power. While I'm not sure this statement holds up in the books, I do think that a look at any children's adventure literature will show that most of the children are 'in control' far more than they are--or than adults like to think they are--in the real world. It's a convention of the genre. > > First, breaking rules is glorified: Someone else pointed out that the rules Harry and co. usually broke were broken in an attempt to help others, and therefore weren't punished (or not severely). That, to me, is the key point. It's not arbitrary at all, but rather fair, in an admittedly simplistic way. If your intentions are good, you're rewarded; if your intentions are bad, you're punished. > > Second, Rowling leaves the option of lying up to the individual, > and even glorifies it. If Harry needs to lie, he simply will: "When > facing a magic mirror, Harry thinks desperately, `I must lie,..I > must look and lie about what I see, that's all.'" And yes, he is > rewarded with the Sorcerer's Stone. Context is everything, isn't it? IIRC, Harry was trying to avoid getting the Stone, and the lying was an attempt to save the world. I find it hard to fault him for his actions. > Yet later, when he asks > Headmaster Dumbledore questions, Dumbledore says, "...I > shall answer your questions unless I have a very good reason > not to, in which case I beg you'll forgive me. I shall not, or > course, lie." My immediate response was, why not? It works for > Harry. Perhaps because any lie would be made for a wrong purpose? > Maybe Ms. Rowling meant this as a teaching point, but it > doesn't go anywhere. Or maybe it's just a characterization point. Dumbledore won't lie about something so important to Harry because there's no good reason to. If lying to him would, for example, save his life, perhaps Dumbledore would have lied to him, but since there was no purpose to it, Dumbledore didn't. I see the passage as very revealing about Dumbledore's character. > Does Dumbledore never lie, or maybe > he'll just never lie to Harry, or maybe he just won't lie to Harry at > this time, or maybe this is itself a lie.... Rowling sometimes > glorifies lying, and other times doesn't consider it as an option. > Rowling appears confused on the issue of lying. I think she simply understands that 'good' and 'bad' depend somewhat on the context of the situation and aren't absolute values. > C.S. LEWIS'S AND J.R.R. TOLKIEN'S WORLD VIEW: > > In contrast, Lewis and Tolkien present a world where truth is > absolute and transcends the individual. Because the world has > absolute truth, it is also a world in which order is upheld as an > honorable characteristic for which to strive. It's easier to present such a world when you're not trying to create a facsimile of the real world. Both Narnia and Middle Earth are fantastical worlds, so absolutes can be set by their creators. Harry Potter lives in a version of our world, and as such his world needs to reflect ours to a certain extent. I'd also question the assumption inherent in this statement that 'order' is to be valued above and beyond independence (which I consider to be a 'positive opposite' of order, as opposed to anarchy being a 'negative opposite'). Order taken to an extreme stifles all creativity and ingenuity, just like order avoided in the extreme leads to chaos. It's true that Harry Potter doesn't necessarily advocate order above and beyond all else, because order isn't inherently *good*. It's all in what you make of it, as Rowling shows over and over (see the whole intention discussion above). > Good and evil are > two distinct things, with the rewards and consequences for the > characters' choices reflecting absolute values. And finally, > adults can be good or evil, and the good are presented with > nobility of character. > Leaving aside the absolute values for the moment, the 'good are presented with nobility of character' in HP, as well. Dumbledore, Sirius, Harry, etc. are all presented as noble; Sirius is even presented as a martyr. > First, C.S. Lewis presents truth as absolute and transcendent. Which he can do, since he's writing an allegory. If he were writing realistic (or semi-realistic) fiction, he'd have to deal with a world that wasn't quite so simplistic. > > Second, respect for order is a part of a Judeo-Christian world > view. So, at its worst, is prejudice and discrimination. That doesn't necessarily make either prejudice or discrimination something to value. >Consider the general anarchy encouraged at Hogwarts, Where you see anarchy, I see creativity and acceptance of others' differences. I personally see that as at least as valuable, if not more so, than order. > At the beginning of Harry Potter, Harry hates his family, laughing > at their stupidity and dreaming of revenge > Contrast that with Edmund and Bilbo. Since Edmund was the 'bad guy' and Harry never was, I'm not sure how you can make a comparison. Edmund had to get back into the good graces of his relatives, who were all on the side of good. The Dursleys aren't, by any definition, 'good'. All the characters-- > Harry, Bilbo and the children--are presented as heroes, yet only > Lewis's and Tolkien's live in a world that has true > consequences for right and wrong, and thus only they can truly > grow in excellence. Aside from the consequences that do exist in Rowling's universe, why is it that it requires 'true consequences for right and wrong' for someone to 'grow in excellence'? In handing any book to a > child, one must know if the child can discern the world views and > not be swept into a view that is counter to the truth being instilled > in him. I prefer to discuss the differences between the desired world view and the presented one, so that the child can better understand the world view I'm aiming for. > Pronoun and Antecedent disagreement: > "Then he looked quickly around to see if anyone was watching. > They weren't." > "Someone was knocking to come in. BOOM. They knocked > again." > "Can you think of nobody who has waited many years to return > to power, who has clung to life, awaiting their chance?" > Someone said this already, but: in informal writing, there is nothing wrong with mixing a singular pronoun with a plural antecedent. It would be incorrect in formal writing (essays, for example), but in common speech or informal writing (such as fiction), it's acceptable. > Subject confusion: > "The dark shapes of desks and chairs were piled against the > walls,..." > While it's probably not the shapes that are piled, there is the possibility that Rowling meant exactly that. If you picture the scene in your head, it's possible to 'see' the stacked shapes, and this sentence conveys that the desks and chairs weren't clearly seen. Since the meaning is clear, I don't really see a problem with the word choice. > Analogy and Simile struggles: > "...weighing a pile of rubies as big as glowing coals." (How big > are glowing coals?) Most of them are a couple of inches in all directions (charcoal, anyone?). > "The mountains around the school became icy gray and the > lake like chilled steel." I'm not seeing the problem . . . > > Improper verb construction: > "He had just thought of something that made him feel as though > the happy balloon (?) inside him had got a puncture." > "...so he'd never even got rude notes asking for books back." > I assume you're objecting to the 'had got'? There's nothing wrong with that usage, although 'had gotten' is used in the US more frequently. I believe 'had got' is more common in Britain, though. If that's not what you're objecting to, then again, I'm not seeing the problem. > Run on sentences - they are virtually everywhere: > "It [ice pop] wasn't bad, either, Harry thought, licking it as they > watched a gorilla scratching its head who looked remarkably > like Dudley, except that it wasn't blond." - The head looked > remarkably like Dudley, or the gorilla? Whose hair is blond? > "The idea of overtaking Slytherin in the House championship > was wonderful, no one had done it for seven years, but would > they be allowed to, with such a biased referee?" > And my favorite one: > "Hagrid rolled up the note, gave it to the owl, which clamped it in > its beak, went to the door, and threw the owl out into the storm." > - who went to the door? > Those aren't actually run-ons. They're complex sentences. Perfectly 'legal'. > Lewis and Tolkien both write with an impeccable understanding > of and a rightful submission to the English language. As it was used at the time. Grammar and usage change. Rowling's world view is > not one to immerse a child in if you are seeking to raise him in a > Judeo-Christian ethic. Good thing I'm not. > Beyond that, encouraging a child to read > poorly written yet "sensational" literature may produce a child > who can read Harry Potter stories, but it will not produce a > reader. On that, I beg to differ. Many of my students who are virtually non-readers have started with Harry Potter and moved on to other works. They are now definitely readers. Perhaps more importantly, *anything* a person reads has the potential to strengthen their reading skills and make them a better reader. Quite frankly, it's more important that children learn to comprehend what they're reading, whatever it may be, than that they read *only* literary greats. Katie From DMCourt11 at cs.com Fri Jan 18 06:13:30 2002 From: DMCourt11 at cs.com (DMCourt11 at cs.com) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 01:13:30 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ron Weasley & His Sister (Was RW & His Brothers) Message-ID: <4f.17223218.2979170a@cs.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33655 In a message dated 1/17/02 10:47:26 AM Eastern Standard Time, lav at tut.by writes: > While rereading Philosopher's Stone, I have stumbled upon > some phrase which I think needs some checking. There has > been a lot of talk in the newsgroup about Ron Weasley being > the seventh son, and about a possible Ron's older brother. > Yet while I was reading SS6 ("Platform 9 3/4") Ron says that > he is *sixth* son in the family. > I've been reading the other replies to this query, and while I won't quote them here, basically they talk about the possibility of a missing brother, and the magical abilities of the seventh son. Other threads recently went into detail about women in the HP universe, and Ginny in particular (her maturity mostly). Might it be significant that if there are no missing Weasly children, that makes Ginny the seventh child. Much of the discussion of women in HP argued about strong portrayals, equality, etc. It would be nice to see Ginny not only continue maturing, but discover that she is a very powerful witch as well. Donna [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From vmadams at att.net Fri Jan 18 04:54:42 2002 From: vmadams at att.net (torimarie_1216) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 04:54:42 -0000 Subject: Is Ron a Seer? & what does he see for Percy? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33656 "elfundeb" wrote: > Though they are not necessarily related to the future, and so maybe > don't qualify as "predictions" here are two more from CoS: > When Harry and Ron find Riddle's diary in Moaning Myrtle's bathroom, > Ron tries to stop Harry from picking it up because "it might be > dangerous." He's right; it's very dangerous. (But when nothing > happens, he backs off, and starts commenting on how it's useless.) > > Also, I believe Ron was the first to suggest that Lockhart had not > performed the exploits chronicled in his books. (CoS, Ch. 6, last > line) You're right! Ron does see those things. He does this sort of thing alot, doesn't he? For instance, I hesitate to count this because it is more of an awareness of his friend's personality than anything, but Ron also points out to Hermione that her boggart would have been homework-related...and it was! I've been wracking my brain for the last couple of days trying to figure out *when* Ron says this--not to mention exactly how he says it--but he does possibly make a prediction about Percy that I fear will come true later. I apologize for not having the exact info, but here goes: Ron infers at some point that Percy's ambition might lead him to make a very bad choice someday. I have a sneaking suspicion that Percy will be--or already has been--tempted toward the dark side. The reason I think it's possible that he's done so already is simple. After the World Cup, Barty Crouch was under the Imperius Curse, so Percy was essentially getting his orders from Voldemort. I find it hard to believe that Voldemort gave him the same instructions that Mr. Crouch would have given. Would Voldemort comcern himself exclusively with cauldron bottoms and flying carpets? Nevah! And not being under the Imperius Curse himself, Percy would have to make the choice between following orders that he may have known to be wrong or immoral and doing the right thing, even if it meant displeasing his boss. I think Percy's behavior at that time shows him to be pretty sycophantic. He'd follow, IMO, and do whatever he was told. Of course, after the Triwizard Tournament things would be different. I can't recall Dumbledore including him in the group that he was assembling to fight Voldemort. This feels strange, especially since his mother was right there taking instructions, he works at the ministry and as the previous year's Head Boy, you'd expect that Dumbledore would not have forgotten him. I think Percy is going to publicly take Fudge's side. Whether Fudge is just in a dangerous state of denial or on Voldemort's side himself, I don't know. In either case, Percy could let his ambition lead him into very big trouble--if he hasn't already. And that would mean another one of Ron's predictions would have come true. We shall have to wait...and see! From mrgrrrargh at aol.com Fri Jan 18 05:08:15 2002 From: mrgrrrargh at aol.com (mrgrrrargh at aol.com) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 00:08:15 EST Subject: Is Ron a Seer? Message-ID: <71.1905e423.297907bf@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33657 Emily: > Maybe Ron will eventually notice his gift, but I hope he won't do > something that will corrupt his natural ability. JKR said that a student would become a teacher. Could Ron be the next Divination teacher? (Yes I realize that it is wildy improbably... but it would rather funny) I can picture a scene in which Trelawney and Ron have to face off to see who is the better seer... and Ron winning and therefore getting Treelawney's job (If only I wrote fanfic) -SpyGameFan [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mlacats at aol.com Fri Jan 18 05:24:06 2002 From: mlacats at aol.com (mlacats at aol.com) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 00:24:06 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape - Dobby's motives Message-ID: <41.16e3ac77.29790b76@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33658 In a message dated 01/03/2002 10:47:15 AM Pacific Standard Time, christi0469 at hotmail.com writes: > If Lucius has been plotting to enable the diary to be used > to > > reopen the chamber then why not get Draco to do it? If he has > cooked > > an elaborate and somewhat unreliable scheme and been talking about > it > > at home, then this would suggest that Dobby would be aware of the > > possible danger to Harry, but why should a dark wizard's house elf > > want to protect Harry Potter? > Here are my thoughts......I believe that Lucius didn't want to endanger his son.....he doesn't want Draco involved in Dark schemes yet.........as for why Dobby wanted to protect Harry......well, Harry defeated V....he is seen as a hero in the wizarding world and is definitely a hero to Dobby. JKR has definitely hinted at a 'noble destiny' for Harry as did Dumbledore in Chamber........Dobby feels that Harry is "too important...." Harriet [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lav at tut.by Fri Jan 18 07:12:29 2002 From: lav at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 09:12:29 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] About Gringotts Rubies (was: Re: Harry PotterA Worthwhile series??) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1083399595.20020118091229@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 33659 Greetings! > Katie wrote to us in her wisdom: > (...) >> Kevin wrote: >> Analogy and Simile struggles: >> "...weighing a pile of rubies as big as glowing coals." (How big >> are glowing coals?) k> Most of them are a couple of inches in all directions (charcoal, anyone?). k> (...) k> Katie That depends on the wood you burn. They can be as small as 1cm in diameter to a couple of centimeters. I have never seen a charcoal several _inches_ in diameter, despite my extensive outdoors experience. (Here, saying "glowing charcoal" I mean a charcoal that actually glows by every square millimeter of it's surface, not just a remnants of a big log). Nonetheless, those where COOL rubies! :) Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, (Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed), who is still waiting for List Elves to approve his reply to Kevin Kimball's letter... oh that newbie status... :) From lav at tut.by Fri Jan 18 07:17:42 2002 From: lav at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 09:17:42 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry's Wand Hand In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <633712315.20020118091742@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 33660 Greetings! > Sandy wrote to us in her wisdom: > It was me who wrote this: >> But my version is that it's not important at all - you can >> hold your wand by your right or left arm with no troubles. s> I disagree. I am not really left-handed or right-handed. I bat with s> my left, but throw with my right, etc. When I learn a new activity I s> basically have to somehow discern if I should do it left or right s> handed, and usually one way seems a lot more natural than the other. s> I feel, for whatever reason, that I would definetly hold a wand in my s> right hand. Not that I have or need a wand, sadly. Yet I feel s> really sure that handedness would matter. Think of it like this, can s> you write with your left or right hand at will? No, most people have s> to choose on or the other, and I think the same would stand for s> wands. I didn't mean left- or right-handedness of the person in question, only that it doesn't matter for the wand. :) About writing... being a programmer doesn't help in your writing skills... :) At present moment, I type much faster than I can write. :( s> (...) s> Well, wizards don't necessarily need wands to commit crimes, so s> taking away their wands wouldn't quite do the job. I mean they could s> still do damage in the same ways that nonmagical people do. Yes, but then they are not dangerous to wizards and can be simply kept in restraint (to avoid contact with muggles). If anything, that would be cheaper and simpler (and a damn lot safer, as we learn in GoF) than maintain a distant island prison with undead guards... s> Sandi s> (right-handed wand holder) Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, (Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed), and a left-handed wand holder. From lav at tut.by Fri Jan 18 07:20:22 2002 From: lav at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 09:20:22 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] re: Harry Potter a worthwhile series In-Reply-To: <16a.7528afa.2978e57a@aol.com> References: <16a.7528afa.2978e57a@aol.com> Message-ID: <553872584.20020118092022@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 33661 Greetings! > Lotus wrote to us in his wisdom: >> This site isn't just a fan list. lac> Oh? I have seen very little on this list that would support this. As a matter lac> of fact, Kimball's post is the only one I recall that wasn't in support of lac> HP. (But that doesn't really mean anything, as I often get behind, and have lac> to just start deleting e-mails.) Yes, Kimball's post is the single one I saw, too. I'm even thinking on throwing in some critics of my own creation, to stifle group activity a little... :) Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, (Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed), who is still waiting for List Elves to approve his reply to Kevin Kimball's letter... oh that newbie status... :) From jchutney at yahoo.com Fri Jan 18 07:39:47 2002 From: jchutney at yahoo.com (jchutney) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 07:39:47 -0000 Subject: Harry PotterA Worthwhile series?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33662 > Second, respect for order is a part of a Judeo-Christian world > I FINALLY realized why Kimball's essay totally turned me off. It's not that its anti-HP. I have several highly intelligent friends who don't like the books ---- not their cup of tea. Some find HP silly or badly written or not in keeping with their personal beliefs. And this is fine. Vive la difference! What troubles me about Kimball is that he is presenting HIS view of Christianity and trying to palm it off as gospel. #1 What is "Judeo-Christian" in the context of this essay? Judaism and Christianity have many similarities but some big differences in world-view. If he means to reference ONLY the things Judaism and Christianity share in common, why does he not include Islam, which is EXTREMELY similar to Orthodox Judaism? Either, Kimball is talking about CHRISTIANITY, exclusively, or he means to include all the Abrahamic traditions. Please be clear. #2 If Kimball's real intention is to compare HP to an exclusively Christian tradition, than which one is it? Lutheran? Catholic? Seventh-Day Adventist? Is Kimball a Christian scholar? Where does he derive his understanding of Christianity? Kimball is free to attack HP all he wants, but what his basis for saying, "respect for order is a part of a Judeo-Christian world"? This is plainly contradicted in Mathew 10: 34 "Don't imagine that I came to bring peace to the earth! No, I came to bring a sword. 35 I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 Your enemies will be right in your own household! 37 If you love your father or mother more than you love me, you are not worthy of being mine; or if you love your son or daughter more than me, you are not worthy of being mine. 38 If you refuse to take up your cross and follow me, you are not worthy of being mine. 39 If you cling to your life, you will lose it; but if you give it up for me, you will find it.[end quote] MY idea of Jesus is obviously very different from Kimball's. I see a reformer, a rebel, a "trouble-maker" who frightened the Romans so much they sentenced him to death. Does this sound like someone who valued "order"? And yet I don't try to insinuate that I am some scholar or compare HP or any other books to MY version of Christianity. Personally, I am sick and tired of so-called religious people (whatever their creed) assuming that they have the "real" or "true" version. There are billions of human beings who have perfectly functioning brains. They can read their Bible or Quran or Bhagavad Gita and figure out for themselves what it means, thank you very much. jchutney From lucy at luphen.co.uk Fri Jan 18 10:56:08 2002 From: lucy at luphen.co.uk (Lucy Austin) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 10:56:08 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry PotterA Worthwhile series?? References: Message-ID: <01cd01c1a00e$bc1a21a0$11ae1e3e@stephen> No: HPFGUIDX 33663 >>Kevin said >> Second, respect for order is a part of a Judeo-Christian world > >jchutney said: >I FINALLY realized why Kimball's essay totally turned me off. It's not that its anti-HP. I have several highly intelligent friends who don't like the books ---- not their cup of tea. Some find HP silly or badly written or not in keeping with their personal beliefs. And this is fine. Vive la difference! What troubles me about Kimball is that he is presenting HIS view of Christianity and trying to palm it off as gospel. >#1 What is "Judeo-Christian" in the context of this essay? Judaism and Christianity have many similarities but some big differences in world-view. If he means to reference ONLY the things Judaism and Christianity share in common, why does he not include Islam, which is EXTREMELY similar to Orthodox Judaism? Either, Kimball is talking about CHRISTIANITY, exclusively, or he means to include all the Abrahamic traditions. Please be clear. >snip other comments re Christianity etc> I agree entirely - Christianity is NOT the same as Judaism at all - a small difference of 'has the Messiah come or not' springs to mind! But my main objection to Kevin's post is that it is presenting Christians in a VERY poor light. Anyone who is loosely religious, or believes in God vaguely but doesn't know the Bible (or other religious book) off by heart, would be totally put off raising their children in a worldview like this, which just seems so restrictive and depressing for the children. I mean, forcing your kids to analysis their pleasurable reading book with pen and paper - poor things! I think a true Christian, or Good Person of any religion, would be much more open-minded and willing to let children work things out for themselves. A good relationship with your children would mean you could discuss the books in a friendly way without banning them from reading anything that doesn't exactly fit your idea of Right or Wrong. I belive in God, and plan to raise my children to know Him, but that in no way means they can't also have fun reading about other worlds, whether or not they are realistically like ours. I agree with someone else who wondered why Kevin was on this list, not meaning anything rude by this. I know it is not specifically for Fans, but it does seem weird to join the list just so that you can throw mud at Harry Potter - you won't covert us to your worldview this way, I don't think! Lucy the Drifty [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ickle_ronniekins at yahoo.com Fri Jan 18 11:36:22 2002 From: ickle_ronniekins at yahoo.com (Ronald Rae Yu) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 03:36:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: Wizard Wear Message-ID: <20020118113622.72089.qmail@web21102.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33664 The typical (and only?) 'wizard wear' is robes. What do they wear underneath them? I only could think of muggle clothing. But wizards seem to be not too accustomed to it. A good example is during the Quidditch World Cup. A lot of people dressed awkwardly as muggles, and there's this guy who insisted on wearing women's clothing. The trio wear muggle clothing underneath their school robes (in the books at least). What about muggle haters like Malfoy? What clothes do you define as normal or 'acceptable' wizard wear? In the movie all students have formal muggle clothing underneath their robes. What about the adults? Also, I can't think of how they dress casually. Is there a clear line dividing muggle and wizard wear? -Ron Yu -------------------------------------------------- Useless Tidbit: Has anyone here ever read _The Truth_ by Terry Pratchett? Interestingly, the names Harry, Ron, and Hermione are all there (the're not major characters though). Pratchett's _Reaper Man_ has a werewolf named Lupine (with an 'e'). -------------------------------------------------- __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ From judyshapiro at earthlink.net Fri Jan 18 12:09:52 2002 From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 12:09:52 -0000 Subject: Wizard (under)Wear In-Reply-To: <20020118113622.72089.qmail@web21102.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33665 Ronald Rae Yu wrote: > The typical (and only?) 'wizard wear' is robes. What > do they wear underneath them? ... > The trio wear muggle clothing underneath their school > robes (in the books at least). What about muggle > haters like Malfoy? ... I've wondered about this, too. In the "Flesh, Blood, and Bone" chapter of GoF, it's clear that Voldemort isn't wearing anything under his robes. He tells Wormtail "Robe me", and Wormtail pulls the robes over Voldy's head, using his remaining hand. (You really think Voldy could have done this himself, being that he had two hands and all. I guess it's just part of Wormtail's humiliation.) So, during the whole rest of the graveyard scene, Voldy is accusing his followers, crucio-ing various people, trying to kill Harry, etc., all without benefit of underwear. For some reason, that stood out in my mind. (I'm afraid to contemplate what this means about my psychological makeup.) The wizard at the QWC who insists on wearing a nightgown does so because he "likes a healthy breeze" around his privates. So, that implies no underwear under wizard robes, too. However, in the movie, the trio wear their robes open over rather formal "muggle" school wear (with ties and such.) I remember that Snape also wears his robes open, over black clothes that are almost, but not entirely, muggle-like. I don't remember about the rest of the adults. Perhaps the wizarding world is underwear optional? -- Judy From aiz24 at hotmail.com Fri Jan 18 12:49:21 2002 From: aiz24 at hotmail.com (Amy Z) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 07:49:21 -0500 Subject: ADMIN: Acronym Confusion Cleared up Instantly, Okay? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33666 Gentle readers, Acronyms breed like Puffskeins here on HPfGU, and it can be a challenge keeping your C.R.A.B.s from your S.C.H.A.B.B.s. Have you wondered whether an A.R.M.C.H.A.I.R. would be comfortable? Not sure whether you belong on the Good Ship L.O.L.L.I.P.O.P.S.? And did someone just call you a L.O.O.N. and you don't know whether to be pleased or insulted? Your troubles are over! Welcome to . . . Inish Alley! =The= source for HPfGU acronyms. Check it out! http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/inishalley/ Amy Z Magical Moderators, Ltd. P.S. Sorry, Inish Alley won't =really= tell you whether L.O.O.N.s are good or bad. But at least you'll know what they are. _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com From tabouli at unite.com.au Fri Jan 18 14:04:59 2002 From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 01:04:59 +1100 Subject: Wizard-Muggle marriage, & further commentary on Kevin Message-ID: <002601c1a029$3e669ca0$cc0edccb@price> No: HPFGUIDX 33667 Here's something I've mused about off-stage for a while... in CoS, I think, Ron mentions (as people have recently quoted) that most wizards these days are half-bloods, if wizards hadn't married Muggles they'd have died out, etc. OK. As half-blood myself, one question I am constantly being asked is "how did your parents meet?" In my case, I of course know the story well. However, so far we have no clues as to how wizard-muggle marriages come about. In fact, from what we can see, muggle-wizard relations are quite distant and, on the wizards' side, rather indulgent (from e.g. Arthur) and even condescending and superior (e.g. Lucius Malfoy). We have heard about the outcomes of some cross-cultural marriages (Voldemort's tragic childhood, Seamus' shocked Muggle father), but we have never seen or heard about a cross-cultural marriage in the making. How do such couples meet, and how do they overcome the cultural differences? How do the Muggles come to terms with the magical abilities of their spouses and overcome their natural scepticism, and what do they tell their families? How do the Wizards come to terms with the lack of magical powers (but presence of all manner of other technological gadgets) of their spouses and deal with their feelings of cultural supremacy? For that matter, how on earth do they meet? IIRC, the only adult we've seen so far who has much daily contact with Muggles is Arthur, and despite his love for them he doesn't seem to know many personally (though we don't know how well he got along with the Grangers!). Then perhaps there's Fudge, who negotiates with the Muggle PM (Fudge/Thatcher, anyone?). Apart from them, jobs like Auror, Knight Bus driver, Hogwarts teacher, Ministry officials, magic shopkeeper, Evil Overlord and the like hardly provide much opportunity for meaningful interactions with Muggles. What avenues are there? I suppose there's my fledgeling theory that Mrs Figg the positive Squib role model is a Muggle-Wizard liaison officer... maybe there are a few of these around and they make Muggle friends and invite them to their parties or something! Sadly, I don't really see JKR getting into a back-story of this type in the HP series, unless it magically turns out to be mega-relevant to the plot (e.g. Tom Riddle's past, which looks the likeliest candidate to date), but it's interesting to speculate. What do people think? Pippin: > I think you might have picked a more comparable Narnia book to brush up on. The Harry Potter series is a romance of the "child exile" genre. Now *this* was an interesting comment (thanks Pippin!) The book I immediately thought of was "The Horse and His Boy", actually. Adopted son of hated Northern race ill-treated and exploited by wicked stepfather (interesting portrayal of the Arab world by C.S. Lewis, don't you think, Kevin? Setting a good example to the wee ones, no doubt...), who runs away with the help of a talking horse to the magical North (where they eat nice English food and have blond hair, white skin and other hallmarks of Good) where he discovers he's not a slave boy but a prince who, as prophesised, saves Archenland from destruction. Quite a good parallel with HP, isn't it? And on reflection, the character development in that book is somewhat more plausible than his Pevensie stuff. Note of course that C.S. Lewis, in addition to warning the children about the Evils of the Arab world, also reminds us that stereotypically "female" activity like interest in clothing and relationships is despicable and worthless and should be shunned by sensible women (lest they slide away from Aslan like Susan, or Lasraleen). Nothing like a morally sound series to teach the children, eh? However, I prefer to be fair to Clive on the feminism and Islamophobia front on the same grounds that some have used to defend HP... they are a reflection of the prevailing values of the time in which he was writing, as upper-middle class Christian academic in a very masculinised world. Just as JKR's language and style reflects the era in which she is writing. Though I can't help suspecting that Kevin might be happy to endorse Clive's stance on these two issues... catherine: > In Lord of the Rings, with few exceptions those that were evil are so because they were created that way. That makes it so easy and safe. That person is an Orc, they are evil. It's comforting to think that those who are evil are so because they were preordained to be so. Makes your choice obvious doesn't it: `should I side with `ugly orc' or the fair Galadrieal?'< And as for Tolkien, obviously a clear sign that someone fits into the Evil category of humanity is ugliness! A fine Judeo-Christian education for the children. Nothing like that unambiguous distinction between Good (where all people are fair and wise) and Evil (where all people are ugly and foolish and come to a bad end on Legolas' arrows), eh? Moral stuff. Lotus: > > This site isn't just a fan list. > >Oh? I have seen very little on this list that would support this. As a matter >of fact, Kimball's post is the only one I recall that wasn't in support of HP. Well, it depends, as most complex questions do, on definitions. How do you define a "fan" of HP? If it means "someone who likes HP", sure, it's pretty rare to see posts on this list which don't come from "fans". However, I wouldn't at all say that all listmembers are "fans" if this implies we are "blindly adoring readers of the HP series". Clearly the main point of having such a list is not to wallow in the unquestioning devotion of 3000 fellow fans, but to debate and analyse the series from different perspectives, many of which are quite critical. In the recent spate of posts on gender roles in HP, there were a large number of listmembers who expressed disapproval about JKR's writing in this area, for example. Our eyes are open to HP's flaws, we just like the books anyway. catherine: > I noticed that as of this writing, you (Kevin) haven't responded to > any of his essay's response. Actually, this doesn't surprise me at all. Alas, I doubt that he ever will; alack, I even doubt whether he is reading our carefully thought out arguments! As I mentioned in my last post, my feeling after reading his essay was that he had spent some time preparing what he felt was a watertight moral argument against HP, which he intended to post out to the ignorant and misguided fan lists (hmm... has his essay turned up on any other lists we know of?) in an attempt to prise the blindfolds from our eyes and point out the perils of our fandom. then withdraw self-righteously, his moral revelation achieved. My impression was that he sincerely meant what he said, but, with the limited vision that people with those sorts of views tend to have (due to limiting their social contact to people like themselves for fear of corruption), never imagined that the list would in fact be full of intelligent, educated, literature-savvy people (of whom some are Christian) who are very familiar with all three of the series he mentions and are more than capable of understanding, rebutting and rejecting his arguments. All the same, he's provided us with a nice axe to grind. The ol' grain of sand in the oyster... an irritant, but one that has produced some very interesting posts. A bit of indignation never hurt anyone... Tabouli. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Edblanning at aol.com Fri Jan 18 14:11:07 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 09:11:07 EST Subject: Snape (still!) Message-ID: <6a.19ad40a7.297986fb@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33668 I'd really like to say a big thank you to all of you who took up my question under the 'why readers love Snape ' banner. I've had such a good time reading your thoughts and now realise that whatever I may or may not feel for the good(!?) Professor are perfectly normal, rational and balanced!, Well, fairly! There have been so many posts that I have lost track of some of them. I really think the 'character who got away' theory is spot on. I also really like the idea (sorry, I've searched for your post and just can't find it) of Snape taking the right path, but not liking it, a la Spike ( there's another mystery solved, then!). It makes him so much more sympathetic if he's constantly fighting his own nature. The question of his 'redemption' - whether it's needed/ will happen/ has happened - seems to have raised the question of whether his past *was* *bad*. Mahoney says it's not stated in canon that he was a *bad guy*, but I guess most of us would think that a DE was one ipso facto. However, I'd like to expand a theory I mentioned once before. What if Snape never was really a 'bad guy'? What if he's always been battling the two sides of his nature? I agree with jchutney that Snape may see Dumbledore as a surrogate father. I think he probably wanted to do so whilst at school. If so, he must have been constantly disappointed by Dumbledore's apparent favouritism for those troublemakers, Potter and Black. I seriously wonder if it was a craving for recognition from an older, more powerful wizard that led him to Voldemort, rather than any evil intent. Voldemort would easily have exploited that weakness, just as he did with poor Ginny, through the diary. Perhaps he tried to push himself into DE mould (and undoubtedly had to do some really bad stuff along the way), but realised he didn't really fit and that where he belonged was at Dumbledore's side, if he would have him. The reason I came up with this is that I have problems with the idea of his undergoing some kind of Damascus road conversion, I'd rather see his actions and motivations having some kind of internal consistency. So my current Snape hypothesis is: 1)good guy who's battling to be good against his (shorthand, not stereotyping!) Slytherin tendencies who 2)gives up being good and tries to be bad out of pique and to get the recognition he never feels he's had and who then ends up 3) with a guilt thing (which is often displayed as anger) after playing at being bad doesn't work and who doesn't like being 'good' to boot. It's just a hypothesis, so I expect to be disproved instantly! I do think lack of recognition dogs him. I know Pippin has just mentioned JKR 'outing' him at the trial, but I have big problems with equating this with a general knowledge of his spying past. The more I read, the more I am convinced that virtually no-one knows.IIRC, there is no indication that Sirius and Lupin, who were part of Dumbledore's inner circle, have any idea . I think it is acutely painful for him that 'famous Harry Potter' gets all the credit for Voldemort's downfall when however much 'good' he has done is secret. 'Fame isn't everything' isn't just another nasty remark, it's a cri de coeur. Rebecca writes of Snape's own need to redeem himself: >This brings me to my Snape theory (yeah, you knew this was coming). I think after >he decided to turn against the DE's he wound up feeing terrible about whatever it >was he did do while he was really with them and he became obsessed with the >idea of doing something important to redeem himself. If he was the spy who >uncovered the plot to kill James and Harry then you could see how he might >consider this his big chance to make up for his past, not just because he owed >James a favor but since everyone else loved James so much then saving his life >would be construed as really heroic. But then something went horribly wrong >(thanks to Sirius, he believed) and James wound up dead anyway and whatever >credit there was to take was taken by Harry. I think Snape gets so irrational around >Harry because Harry reminds him of his guilt, regrets and failure to really help >James when he had the chance. And I think he hates James because James up >and died. This would also explain why Snape is al! >ways running into the middle of dangerous situations to try to fix them; he's still >trying to make up for his past and he still winds up being mistrusted and >misunderstood for all his efforts. I think he's a terribly sympathetic character even >with all his flaws. Again, I think this is spot on I do think he's really angry at James for getting killed and that now he knows the truth, he will still be angry with Sirius for being the unintentional agent of his downfall. Incidentally, he is right, it was James' fault they got killed. Sirius may not have been the secret-keeper, but he trusted Sirius, rather than Dumbledore who had wanted to take on the role. I have another question about that, but I'll put it in a separate post. Eloise (who finds Snape's uncanny resemblance to Alan Rickman a terrible distraction to the inner eye and wonders whose decision it was to omit the grease from the film) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cindysphynx at home.com Fri Jan 18 14:13:12 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 14:13:12 -0000 Subject: Wizard-Muggle marriage In-Reply-To: <002601c1a029$3e669ca0$cc0edccb@price> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33669 Tabouli wrote: > We have heard about the outcomes of some cross-cultural marriages >(Voldemort's tragic childhood, Seamus' shocked Muggle father), but >we have never seen or heard about a cross-cultural marriage in the >making. How do such couples meet, and how do they overcome the >cultural differences? How do the Muggles come to terms with the >magical abilities of their spouses and overcome their natural >scepticism, and what do they tell their families? How do the >Wizards come to terms with the lack of magical powers (but presence >of all manner of other technological gadgets) of their spouses and >deal with their feelings of cultural supremacy? Given that the population of the wizarding world in Britain is small (we did decide it was small, right?), I wonder if substantial numbers of wizards live as muggles by choice. I don't see how there would be enough jobs to support them all. How many robe shops do you really need, after all? Perhaps rather than attempt to scratch out a living in the wizarding world, marginal wizards cross over and live as muggles, where the living is easy if you can solve the occasional problem with magic. This would address a question that has always bothered me. Why wouldn't Pettigrew just go into hiding as a muggle rather than as a rat? Sirius gives the answer in the Shrieking Shack when he says Pettigrew wanted to keep an ear open to hear of news from Voldemort. Eh, OK. But it is hard to square that reasoning with the fact that Pettigrew had no reason to think Dark Wizards would welcome him. The easiest thing would be to get a job in the muggle world and settle down there. That would be impossible, however, if large numbers of wizards have settled in the muggle world and would quickly recognize Pettigrew. Cindy From Edblanning at aol.com Fri Jan 18 14:38:11 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 09:38:11 EST Subject: Fidelius Charm/Sirius Message-ID: <70.1658681f.29798d53@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33670 I'm going to ask a relly dumb question, but I have realised that I just don't understand the Fidelius Charm. The secret is hidden in a single living soul and is impossible to find unless the secret-keeper chooses to divulge it. What about those who knew the secret of the Potter's whereabouts before the spell was cast? Do they lose the knowledge until the secret-keeper choses to tell them? Or is it just that any information they pass on becomes meaningless? I ask because Sirius was obviously party to the secret. But WHY did Sirius feel the need to create a bluff in switching to Pettigrew? If he was willing to die rather than give them away, what was the problem?(other than the minor one of wishing to avoid death/ torture). I could understand James wanting to protect Sirius, but it was he who had to be persuaded to switch. I should have thought that Sirius would have seen himself as the best man for the job and taken on the role with pride as James' best friend. In addition to which, his ability to transform into a dog would have made him pretty hard to find (and he could have frightened all those nasty DEs to death by pretending to be a grim!). And another thing - was it only Dumbledore who suspected there was a spy in the organisation? It would just have been safer not to trust anyone else. Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bonnie.abrams at cwine.com Fri Jan 18 14:33:08 2002 From: bonnie.abrams at cwine.com (sing2wine) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 14:33:08 -0000 Subject: Snape (still!) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33671 I didn't realize there would be so many Snape champions on in this group! I for one, hate him! I cannot forget that Draco Malfoy is his favorite student - and I hate Draco even more than I hate Snape! I can understand the many theories of why he is the way he is - and so - I would have been willing to accept his initial hatred of Harry - his embarrassing Harry in his first class by asking him potion questions he couldn't answer and then with malevolence in his voice, sneering that fame isn't everything. But after Harry has proved his skills and his morality again and again and Malfoy has proved his sniveling and evil nature again and again - for Snape to still be so cruel to Harry and to still favor Malfoy makes him intensely dislikable to me. Fairplay is very important to me - Snape does not do that. He's always taking points from Gryffindor for things he ignores in Slytherin. My only hope is that Snape "grows up" in the 5th book and reaches Harry's level of maturity! Bonnie / sing2wine From bonnie.abrams at cwine.com Fri Jan 18 14:18:33 2002 From: bonnie.abrams at cwine.com (sing2wine) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 14:18:33 -0000 Subject: Harry: Great or Lucky? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33672 I quite agree with Harriet that Harry is great - not just lucky. He has had countless opportunities to act selfishly and given his abusive childhood - would have had every reason to do so. He always acts with others in mind, even if it would have been easier not to. In the 3rd triwizard task he cared more for the safety of his fellow competitors and in the 2nd - their hostages safety than he did about winning. Harry was also the only student able to show some resistance to the Imperius curse - and that involved great presence of mind - most adult wizards could not do that. Bonnie From ftah3 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 18 14:51:34 2002 From: ftah3 at yahoo.com (ftah3) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 14:51:34 -0000 Subject: Wizard-Muggle marriage, & further commentary on Kevin In-Reply-To: <002601c1a029$3e669ca0$cc0edccb@price> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33673 Tabouli: > For that matter, how on earth do they (wizards & muggles who marry) meet? IIRC, the only adult we've seen so far who has much daily contact with Muggles is Arthur, and despite his love for them he doesn't seem to know many personally (though we don't know how well he got along with the Grangers!). Then perhaps there's Fudge, who negotiates with the Muggle PM (Fudge/Thatcher, anyone?). Apart from them, jobs like Auror, Knight Bus driver, Hogwarts teacher, Ministry officials, magic shopkeeper, Evil Overlord and the like hardly provide much opportunity for meaningful interactions with Muggles. What avenues are there? I suppose there's my fledgeling theory that Mrs Figg the positive Squib role model is a Muggle-Wizard liaison officer... maybe there are a few of these around and they make Muggle friends and invite them to their parties or something! Well, then again, you've not listed very many wizard-associated jobs, and quite frankly I have a hard time believing that every wizard is able to acquire/wants/is qualified for a wizard-world job. If it was a *completely* isolated society, I'd believe it; but somehow I suspect that there are plenty of squibs, disinterested and/or only marginally talented wizards who take jobs in the muggle world to pay the bills. And just because a person is a wizard who is to say that person doesn't harbor a life's dream of becoming, say, a world-famous chef? Especially what with the availability of uncommon ingredients s/he could add to her/his popular 'secret sauce'.... I guess I assumed that wizards who married muggles met them either in the course of muggle-world careers, met them while out, I dunno, shopping in muggle shops or having coffee in muggle cafes, or possibly through wizard friends who had very accepting muggle relatives...any number of ways, really. The major wizard institutions we've seen (private schools & MoM) are encapsulated institutions with specifically wizarding interests; however, my opinion is that the wizarding population at large is not necessarily so specialized. > catherine: > > In Lord of the Rings, with few exceptions those that were evil are so > because they were created that way. That makes it so easy and > safe. That person is an Orc, they are evil. It's comforting to > think that those who are evil are so because they were preordained to > be so. Makes your choice obvious doesn't it: `should I side > with `ugly orc' or the fair Galadrieal?'< Tabouli: > And as for Tolkien, obviously a clear sign that someone fits into the Evil category of humanity is ugliness! A fine Judeo-Christian education for the children. Nothing like that unambiguous distinction between Good (where all people are fair and wise) and Evil (where all people are ugly and foolish and come to a bad end on Legolas' arrows), eh? Moral stuff. You know, of the whole, rather pedantic post, kimball's dogmatic insistence on the supremity of rule-following and order based somehow on Christianity (presumably the Biblical version, unless his ideas sprouted whole-cloth out of his head) amused me the most. I'm not particularly well-read in terms of the Bible, but I know a little bit. Kimberly (moongirlk) responded very well to this straight out of Gospel (i.e. the disciples doing work on the sabbath, which is against the letter of God's law but not, as Jesus points out, against the spirit of the law; etc). Similarly, as far as things being promoted in the Bible as clear-cut ~ hardly. Jesus had to berate the crowds for their reaction to John the Baptist. In early Hebrew prophecies, it was said that a messenger would be sent ahead of the Messiah to prepare the masses for him...and then who appears, but John the Baptist, a mangy, ill- clothed, ill-kempt guy who wandered the wilds and was in fact in prison when Christ started public ministry. Doh. Christ himself was an enormous rule-breaker. One of the biggest reasons that people refused to believe that he was the Messiah sent from God was because (drum roll) he ate dinner with anybody who would sit down with him. That doesn't sound particularly bad these days, but back then the meal was considered by Jews to be a sort of recreation of the covenant between God and his people, and only the clean, and the believers, were allowed to share a table with God's chosen people. And yet Christ *invited* Gentiles, criminals, the poor, the sick, and the hated to eat meals with him. And why did he break that very important rule? To help people; to right wrongs and undo injustices; to demonstrate that in real life, in God's world, people have to look beyond the easy, black and white choices, and do what is *right* rather than what is easy and superficial. At any rate, I also agree with whomever it was that pointed out that not everyone believes in nor cares to interpret life, morality, and Harry Potter based on Judeo-Christian tenets. Hi, agnostics? Muslims, Buddhists, Wiccans, and everyone else in the world? I truly dislike the idea that just because a child raised in a Christian household *might* (and this that is *highly* debatable, and insulting to the intellectual capabilities of the young) be morally confused by events in Harry Potter, that must mean that every child in every environment and experiencing all manner of differing world views will also. Pfah. Balderdash. > catherine: > > I noticed that as of this writing, you (Kevin) haven't responded to > > any of his essay's response. Tabouli: > Alas, I doubt that he ever will; alack, I even doubt whether he is reading our carefully thought out arguments! As I mentioned in my last post, my feeling after reading his essay was that he had spent some time preparing what he felt was a watertight moral argument against HP, which he intended to post out to the ignorant and misguided fan lists (hmm... has his essay turned up on any other lists we know of?) in an attempt to prise the blindfolds from our eyes and point out the perils of our fandom. then withdraw self- righteously, his moral revelation achieved. My impression was that he sincerely meant what he said, but, with the limited vision that people with those sorts of views tend to have (due to limiting their social contact to people like themselves for fear of corruption), never imagined that the list would in fact be full of intelligent, educated, literature-savvy people (of whom some are Christian) who are very familiar with all three of the series he mentions and are more than capable of understanding, rebutting and rejecting his arguments. Absolutely. And I doubt he even cares if anyone debates it. No doubt he's certain that hedonists, pagans, and the wicked will tear apart his well-wrought piece in their blind wantonness, but simply hopes that at least one lost soul will be led to the light regardless. Sorry, did that sound disparagingly wry? I would never. Tabouli: >All the same, he's provided us with a nice axe to grind. The ol' grain of sand in the oyster... an irritant, but one that has produced some very interesting posts. Very true! I've really enjoyed the commentary. Mahoney From bonnie.abrams at cwine.com Fri Jan 18 14:52:32 2002 From: bonnie.abrams at cwine.com (sing2wine) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 14:52:32 -0000 Subject: : Re: Wizard-Muggle marriage Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33674 Cindy brings up a topic that troubles me as well. Petunia ranted and raved - with great bitterness - about how proud her parents were when Lily got her letter and we all know that Hermione's parents are muggle dentists. How does the cross-over occur for muggle born wizards to be accepted by their parents? How did Hermione's parents get to Diagon Alley to bring her to buy her school supplies? How does all this stay out of poison pens of muggle equivalents of Rita Skeeter? (Or is that what papers like the National Enquirer are really about...???) Bonnie / sing2wine From ftah3 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 18 15:04:32 2002 From: ftah3 at yahoo.com (ftah3) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 15:04:32 -0000 Subject: Fidelius Charm/Sirius In-Reply-To: <70.1658681f.29798d53@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33675 Eloise wrote: > But WHY did Sirius feel the need to create a bluff in switching to Pettigrew? > If he was willing to die rather than give them away, what was the > problem?(other than the minor one of wishing to avoid death/ torture). I > could understand James wanting to protect Sirius, but it was he who had to be > persuaded to switch. I should have thought that Sirius would have seen > himself as the best man for the job and taken on the role with pride as > James' best friend. You know, I've always thought that fit well with what we saw of Sirius. Imho, the fact that he didn't stand up for himself when arrested for 'killing' Pettigrew, as well as the fact that he went on such a gloomy mission when he broke out of prison ~ he only hoped to kill Pettigrew before he himself was caught and either sent back to prison or Dementor-kissed, basically; no thought at all of the more upbeat possibility of clearing himself ~ makes me think that maybe he didn't necessarily trust himself to *not* give up the secret. That, or he was absolutely sure that it would be assumed he was the secret keeper, and that he'd be captured and tortured at some point. The guy just gives himself and his chances no credit! :-P Mahoney From gwynyth at drizzle.com Fri Jan 18 15:20:05 2002 From: gwynyth at drizzle.com (Jenett) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 07:20:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: The question of worldview (was Re: Wizard-Muggle marriage) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33676 On Fri, 18 Jan 2002, cindysphynx wrote: > Given that the population of the wizarding world in Britain is small > (we did decide it was small, right?), I wonder if substantial numbers > of wizards live as muggles by choice. I don't see how there would be > enough jobs to support them all. How many robe shops do you really > need, after all? Perhaps rather than attempt to scratch out a living > in the wizarding world, marginal wizards cross over and live as > muggles, where the living is easy if you can solve the occasional > problem with magic. Yeah - but there are also problems with that. Do wizards do all the appropriate Muggle paperwork (birth certificate, proof that you're able to work (Social security card in the US, I know there are UK equivalents). How do you prove what education you've recieved - no employer can contact your school to see if you really *did* get a degree. Even if you were raised in the Muggle world, you'd have a really hard time going on to University - because your secondary education didn't prepare you for that kind of work. You didn't take the Muggle tests - you took Newts and Owls. And so on, and so forth. It might be possible for wizards who had been raised in the Muggle world (they'd have some of the paperwork, for certain) but even they wouldn't be able to apply for many well-paying jobs - they just wouldn't qualify. Or they'd have to invest more time and money in a Muggle education first, which might be problematic. There's also the issue that if electronics and wiring and such interfere with magic, that it might be hard to live in the mortal world and do much magic on a regular basis. (We do see some examples - Arthur fixing Dudley from the toffee - but most of what we see are non-deliberate magicings - stuff Harry does when upset, not deliberately thought through stuff.) This brings me to someting I've been toying with as a potential solution for a lot of issues, including "Why don't any of these kids who come from Muggle households miss the technology they're accustomed to?" My theory is that it's a paradigm difference. Perhaps, in order to have magic work for you, you need to have a certain attitude about how the world works. There's an aspect of native, inborn talent, but you also need to look at the world a certain way. What if part of that worldview needed to include the fact that while you might not mind technology, you didn't really care about it either? In other words, that if you had adequate light, you didn't really care whether it came from electric lightbulbs or magical light or lanterns, or whatever? Maybe you need to be the sort of person who is at least *just* as easily entertained by books or Quidditch matches as by watching television? Now, that doesn't mean that kids from Muggle families might not mind doing those things if they happen to be available - but there are people who would adapt much more easily to no television or other technology than others. I'm quite fond of technology myself - but heck, give me the opportunity to be somewhere like Hogwarts, and I'd just as cheerfully be reading or exploring or whatever as playing on the computer. And given this assumption (that it's a paradigm difference in the way Wizards view the world and prefer to structure how they live), maybe people who make it through Hogwarts *don't* really want to return to living as Muggles. (with some exceptions, sure, but speaking in general terms.) Certainly, some of the same stresses seem to exist (concerns about money, etc.) And certainly, there's a potential for bad things to happen. But in the wizarding world, bad stuff tends to be a bit more predictable (unless you happen to be the very first target of the most recent rise of Dark Wizardry) - there doesn't seem to be much random violence (muggings, street crime, burgalry) or other unpleasantness. There are dangerous critters and dark wizards - but they're a bit easier to identify than comparable hazards in the Muggle world, and less likely to intrude on your life without any warning. Now, none of this really addresses the economic issues, of course. However, we've got a bunch of options. One is a much higher of inheritable wealth combined with a lower level of potential costs (brooms are probably cheaper than car+insurance+gas/petrol, for example; house elves and/or magic make housekeeping easier). One is that there may be lower expenses in general ways (the Weasleys obviously have a hard time keeping all their kids supplied with new things, but food is always abundantly described, housing might be handed down from family to family, and so on.) One is a higher taxation on those who do work - and a structure where a lot of the research and analysis that might take place in a non-governmental structure in the Muggle world is instead part of the Ministry of Magic (thereby employing many more people than would strictly be needed for governenence). Or perhaps it's possible, if you don't have children or extravagent desires, to get by as a wizard on a small stipend from the MoM. If you do have children or want luxury items, you'd need inherited wealth or a job - but if you're content just to potter around a cottage, brew the occaisional potion, and read Witch Weekly and the Daily Prophet, then you don't need a whole lot of income, if your housing isn't costing you much, you don't have things like car payments, and so on. It's also possible that some do cottage industry work - hand sewing robes, for example, or magically doing the equivalent - which is then distributed through the shops. (Ditto for potions, candy, and so on.) I can see a number of viable options which don't presume the same sort of economy as the Muggle world - but which might well be sufficient to support a relatively small population. We also have this sort of curious issue of Gringotts going out and *looking* for more treasure. You'd think, if they were just a bank, that they'd actually avoid doing that (it doesn't make a whole lot of sense using Muggle economic models, to me, anyway) However, if the money is, instead, going into a distribution system (X amount of any treasure found goes into the stipend pot for unemployed wizards, say) it makes more sense for them to be encouraged to go find more treasure. Anyway - I think there are solutions which are more complex than "There aren't enough jobs to support everyone..." -Jenett, done rambling. From cindysphynx at home.com Fri Jan 18 15:28:16 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 15:28:16 -0000 Subject: Fidelius Charm/Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33677 > Eloise wrote: > > But WHY did Sirius feel the need to create a bluff in switching to > Pettigrew? Mahoney anwered: > You know, I've always thought that fit well with what we saw of > Sirius. Imho, the fact that he didn't stand up for himself when > arrested for 'killing' Pettigrew, as well as the fact that he went on > such a gloomy mission when he broke out of prison ~ he only hoped to > kill Pettigrew before he himself was caught and either sent back to > prison or Dementor-kissed, basically; no thought at all of the more > upbeat possibility of clearing himself ~ makes me think that maybe he > didn't necessarily trust himself to *not* give up the secret. That, > or he was absolutely sure that it would be assumed he was the secret > keeper, and that he'd be captured and tortured at some point. As much as I like Sirius, there is one little problem with his strategy. He says he feared Voldemort would come after him and he planned to go into hiding. Got it. He suggested Peter be secretkeeper as a bluff. OK. If and when Voldemort captured Sirius and tortured him, Sirius was apparently worried that he would be broken and would disclose the location of the Potters. Uh, huh. Doesn't this whole plan hinge on the supposition that, when Voldemort is torturing Sirius, that Sirius won't say, "You know, you shouldn't waste perfectly good Cruciatus Curses on me, as Pettigrew is the one you want." So how does Sirius' bluff make the Potters any more safe? Cindy (wondering how James and Sirius, the two most clever students in the school, could come up with such a wobbly plan) From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Fri Jan 18 15:28:31 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 15:28:31 -0000 Subject: Fidelius Charm/Sirius In-Reply-To: <70.1658681f.29798d53@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33678 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote: > I'm going to ask a relly dumb question, but I have realised that I just don't > understand the Fidelius Charm. > But WHY did Sirius feel the need to create a bluff in switching to Pettigrew? > If he was willing to die rather than give them away, what was the > problem?(other than the minor one of wishing to avoid death/ torture). Newbie delurking here. I wondered about that myself. The only theory I could come up with is that Sirius a)didn't feel entirely confident in his own ability to withstand torture; or b)was afraid that Voldemort would use some magical means (Imperio curse or Veritaseum, for example) to get him to talk. The problem with that is, switching secret-keepers wouldn't keep the Potters safe in this scenario, it would only introduce an extra step in the questioning. Voldemort: Here, drink this Veritaseum. Sirius: glug-glug-glug V: Where are the Potters? S: I don't know. V: What do you mean you don't know, aren't you the secret-keeper? S: No, I switched with Peter. V: Oh. Okay, I'll ask Peter, then. Not much of a plan, is it? Admittedly, Sirius isn't exactly a brillian planner. But you'd think James and Lily would think it through more carefully. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com Fri Jan 18 16:32:24 2002 From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 10:32:24 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Fidelius Charm/Sirius References: <70.1658681f.29798d53@aol.com> Message-ID: <3C484E18.664677C2@kingwoodcable.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33679 Edblanning at aol.com wrote: > > I'm going to ask a relly dumb question, but I have realised that I just don't > understand the Fidelius Charm. > > The secret is hidden in a single living soul and is impossible to find unless > the secret-keeper chooses to divulge it. > > What about those who knew the secret of the Potter's whereabouts before the > spell was cast? > Do they lose the knowledge until the secret-keeper choses to tell them? Or is > it just that any information they pass on becomes meaningless? I ask because > Sirius was obviously party to the secret. > IIRC, the Potters had decided to go into hiding (new location), and so Peter would be the only one who knew where the new location was. On the other hand, "go into hiding" could simply meaning they are going to hide inside the house they already occupied, but I don't think this is the correct interpretation. We don't know where the Potter's loved *before* the Fidelius charm was performed. They probably lived in the wizarding world before hiding, and moved to Godric's Hollow (Muggle community) when they went into hiding. I think Hagrid mentioned something about about the Potters living "just like Muggles". JMO -Katze From jbryson at richmond.infi.net Fri Jan 18 16:07:31 2002 From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 16:07:31 -0000 Subject: Is Ginny a Parsiltongue? In-Reply-To: <4f.17223218.2979170a@cs.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33680 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., DMCourt11 at c... wrote: > In a message dated 1/17/02 10:47:26 AM Eastern Standard Time, lav at t... > writes:Other threads recently went into detail about women in the HP universe, and > Ginny in particular (her maturity mostly). Might it be significant that if > there are no missing Weasly children, that makes Ginny the seventh child. > Much of the discussion of women in HP argued about strong portrayals, > equality, etc. It would be nice to see Ginny not only continue maturing, but > discover that she is a very powerful witch as well. I realize she was underTR's control at the time, but ASFAIK, the diary was mute, communicating outside itself only by TR's writing. So how was the sink opened for Ginny to get into the tunnel? It seems she would have to have spoken to the sink in Parsiltongue. TR might have told ter what to hiss, but could that have given her the ability for life, as V seems to have given Harry certain of his powers? Tex From cityhawk at pobox.com Fri Jan 18 15:51:39 2002 From: cityhawk at pobox.com (cityhawk1) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 15:51:39 -0000 Subject: Brief musing of Avada Kedavra Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33681 A thought occurred to me... We're told that there is no counter-curse to the Avada Kedavra curse, but from whom did we hear this? Crouch/Moody. While he may have had his personal reasons for teaching his class to fight the imperious curse, it would certainly not be in his best interest to teach them how to battle the AK curse.... Just a thought. Karl From lav at tut.by Fri Jan 18 16:33:49 2002 From: lav at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 18:33:49 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Fidelius Charm/Sirius In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <10416898363.20020118183349@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 33682 Greetings! > Marina the Mermaid wrote to us in her wisdom: m> Newbie delurking here. m> I wondered about that myself. The only theory I could come up with is m> that Sirius a)didn't feel entirely confident in his own ability to m> withstand torture; or b)was afraid that Voldemort would use some m> magical means (Imperio curse or Veritaseum, for example) to get him to m> talk. m> The problem with that is, switching secret-keepers wouldn't keep the m> Potters safe in this scenario, it would only introduce an extra step m> in the questioning. m> (...) m> Marina m> rusalka at ix.netcom.com There's just a possibility that a person under Imperio follows the orders literally - like a computer. In this case the interrogation could last for much longer time. Still, veritaserum doesn't work that way. The person just gets extremely talkative and truthful. But yes, one more step would be more than enough - remember how long did it take Sirius to return to England from his hiding in GoF. Multiply that by two and you get the time bonus enough to do something else. But there's still another possibility. Sirius could simply use another Fidelius spell to hide, instead of running off like Hell. In bluff scenario, Pettigrew could be hidded by this way, and then Sirius - that's _three_ levels of security there. Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, (Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed), who doesn't believe in ultimate security anyway. From jbryson at richmond.infi.net Fri Jan 18 16:48:22 2002 From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 16:48:22 -0000 Subject: "We Want to Matriculate Your Daughter..." In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33683 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "sing2wine" wrote: > Cindy brings up a topic that troubles me as well. Petunia ranted and > raved - with great bitterness - about how proud her parents were when > Lily got her letter and we all know that Hermione's parents are > muggle dentists. How does the cross-over occur for muggle born > wizards to be accepted by their parents? How did Hermione's parents > get to Diagon Alley to bring her to buy her school supplies? How does > all this stay out of poison pens of muggle equivalents of Rita > Skeeter? (Or is that what papers like the National Enquirer are > really about...???) Maybe their Owls deliver more infomative letters, but Muggle parents and guardians have to be informed that: 1)Yes, there is magic, and 2) your child/ward is a witch/wizard, and 3) hogwarts is the best place for them to be, and 4) here is your parents' orientation schedule. I don't think the Grangers were subjected to the treatment the Dursleys were but they had to be oriented, especially as they are footing the bill for Hermione's shool expenses. From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jan 18 17:12:06 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 17:12:06 -0000 Subject: Fidelius Charm/Sirius/Wizard Muggle marriages In-Reply-To: <70.1658681f.29798d53@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33684 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote: > Sirius was obviously party to the secret. > > But WHY did Sirius feel the need to create a bluff in switching to Pettigrew? I think JKR is having fun with the conventions of the genre here. Why should it be only the villains who come up with needlessly elaborate plans? But I suppose Sirius' idea was that he would be able to elude Voldemort's people for a long time and they would waste time and energy searching for him. We don't know what happens to the Secret if the Secret-Keeper is killed. Does that break the spell? If so, Sirius may have simply thought that he would be killed instantly if discovered. The real Secret Keeper would still be safe and Dumbledore could arrange for another decoy. *** Tabouli asked about wizard Muggle marriages: >>How do such couples meet, and how do they overcome the cultural differences? How do the Muggles come to terms with the magical abilities of their spouses and overcome their natural scepticism, and what do they tell their families?<< If most wizard families are mixed, maybe they don't shun their non-wizard relatives the way the Weasleys do. I can see them getting together for large scale family gatherings (weddings and such) at which there would also be unrelated friends from the Muggle world. The oddity wouldn't be mentioned in casual conversation...like Uncle Max who gets invited to everything 'cause everybody loves him even though they all know he's a bookie. Also, wizards do frequent places like King's Cross and Charing Cross road, and Muggle shops occasionally. Harry runs into some of them as he's growing up, and Archie had to buy his flowered nightgown. Eyes meet across a crowded room and nature does the rest... As for how the mixed family deals with magic on a day to day basis...have you ever seen the old American TV sitcom Bewitched? You'd love it...all cross-cultural subtext, all the time. Pippin From lav at tut.by Fri Jan 18 16:35:44 2002 From: lav at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 18:35:44 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] : Re: Wizard-Muggle marriage In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1717013175.20020118183544@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 33685 Greetings! > Bonnie wrote to us: s> Cindy brings up a topic that troubles me as well. Petunia ranted and s> raved - with great bitterness - about how proud her parents were when s> Lily got her letter and we all know that Hermione's parents are s> muggle dentists. How does the cross-over occur for muggle born s> wizards to be accepted by their parents? How did Hermione's parents s> get to Diagon Alley to bring her to buy her school supplies? How does s> all this stay out of poison pens of muggle equivalents of Rita s> Skeeter? (Or is that what papers like the National Enquirer are s> really about...???) s> Bonnie / sing2wine I don't know what "National Enquirer" is about, but can try to make a fair guess... :) I'm quite sure it's not the case, though. Not because there are no talented reporters here on Earth, but mostly because Potterverse is not our world (the primary proof is the very existance of HP Series - either we assume there's no Harry Potter on Earth, or we assume that all JKR stuff is a complete fake created by MoM... nice thought... 8) But then we don't know what muggle newspapers are writing in the Potterverse. They may easily get bits of information here and there. Fat percent of that intel will be attributed to UFO's, of course, some will be called "phenomena" etc. Still, something _must_ leak - but again we don't know until JKR reveals us that info. That's it. No wizards in our world. Believe me - I can bet my wand on it. Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, (Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed), always happy to throw weird ideas into the community. From sandirs at hotmail.com Fri Jan 18 17:33:53 2002 From: sandirs at hotmail.com (Sandi Steinberg) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 12:33:53 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] : Re: Wizard-Muggle marriage Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33686 MY big question has always been: how are Muggle-borns chosen to attend Hogwarts? Is there someone in their ancestry lost to family history who actually WAS a witch or Wizard? Hogwarts certainly has a majority of students who are like the Weasleys and Draco Malfoy, the progeny of wizardly families. Does anyone NOT get invited to Hogwars if Daddy or Mummy works for the Ministry of Magic? It might be fun to look into the "admissions committee" and learn a bit about the selection process. Let's also remember the violence against witches and suspected witches throughout English history. The Elizabethan Age produced Shakespeare and Johnson, but was also the "great" era of witch trials and burnings. Many of the victims were simply old, deformed women--with what we know today about osteoporosis, it's not surprising that many women entered "old" age badly stooped and deformed. We also know that witch burnings were avidly attended and violent spectacles....it's not surprising then, that many families might have hidden the fact that there was a witch or suspected witch in the family to keep their progeny safe and unchallenged in the future. Sandi >From: "sing2wine" >Reply-To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com >To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com >Subject: [HPforGrownups] : Re: Wizard-Muggle marriage >Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 14:52:32 -0000 > >Cindy brings up a topic that troubles me as well. Petunia ranted and >raved - with great bitterness - about how proud her parents were when >Lily got her letter and we all know that Hermione's parents are >muggle dentists. How does the cross-over occur for muggle born >wizards to be accepted by their parents? How did Hermione's parents >get to Diagon Alley to bring her to buy her school supplies? How does >all this stay out of poison pens of muggle equivalents of Rita >Skeeter? (Or is that what papers like the National Enquirer are >really about...???) >Bonnie / sing2wine > > _________________________________________________________________ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com From catherine at cator-manor.demon.co.uk Fri Jan 18 17:54:36 2002 From: catherine at cator-manor.demon.co.uk (catorman) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 17:54:36 -0000 Subject: Is Ginny a Parsiltongue? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33687 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "tex23236" wrote: > I realize she was underTR's control at the time, but ASFAIK, the diary > was mute, communicating outside itself only by TR's writing. So how > was the sink opened for Ginny to get into the tunnel? It seems she > would have to have spoken to the sink in Parsiltongue. TR might have > told ter what to hiss, but could that have given her the ability for > life, as V seems to have given Harry certain of his powers? > > Tex IIRC, Ginny didn't know what she was doing when she was under the control of Tom Riddle. If she can paint walls, kill roosters etc. without knowing what she is doing then I'm pretty sure that Tom Riddle would be able to speak parseltongue through her as well. She was, in a sense, "hypnotised" - total mind control, and we know that people do all kinds of things they aren't really normally able to do when they are hypnotised. Catherine From cewald at niu.edu Fri Jan 18 18:01:06 2002 From: cewald at niu.edu (evershade1) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 18:01:06 -0000 Subject: my bloodline therory Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33688 Hi all...I never post...except for today! Let me know what you think! Chris Bloodlines .and Harry Potter (a hypothesis) What we know for sure is that Tom Riddle (a.k.a. Lord Voldermort) was born to a witch and a muggle. His father rejected him and his mother died giving birth to him. Now the hypothesis: What if Tom Riddle's mother actually gave birth to twins, the other child being a girl. Hence, there were now actually two heirs of Slytherin. The girl grew up as a muggle, and showed no magical powers. Later she married a man named Evans, and gave birth to two daughters, Petunia and Lilly. (Lilly being born when she was 33 years old.) Unexpectedly Lilly showed magical powers, and was invited to come to Hogwarts. There she met James Potter, they married and had a child named Harry. Continuing on with the hypothesis: What if James Potter was a direct descendent of Gryffindor? Harry Potter would then have the blood of both Gryffindor and Slytherin in his veins. Lord Voldermort discovered this and recognized that Lilly was his niece, and that Harry possibly could be the greatest wizard ever known. His goal was to kill Harry. Perhaps he felt honor bound not to kill his niece, a descendent of Slytherin, but Harry was not pure Slytherin, and thus in his mind, it was acceptable to kill him. Lord Voldermort, however, underestimated the Slytherin power of Lilly Potter. Her love and her Slytherin blood protected Harry. Could one Slytherin kill another without suffering the consequences? The essence of Slytherin love for her child was upon Harry (could the lightening bolt scar on Harry's forehead really be a scar of a serpent?), and thus the curse Lord Voldermort sent to Harry rebounded back to himself with disastrous effect. This hypothesis could explain many clues in the story of Harry Potter. Harry's physical similarity to Lord Voldermort, his ability to speak Parseltongue. Harry's ability to open the Chamber of Secrets. Additionally, it could explain the look of triumph in Dumbledor's eyes when he learns that Lord Voldermort has taken some of Harry's blood into himself to recreate his body. It could make Lord Voldermore as powerful as Harry. However, it could also temper his bloodline with the more noble qualities of Gryffinder. We know that the memory form of Tom Riddle could grow stronger when it fed off the fear and negative thoughts of another. We know that Quirrel could not touch Harry without being burned as long as Lord Voldermort shared his body and soul. It would seem obvious then that Harry's blood (containing Gryffindor blood) would cause some effect on Lord Voldermort's person. From moongirlk at yahoo.com Fri Jan 18 18:32:26 2002 From: moongirlk at yahoo.com (moongirlk) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 18:32:26 -0000 Subject: : Re: Wizard-Muggle marriage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33689 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "sing2wine" wrote: How does > all this stay out of poison pens of muggle equivalents of Rita > Skeeter? (Or is that what papers like the National Enquirer are > really about...???) > Bonnie / sing2wine Aha! There you go - there's a great possibility for muggle/wizard crossover employment. Wizards run tabloids, in order to reinforce muggle disbelief in all things magical! They encorage muggle conspiracy theorists and UFO buffs and such to go as far and as wacky as possible so that your average muggle finds it all either embarrassing or funny, and... voila - a muggle could write a tell-all memoir about the wizarding world, what's it gonna hurt? Nobody will believe them! The added benefit is that contributers/writers might also unwittingly deliver them useful information (ie - odd sightings in the albanian forests and such). kimberly, who now wishes she had paid more attention to her loopy aunt's tabloid collection ;) From babelfisherperson at yahoo.com Fri Jan 18 18:47:11 2002 From: babelfisherperson at yahoo.com (babelfisherperson) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 18:47:11 -0000 Subject: Very good discussion question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33690 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marybear82" wrote: > "In The GoF, we learn that when V killed Harry's parents, Harry > survived the attack due to his mother's loving sacrifice. V > explains that in 'His mother died in the attempt to save him - and > unwittingly provided him with a protection I had not forseen...I > could not touch the boy (p652). As a result of surviving that > attack, Harry is labeled a great wizard, but has Harry truly earned > that title? To what extent would you say that Harry is not so > much 'great' as lucky? In all that Harry does, how much is he > acting of his own free will, and how much is he simply living out > what from birth has been his destiny?" Actually, this was brought up far earlier than GoF. Doesn't Dumbledore first mention it in PS? But regardless, I maintain that Lily's protection couldn't possibly have been the only reason Harry survived Voldemort's attack. It's made clear that Voldemort kill a great many people before that. He's mentioned as having wiped out other families. Surely there would've been other people who died trying to protect someone they loved from Voldemort. Yet Voldemort succeeded in killing every person he targetted, until he went after Harry. Thus, I conclude that there must've been something special about Harry even before Lily sacrificed herself to protect him. This conclusion would be supported by the fact that Voldemort considered killing the one-year-old Harry worth his time to begin with. Red XIV From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Fri Jan 18 18:17:53 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 18:17:53 -0000 Subject: Fidelius Charm/Sirius In-Reply-To: <10416898363.20020118183349@tut.by> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33691 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Alexander wrote: > Greetings! > > But there's still another possibility. Sirius could simply > use another Fidelius spell to hide, instead of running off > like Hell. In bluff scenario, Pettigrew could be hidded by > this way, and then Sirius - that's _three_ levels of > security there. It's possible (though it would require putting together a rather large group of reliable secret keepers, which might've been tought at the time). Also, Sirius might've had some sort of a check-in schedule with Dumbledore and the Potters, where if they didn't hear from him at certain times of day they'd know he's been captured or killed -- in that case, having an extra level of indirection would help give them sufficient time to flee and change their security arrangements. Hmm. I wonder if it's possible to have two people be secret-keepers for each other? That would be ultimate security, wouldn't it? You can't find A unless B tells you how, but you can't find B to ask him unless A tells you how... Marina Frants rusalka at ix.netcom.com From gingerorlando at hotmail.com Fri Jan 18 18:29:15 2002 From: gingerorlando at hotmail.com (katrionabowman) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 18:29:15 -0000 Subject: my bloodline therory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33692 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "evershade1" wrote: > Hi all...I never post...except for today! Let me know what > you think! Chris > > Bloodlines .and Harry Potter (a hypothesis) Chris, My sole concern with this theory, is that surely if Lily was a direct descendant of Slytherin, she would have been sorted into Slytherin, and not Gryffindor? KT in Seattle - not wishing to rain on anyone's parade. From igenite_olwyn at yahoo.com Fri Jan 18 18:36:26 2002 From: igenite_olwyn at yahoo.com (Olwyn) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 18:36:26 -0000 Subject: Snape (still!) Message-ID: <00b001c1a04f$10fd97c0$0200a8c0@Nshare> No: HPFGUIDX 33693 Eloise wrote... >>So my current Snape hypothesis is: 1)good guy who's battling to be good against his (shorthand, not stereotyping!) Slytherin tendencies who 2)gives up being good and tries to be bad out of pique and to get the recognition he never feels he's had and who then ends up 3) with a guilt thing (which is often displayed as anger) after playing at being bad doesn't work and who doesn't like being 'good' to boot. It's just a hypothesis, so I expect to be disproved instantly!<< Can I maybe add another theory to your list, my own personal favourite. Was he ever a true DE in the first place? Did he really do all the bad stuff that that implies like murder and so on? Was he possibly a double agent for Dumbledore et al right from the beginning and the only reason he's so jaded is partly from not enjoying school (an outsider possibly, or one who felt he had to bully others to get any kind of attention) and the things that he has seen in the course of his 'secret agent' time and how he's been treated since? Olwyn (who's determined to prove somehow that Snape is completely worthy of our adoration) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From blenberry at altavista.com Fri Jan 18 18:39:08 2002 From: blenberry at altavista.com (blenberry) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 18:39:08 -0000 Subject: Wizard Wear In-Reply-To: <20020118113622.72089.qmail@web21102.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33694 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Ronald Rae Yu wrote: > The trio wear muggle clothing underneath their school > robes (in the books at least). Is this really clear in the books? My impression was that Ron and Harry wear jeans, sweaters etc on weekends and holidays, but their robes to classes. If robes are just put on *over* muggle clothing, why would Hermione have to leave so that they could change (PS/SS)? Unless they just wanted to get rid of her, which is a good possibility at that point. Barbara From blenberry at altavista.com Fri Jan 18 19:04:37 2002 From: blenberry at altavista.com (blenberry) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 19:04:37 -0000 Subject: Wizard (under)Wear In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33695 > Ronald Rae Yu wrote: > > The trio wear muggle clothing underneath their school > > robes (in the books at least). > "judyserenity" wrote: > Perhaps the wizarding world is underwear optional? I just thought of another bit of evidence that *nothing* is worn under the robes... When Harry and Ron polyjuice into Crabbe and Goyle in CoS, they put on just bigger robes (sneaked by Hermione out of the laundry) and shoes (stolen from the doped C & G). Barbara From plumeski at yahoo.com Fri Jan 18 19:15:02 2002 From: plumeski at yahoo.com (GulPlum) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 19:15:02 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Harry_Potter=96A_Worthwhile_series=3F=3F?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33696 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "kimballs6" wrote: > Much debate is swirling around the Harry Potter books versus > C.S. Lewis's and Tolkien's stories. Many argue that these > books are all similar--just fantasy, pure and simple. I disagree. > They are fantasies (Lewis going into allegory), but that is where > the similarity ends. After reading the first book in the Potter > series, reading The Hobbit, and brushing up on The Lion, the > Witch and the Wardrobe, I see a tremendous gulf between > Rowling and the other two writers. This paper discusses the > difference between their world views and the incredible gulf > between writing abilities. Several people have already made detailed replies to your essay, so I'll try to keep my comments short. One thing with which nobody else (as far as I've seen) has taken issue is your basic premise. Incidentally, where is this debate about comparing Rowling with Lewis and Tolkein? The only comparison I've ever seen has been between the recent movies, and largely only by those who wish, for whatever reason, to show Rowling's work to be wanting. Among the acres of press, none of Rowling's "fans" have ever tried to imply that her world is on a par with the other two examples you cite. There is one basic and straightforward flaw in your entire diatribe: Lewis and Tolkein were language scholars whose deliberate and specific intention was to create Great Literature (capital G & L) with extremely strong religious sub-texts (in Lewis's case, it's not really "sub" anything). Both were scholars first, evangelists second (if not vice-versa), and story-tellers third. Rowling's intention has always and consistently been to tell a story, and nothing more. She has no ambitions for her oeuvre other than to give pleasure to children, telling them a story they will understand in an accessible language. That her books have become a phenomenon is quite clearly an even greater surprise to her than it is to anyone else. It is because the HP world has become a phenomenon that the usual rent-a-quotes feel obliged to compare Rowling to those of her forebears who are also seen as phenomena. Both in terms of style and substance, to compare Rowling to Lewis and Tolkein is unfair to all three of them. If anything, compare Harry Potter to the Famous Five, Jennings or even the Bobbsey Twins, in whose distinguished company he belongs and where, after the movies have come and gone, I am sure he will remain. Undertake such a comparison, and I'm sure that both on literary and moral merit, Rowling will be more than entitled to hold her head high. These aren't necessarily great literary inventions, but they are books of their time for children of that time, introducing them to the joys of reading. The only reason anyone puts Rowling into the same boat as Tolkein and Lewis is because each created a self-consistent universe which told a single story over several books. One may as well include Ian Fleming and his James Bond books in that boat, as (unlike the films) there is a subtle continuity from book to book (although of course there isn't a clear running narrative). I'm aware that a significant proportion of the regs here are women and thus the Bond books wouldn't necessarily spring to mind - they are very much "boys' stories". :-) Other people have commented on your over-simplified (and even simplistic) comparison of the moral universe of the three books, so I won't go into detail. However, considering Lewis and Tolkein were deliberately writing Christian morality plays, it's not surprising that the gist of their oeuvre is to pit ultimate good against ultimate evil in a framework of moral absolutism. The worlds they created are perforce removed from our own, which is painted not in black and white but in infinite shades of grey, and thus moral absolutes are difficult to find and portray in an exciting way. Rowling attempts to tell a story about a world with which her readers can more immediately identify, and thus she is forced o show a morality which we can recognise in our daily lives - lying sometimes serves a greater good, and rules are a framework to help us live our lives, not absolute commandments, applicable to every situation. The same is true of the grammatical and syntactical absolutism you apply to a critique of Rowling's style - I actually agree with you in that some of her constructions grate on me, but as others have pointed out, language rules change. Rowling is a woman and is perhaps more sensitive to personal pronouns than the men to whom you compare her (not to mention yourself, and me as well...) and this is certainly a feature of acceptable modern style for which you appear to fail to give her allowance. One final comment: this is a discussion forum, not an essay publishing house. The aim is for all of us to benefit from an exchange of opinions which may be divergent from our own. I've seen nothing from you before or since your post and am curious whether you actually wish to debate your ideas, some of which perhaps have some merit. By its very nature this is a fan forum and it's easy for readers and posters to become complacent. I therefore sincerely look forward to your thoughts on what others have said about your critique. From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com Fri Jan 18 19:37:20 2002 From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 13:37:20 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: my bloodline therory References: Message-ID: <3C487970.656CB022@kingwoodcable.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33697 While I think your theory is good and seems solid, I don't quite agree. evershade1 wrote: > Now the hypothesis: What if Tom Riddle's mother actually gave birth > to twins, the other child being a girl. Hence, there were now > actually two heirs of Slytherin. The girl grew up as a muggle, and > showed no magical powers. Later she married a man named Evans, and > gave birth to two daughters, Petunia and Lilly. (Lilly being born > when she was 33 years old.) Unexpectedly Lilly showed magical > powers, and was invited to come to Hogwarts. There she met James > Potter, they married and had a child named Harry. > Continuing on with the hypothesis: What if James Potter was a direct > descendent of Gryffindor? Harry Potter would then have the blood of > both Gryffindor and Slytherin in his veins. Lord Voldermort > discovered this and recognized that Lilly was his niece, and that > Harry possibly could be the greatest wizard ever known. His goal was > to kill Harry. Perhaps he felt honor bound not to kill his niece, a > descendent of Slytherin, but Harry was not pure Slytherin, and thus > in his mind, it was acceptable to kill him. I also don't think that Voldemort would save Lily, just because she was his niece (if it turned out that they are related). She is Muggle born, and Voldemort despises Muggles. There's something more to Lily, and I think V had plans for her, had he not killed her. IT's possible Lily has some powers that we don't know about yet (definitely in charms, possibly a seer - don't know why I think this), and V knew and wanted to make use of her talents. The more I think about a blood relations between V and Harry, the less I believe it. As Rowling stated in an interview, "Seems a bit Star Wars-ish doesn't it?" Now...when I read CoS, my immediate thought was that Harry is a Gryffindor heir. this could still be true, as we have no evidence to prove this false. So, I could see why V would want to wipe out the James' side of the family (including Harry). But Rowling is tricky, and I'm not sure she'd go for something quite so obvious. > This hypothesis could explain many clues in the story of Harry > Potter. Harry's physical similarity to Lord Voldermort, his ability > to speak Parseltongue. Harry's ability to open the Chamber of > Secrets. Additionally, it could explain the look of triumph in > Dumbledor's eyes when he learns that Lord Voldermort has taken some > of Harry's blood into himself to recreate his body It could make > Lord Voldermore as powerful as Harry. However, it could also temper > his bloodline with the more noble qualities of Gryffinder. Harry's ability to speak Parseltongue came from Voldemort when he first attacked Harry. I don't believe that him speaking to snake is a natural ability. As for the look of triumph, I don't think Harry's blood is going to bring goodness into V's heart, or make him more noble. I would be very disappointed in the series, if V were redeemed. Harry's blood serves as a disadvantage to V, and D knows this (IMO anyway). V is very arrogant. He's also very short sided. He probably thought...yeah...take Harry's blood...I'd be just as powerful as him, and have his protection. But there is something that he didn't think about, and it will aide his downfall. > Now the hypothesis: What if Tom Riddle's mother actually gave birth > to twins, the other child being a girl. Hence, there were now > actually two heirs of Slytherin. The girl grew up as a muggle, and > showed no magical powers. Later she married a man named Evans, and > gave birth to two daughters, Petunia and Lilly. (Lilly being born > when she was 33 years old.) Unexpectedly Lilly showed magical > powers, and was invited to come to Hogwarts. There she met James > Potter, they married and had a child named Harry. katrionabowman wrote: > > My sole concern with this theory, is that surely if Lily was a direct > descendant of Slytherin, she would have been sorted into Slytherin, > and not Gryffindor? This isn't necessarily true. Just because family is one house, doesn't mean you can't go to another. The Patil twins were put into two different house, one Gryffindor, and one Ravenclaw. So while Lily could be an heir to Slytherin, the sorting hat would put her in Gryffindor, which goes a long to to support that idea that it's a person's choices that makes them who they are. Lily (regardless of whether she was mean or nice), had Gryffindor qualities, more so than Slytherin qualities. -Katze From lotusmoondragon at aol.com Fri Jan 18 19:39:01 2002 From: lotusmoondragon at aol.com (lotusmoondragon at aol.com) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 14:39:01 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Wizard Wear Message-ID: <10d.bfba414.2979d3d5@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33698 In a message dated 1/18/02 6:36:52 AM Eastern Standard Time, ickle_ronniekins at yahoo.com writes: > The typical (and only?) 'wizard wear' is robes. What > do they wear underneath them? Who says they have to wear anything? IIRC, the man at the World Cup says he's wearing the woman's dress to "have air around his privates." That to me indicated that the answers to the questions "What does a wizard wear under his robes?" and "What does a Scotsman wear under his kilt?" are the same thing. :-) I was personally disappointed that they put Muggle clothing on the kids in the movie. :-( Lotus [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From IAmLordCassandra at aol.com Fri Jan 18 19:52:01 2002 From: IAmLordCassandra at aol.com (IAmLordCassandra at aol.com) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 14:52:01 EST Subject: House Elves and Laundry (brief musing) Message-ID: <155.77e9129.2979d6e1@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33699 Barbara writes: > > > > > Now, if > > > > > freeing an elf can happen as inadvertently (on > > > > Malfoy's part) as it > > > > > did to Dobby, how can elves do any of these jobs > > > > handling clothes? I > > > > > thought one had to be careful not to pass them > > > > even a sock. Lotus thinks: > > > > > > > > I think there is a big difference from handing them > > > > clothing to asking them > > > > to pick up clothing. I think if a house elf picks up > > > > clothing on their own, > > > > it's not the same as giving them clothing to wear. > > > Drieux suggested: > > > A question of intent, perhaps. I read that being the > > > case when Crouch Sr. sacks Winky (who, oddly enough, > > > is called 'Whiney' in these parts). Yet, the opposite > > > side is represented when Lucius Malfoy inadvertantly > > > tosses Harry's sock to Dobby; I seriously doubt that > > > he intended to free his 'slave'. Comments on this > > > occur in GoF at the World Cup game, of course. > > I (Cassie) say: > You also have to take into account the fact that the house elves > (with the > exception of Dobby and maybe a tiny selection of others) don't want > to be > freed. Most elves would probably make it a point *not* to take > clothing > directly from their masters, even jump out of the way to avoid a > sock their > master had thrown. > > ~Cassie-who hopes AOL's blue line hasn't made her post confusing~ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From judyshapiro at earthlink.net Fri Jan 18 19:57:26 2002 From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 19:57:26 -0000 Subject: Fidelius Charm/Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33700 Edblanning at a... wrote: > > I'm going to ask a relly dumb question, but I have realised that I > > just don't understand the Fidelius Charm.... > > But WHY did Sirius feel the need to create a bluff in switching to > > Pettigrew?... And "marinafrants" replied: > ... switching secret-keepers wouldn't keep the > Potters safe in this scenario, it would only > introduce an extra step > in the questioning. > Voldemort: Here, drink this Veritaseum. > Sirius: glug-glug-glug > V: Where are the Potters? > S: I don't know. > V: What do you mean you don't know, aren't you the secret-keeper? > S: No, I switched with Peter. > V: Oh. Okay, I'll ask Peter, then.... First of all, this is NOT a stupid question about the Fidelius Charm. It's really unclear what this charm does, and many people here have wondered about this before. And, Marina, I love your description of Sirius' "conversation" with Voldy! Still, I think switching secret-keepers does add extra security (or at least would have, if the new secret-keeper wasn't a spy for Voldy.) It means that the Death Eaters have to find and "break" two people, instead of just one. And, presumably getting information out of an unwilling informant isn't an easy task, or the Fidelius Charm would be pointless in the first place. I assume there must be some defense against veritaserum (which Barty Crouch Jr. didn't have); otherwise, there would have been no need for trials, Sirius Black could have cleared his name, Dumbledore would have known who the spy was, etc. (Actually, I think veritaserum may be another example of JKR creating magic in her stories without thinking through the consequences, but I'm trying to give her the benefit of the doubt.) In regards to the question of whom James *should* have picked, I have to side with Snape. (Of course, I pretty much always side with Snape!) He said James was arrogant for trusting his friend to be the secret-keeper. In retrospect, I have to agree; Dumbledore would have been much much much safer. Perhaps James wanted to demonstrate his (misplaced) trust in his friends? Or, perhaps being the secret-keeper would have hindered Dumbledore in some way, and James didn't want to burden him at such a crucial time? From Jefrigo21 at aol.com Fri Jan 18 20:04:26 2002 From: Jefrigo21 at aol.com (Jefrigo21 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 15:04:26 EST Subject: Hogwarts admissions Message-ID: <18e.1f7fa64.2979d9ca@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33701 "Sandi Steinberg" Wrote... MY big question has always been: how are Muggle-borns chosen to attend Hogwarts? Is there someone in their ancestry lost to family history who actually WAS a witch or Wizard?.... ________ I heard that there is a magica feather that writes the names down of the child who has magic in them.... From sandirs at hotmail.com Fri Jan 18 19:53:48 2002 From: sandirs at hotmail.com (Sandi Steinberg) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 14:53:48 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: An alternative bloodline therory Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33702 Alternate theory: Suppose the Evans, unable to conceive a child, ADOPTED PETUNIA, before giving birth to Lily? What if there is a whole family history that remains to be uncovered? Perhaps Petunia is so angry and resentful because Lily is the "blood" child, the true heiress of the family legacy, and Harry is not her "blood" nephew--which is one reason for her unceasing abuse of him? (Of course in Brontes's "Jane Eyre" Jane's relatives were biological ones, but so stingy and resentlful of having to raise her that they stuck her in the horrible charity school....) Sometimes there are simpler hypotheses to propose... (Personal Dumb question: why was Lily 33? Thanks.) [[Note from John, HPFGU technoMod: For date info such as this, try the wonderful HP Lexicon, at http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/ :)]] Sandi Steinberg Arlington, VA USA From lipglossusa at yahoo.com Fri Jan 18 21:07:13 2002 From: lipglossusa at yahoo.com (lipglossusa) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 21:07:13 -0000 Subject: Fidelius Charm/Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33703 cindy wrote: > > As much as I like Sirius, there is one little problem with his > strategy. He says he feared Voldemort would come after him and he > planned to go into hiding. Got it. He suggested Peter be > secretkeeper as a bluff. OK. If and when Voldemort captured Sirius > and tortured him, Sirius was apparently worried that he would be > broken and would disclose the location of the Potters. Uh, huh. > Doesn't this whole plan hinge on the supposition that, when Voldemort > is torturing Sirius, that Sirius won't say, "You know, you shouldn't > waste perfectly good Cruciatus Curses on me, as Pettigrew is the one > you want." So how does Sirius' bluff make the Potters any more safe? Ok. Here's what I think. Sirius thought that Voldemort would come after him because he, as James's best friend, was the obvious choice to be secret-keeper. I don't think that Sirius was necessarily worried about being tortured and revealing the secret, nor do I think the Fidelius Charm is like a memory charm that can be broken through torture. As for the Truth Serum, Professor Flitwick says that the secret is IMPOSSIBLE to find unless the secret-keeper CHOOSES to reveal it. Barty Crouch Jr was not under any spells or charms (that we know of) in GoF, which is why the Veritserum worked on him. Voldemort could dump gallons of the stuff down Sirius's gullet and never get a straight answer unless Sirius chose to tell him. As Sirius said, he would have died before telling Voldemort where the Potters were or who the secret-keeper was. I think that Sirius just wanted to avoid Voldemort altogether-- just because he would've died rather than betray the Potters doesn't mean he WANTED to die, which, if he were captured, would have been his only choice. So by switching secret-keepers to someone less obvious, who was (supposedly) on their side, both Sirius and the Potters would be safe for the time being. Obviously the Fidelius Charm has a lot of "ifs," which the Potters and Dumbledore knew perfectly well. What it could do was simply buy time for the Potters, until they figured out who was feeding info to You-Know-Who, catch the traitor, and hopefully find Voldemort and get rid of the slimy @#*! once and for all. Marina, who is waiting patiently for someone to poke cavernous holes in a reply to her theory.... From pennylin at swbell.net Fri Jan 18 21:09:14 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny & Bryce) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 15:09:14 -0600 Subject: Literary Comparisons for HP (was Harry Potter: A Worthwhile Series?) References: Message-ID: <3C488EFA.5000005@swbell.net> No: HPFGUIDX 33704 Hi -- I've been enjoying the responses on this thread quite a bit; the discussions have really been stimulating! :--) GulPlum wrote: > There is one basic and straightforward flaw in your entire diatribe: > Lewis and Tolkein were language scholars whose deliberate and > specific intention was to create Great Literature (capital G & L) > with extremely strong religious sub-texts (in Lewis's case, it's not > really "sub" anything). Both were scholars first, evangelists second > (if not vice-versa), and story-tellers third. > > Rowling's intention has always and consistently been to tell a story, > and nothing more. She has no ambitions for her oeuvre other than to > give pleasure to children, telling them a story they will understand > in an accessible language. That her books have become a phenomenon is > quite clearly an even greater surprise to her than it is to anyone > else. I certainly agree with your thoughts about the intentions of both Tolkien & Lewis. From my limited knowledge of both authors, they did state these intentions publicly, and there isn't, AFAIK, any real dissent within the scholarly community as to the authorial intent of either of these authors. I'm not sure you can really comment on JKR's "ambitions" per se though, and she's definitely said that she did *not* have a target audience (of any age). She is a storyteller, and I think she'd agree with your assessment in that regard. I'm not so sure she'd agree that her one & only purpose in writing HP is to give children pleasure. I don't think she writes with a target audience in mind or with such a limited purpose specifically in mind either. I agree that her success has been surprising to her, and she's said as much many times. But I think that's more because she expected only a limited "cult-like" following of her work, rather than the overwhelming international sensation that it has become. > Both in terms of style and substance, to compare Rowling to Lewis and > Tolkein is unfair to all three of them. Agreed. They are all 3 operating in a fantasy setting, and at this juncture in the HP series, that's about all that can be said. If anything, compare Harry > Potter to the Famous Five, Jennings or even the Bobbsey Twins, in > whose distinguished company he belongs and where, after the movies > have come and gone, I am sure he will remain. The Bobbsey Twins are "distinguished" company??! Perhaps I'm selling the series short since it's been a good many years since I read one of them, if ever. But, aren't they basically the equivalent of Nancy Drew or Hardy Boy mystery stories? I looked up one site on the internet just to see if I could figure out why you would draw a comparison between HP and this particular series. I confess that I'm still puzzled. Here's the blurb in brief that I found: > The twins enjoyed wonderful days filled with sunshine and love with their playmates, Grace, Nellie, Charlie and Dannie. Their dog, Snap and Snoop the cat got to go along on many of their adventures. They took trips to the country to visit Uncle Daniel and traveled to the seashore to stay at Uncle William's house. Some of their adventures included riding on a houseboat, camping on Blueberry Island and taking a trip to the west. Each new volume that came out usually had a short summary of the previous adventure, which helped in case the reader had missed the previous one. This is like HP .... *how*??? I'm genuinely curious why you made this particular comparison. I have seen comparisons drawn between HP & Enid Blyton, though I've never read any of Blyton so I'm not qualified to comment on that. I'm well-known among these parts for my stance on the genre (or lack thereof) of HP: that it's *not* childrens' literature IMO. So I don't agree with your point on any level really, but I definitely don't see the comparisons to be drawn between the Bobbsey Twins & HP. If you're new & interested, we had some discussions on the topic of how to class HP within the last month (there were also discussions in April and August of 2001 I believe). Many would agree with you that HP is just childrens' fantasy literature -- I would not. I also note that making comparisons between HP and any completed series (such as Tolkien & Lewis) is unfair (and pointless) since HP is only halfway completed at this point. I think it was Judy who mentioned in the last few days that she sees the possibility of HP being a Christian allegory, and I agree that this is one of many possibilities. But, we won't know for sure until the end of series, a good many years away (sadly). >One may as well include Ian Fleming > and his James Bond books in that boat, as (unlike the films) there is > a subtle continuity from book to book (although of course there isn't > a clear running narrative). I'm aware that a significant proportion of > the regs here are women and thus the Bond books wouldn't necessarily > spring to mind - they are very much "boys' stories". :-) Er ... I wouldn't be so sure about the assumptions you're making in terms of the number of males versus females in this group OR that women wouldn't necessarily be familiar with the Fleming books. :) Penny From ladjables at yahoo.com Fri Jan 18 20:35:00 2002 From: ladjables at yahoo.com (ladjables) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 20:35:00 -0000 Subject: Harry that Heathen and Feeling Moody [Was Re: Wiz-Mug marriage/commentary] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33705 Hello Everyone, I promised myself I wouldn't respond to Kimball's post but this morning my newspaper printed another Anti-Potter letter, and then it became patently clear I was surrounded. At least the excellent rebuttal posts have cheered me up. Just some thoughts: --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Tabouli..> wrote: > > And as for Tolkien, obviously a clear sign that someone fits into > the Evil category of humanity is ugliness! A fine Judeo-Christian > education for the children. Nothing like that unambiguous > distinction between Good (where all people are fair and wise) and > Evil (where all people are ugly and foolish and come to a bad end >on Legolas' arrows), eh? Moral stuff. This is what is really worrisome about posts like Kimball's, no matter how well thought out. What bothers him about Harry Potter is the book's portrayal of morality as complex; it's precisely because it's not black-and-white that Kimball dislikes it. His need to compartmentalize good and evil, to constantly categorize and make divisions concerning morality, reflects the kind of logic that is very dangerous, that can be (and has been) used to justify anything from genocide to slavery. Mahoney: > I'm not particularly well-read in terms of the Bible, but I know a > little bit. In early Hebrew prophecies, it was said that a > messenger would be sent ahead of the Messiah to prepare the masses > for him...and then who appears, but John the Baptist, a mangy, ill- > clothed, ill-kempt guy who wandered the wilds and was in fact in > prison when Christ started public ministry. Doh. > > Christ himself was an enormous rule-breaker. One of the biggest > reasons that people refused to believe that he was the Messiah sent > from God was because (drum roll) he ate dinner with anybody who > would sit down with him. That doesn't sound particularly bad > these days, but back then the meal was considered by Jews to be a >sort of recreation of the covenant between God and his people, and >only the clean, and the believers, were allowed to share a table >with God's chosen people. And yet Christ *invited* Gentiles, >criminals, the poor, the sick, and the hated to eat meals with him. >And why did he break that very important rule? To help people; to >right wrongs and undo injustices; to demonstrate that in real life, >in God's world, people have to look beyond the easy, black and white choices, and do what is *right* rather than what is easy and >superficial. Exactly. Something Dumbledore emphasizes in his speech at the end of Goblet of Fire. And I've always liked Paul's words, follow the spirit and not the letter of the law. So what book is more morally murky than the Bible? If I were Kimball, I would keep my kids away from the Good Book. Mahoney continues: > At any rate, I also agree with whomever it was that pointed out that not everyone believes in nor cares to interpret life, morality, and Harry Potter based on Judeo-Christian tenets. Hi, agnostics? > Muslims, Buddhists, Wiccans, and everyone else in the world? I >truly dislike the idea that just because a child raised in a >Christian household *might* (and this that is *highly* debatable, >and insulting to the intellectual capabilities of the young) be >morally confused by events in Harry Potter, that must mean that >every child in every environment and experiencing all manner of >differing world views will also. Pfah. Balderdash. Thank you. I would also love to get Kimball's take on Haiti, where the official religion is vodun but most people believe in God-a fusion of Christianity and the occult if you like! Then again that might cause a nervous breakdown. But in all seriousness, Mr. Kimball is entitled to his opinion, I just have no intention of spending any more time meditating on it. The second part of my post regards Mad-Eye Moody, would anyone care to join me in guessing when this colourful character will meet his end? Okay, that was callous, but I do engage in this morbid pastime from time to time. I know there's been much speculation about who Ms. Rowling will kill next, and I've noticed no-one has suggested Moody, a really interesting character, even if it WAS Crouch jr as Moody. If you have mentioned Moody I apologise for the oversight. Hagrid has been mentioned, Lupin, Sirius, Dumbledore, but it would be interesting to see what role she has planned for this ex-Auror (with the real Dark Forces fighting experience) in the upcoming denouement, or, if it's not to be an unravelling of the plot, more a tying up of loose ends, then the upcoming knot. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Ama From cindysphynx at home.com Fri Jan 18 21:37:12 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 21:37:12 -0000 Subject: Fidelius Charm/Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33706 Marina wrote: >I don't think that Sirius was necessarily > worried about being tortured and revealing the secret, nor do I think > the Fidelius Charm is like a memory charm that can be broken through > torture. As for the Truth Serum, Professor Flitwick says that the > secret is IMPOSSIBLE to find unless the secret-keeper CHOOSES to > reveal it. OK, good point. I had forgotten that the revelation has to be voluntary. If revelation of the location of the Potters had to be voluntary, however, why would Voldemort bother to try to track down Sirius the Secretkeeper at all? Voldemort would know it would be futile to pursue the secretkeeper, who would just refuse to reveal the secret? I wonder if Sirius was worried Voldemort would place him under the Imperius Curse and obtain the Potters' location that way. Marina again: >As > Sirius said, he would have died before telling Voldemort where the > Potters were or who the secret-keeper was. I think that Sirius just > wanted to avoid Voldemort altogether-- just because he would've died > rather than betray the Potters doesn't mean he WANTED to die, which, > if he were captured, would have been his only choice. This is the part I have trouble with. Not because it is wrong or anything, mind you. I have trouble with it because it casts Sirius to be cowardly because Sirius is willing to bring an innocent (Peter) into the mix to protect Sirius' hide. Sirius is supposed to be brave and heroic at all times in my eyes, so that simply will not do. The only thing I can think of to help the Fidelius Charm make sense is to introduce a time element. In other words, if the backstory contains some time constraint JKR hasn't told us about, then it would make sense to have as many decoy secretkeepers as you could find. Imagine that the backstory is that Voldemort has to kill Harry by a particular date, say Halloween. Then Sirius' decoy plan makes a lot of sense, because the decoy plan requires Voldemort to catch Sirius, discern that Sirius is not the secret-keeper, kill Sirius out of frustration and spite, and then track down Pettigrew. That might buy just enough time for the Potters. And the best part is that Sirius gets to be the hero! :-) Cindy From lav at tut.by Fri Jan 18 21:12:46 2002 From: lav at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 23:12:46 +0200 Subject: Why couldn't Voldemort kill Harry? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <13033637829.20020118231246@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 33707 Greetings! > Red XIV wrote to us: b> But regardless, I maintain that Lily's protection couldn't possibly b> have been the only reason Harry survived Voldemort's attack. It's b> made clear that Voldemort kill a great many people before that. He's b> mentioned as having wiped out other families. Surely there would've b> been other people who died trying to protect someone they loved from b> Voldemort. Yet Voldemort succeeded in killing every person he b> targetted, until he went after Harry. Thus, I conclude that there b> must've been something special about Harry even before Lily b> sacrificed herself to protect him. This conclusion would be supported b> by the fact that Voldemort considered killing the one-year-old Harry b> worth his time to begin with. b> Red XIV I have my own theory on why did Voldemort's attack fail, though I estimate it's probability no greater than 20-30 percents. It's based entirely on the sequence of spells of Voldie wand. There was no Avada Kedavra spell that hit Harry - everyone knows that, and it's in HP Lexicon, so I think the problem needs no introduction. My theory is that Voldemort tried to kill Harry with the wand of Lily Potter. The first and immediate result of the theory is that there's no trouble with spell sequence. Also there's an additional bonus to Harry defence against Voldemort - is it more difficult to kill Harry with Lily's wand? I haven't the slightest idea, but that's quite possible if we remember wands are demi-sentient (CS). There's a question, of course: why did Voldemort use Lily's wand? Was he deprived of his own? By whom? Or did he do it voluntarily? But at least these questions are simpler than the initial question of spell sequence. This is not intended to be the final explanation of spell sequence problem, of course, just one more theory to be considered. Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, (Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed), always happy to throw weird ideas into the community. From lav at tut.by Fri Jan 18 21:17:45 2002 From: lav at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 23:17:45 +0200 Subject: "We Want to Matriculate Your Daughter..." In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <16933936715.20020118231745@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 33708 Greetings! > tex23236 wrote to us: t> Maybe their Owls deliver more infomative letters, but Muggle parents t> and guardians have to be informed that: 1)Yes, there is magic, and 2) t> your child/ward is a witch/wizard, and 3) hogwarts is the best place t> for them to be, and 4) here is your parents' orientation schedule. t> I don't think the Grangers were subjected to the treatment the Dursleys t> were but they had to be oriented, especially as they are footing the bill t> for Hermione's shool expenses. I'm not sure that "orientation schedule" is enough. If I got a letter from a "magic school" where my child was supposed to go, I would consider it as nothing but a joke. Hence I have a strong suspicion that muggle-born wizards receive letters completely different from the one Harry got. And probably not only a letter, but some wizard/witch to bring it, and to _prove_ there's indeed magic - some kind of orientation service. Don't know who does the job - so far no muggle-born wizard has dropped a hint about how their parents were persuaded. Now that Harry Potter series are in print, parents receiving a letter from Hogwarts are even less likely to believe... :) And there's also the question: what to do with parents who just don't want to let their kid go to Hogwarts? Are they persuaded? Ignored? Or the child is just kidnapped (like in CS)? (Of course I assume the child has agreed, but still parents may easily have different views on magic). Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, (Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed), who doesn't know the word "matriculate" and was thus really enthralled by the letter header... :) From cindysphynx at home.com Fri Jan 18 21:49:38 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 21:49:38 -0000 Subject: Why couldn't Voldemort kill Harry? In-Reply-To: <13033637829.20020118231246@tut.by> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33709 Alexander wrote: > My theory is that Voldemort tried to kill Harry with the > wand of Lily Potter. > I have my own views about the wand order business (no, I won't bore everyone with them today, as I've done that several times in the past). As for Alexander's theory, though, I think it comes out better if we say that Voldemort might have used James' wand, not Lily's. James died first (we can all agree that James died first, can't we?), so Voldemort may have relieved James of his wand in the battle. That would be with a successful "Expelliarmus" spell or simply by stepping over James' corpse and picking up James' wand. If Voldemort is using Lily's wand, we have to wonder how he got it from her. Why bother to disarm her, catch her wand out of the air and turn it on her, when you can just blast her and be done with it? Cindy From lav at tut.by Fri Jan 18 21:19:28 2002 From: lav at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 23:19:28 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry's Wand Hand Message-ID: <11334039551.20020118231928@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 33710 Greetings! > Sandy wrote to us in her wisdom: > It was me who wrote this: >> But my version is that it's not important at all - you can >> hold your wand by your right or left arm with no troubles. s> I disagree. I am not really left-handed or right-handed. I bat with s> my left, but throw with my right, etc. When I learn a new activity I s> basically have to somehow discern if I should do it left or right s> handed, and usually one way seems a lot more natural than the other. s> I feel, for whatever reason, that I would definetly hold a wand in my s> right hand. Not that I have or need a wand, sadly. Yet I feel s> really sure that handedness would matter. Think of it like this, can s> you write with your left or right hand at will? No, most people have s> to choose on or the other, and I think the same would stand for s> wands. I didn't mean left- or right-handedness of the person in question, only that it doesn't matter for the wand. :) About writing... being a programmer doesn't help in your writing skills... :) At present moment, I type much faster than I can write. :( s> (...) s> Well, wizards don't necessarily need wands to commit crimes, so s> taking away their wands wouldn't quite do the job. I mean they could s> still do damage in the same ways that nonmagical people do. Yes, but then they are not dangerous to wizards and can be simply kept in restraint (to avoid contact with muggles). If anything, that would be cheaper and simpler (and a damn lot safer, as we learn in GoF) than maintain a distant island prison with undead guards... s> Sandi s> (right-handed wand holder) Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, (Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed), and a left-handed wand holder. From bonnie.abrams at cwine.com Fri Jan 18 20:21:37 2002 From: bonnie.abrams at cwine.com (sing2wine) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 20:21:37 -0000 Subject: Answer and Additional Plot Idea Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33711 Answer to Sandi's question: I had to do one last posting before the weekend since I will not be back online until Monday.... Sandi's question: "Personal Dumb question: why was Lily 33?" Chris' theory: "..The girl grew up as a muggle, and showed no magical powers. Later she married a man named Evans, and gave birth to two daughters, Petunia and Lilly. (Lilly being born when she was 33 years old.).." My plot idea: How about Sirius - in his big black dog form - becomes Mrs. Figg's "pet". This way Harry, Mrs. Figg & Sirius can start working on Voldemort's defeat over the summer....It would be a welcome change from Harry's usual misery at Privet Drive.....The Dursleys would be glad to have him spend most of his time elsewhere... and Harry might even get a birthday celebration.... Bonnie / sing2wine From christi0469 at hotmail.com Fri Jan 18 22:30:24 2002 From: christi0469 at hotmail.com (christi0469) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 22:30:24 -0000 Subject: Fidelius Charm/Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33712 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "judyserenity" wrote: > I assume there must be some defense > against veritaserum (which Barty Crouch Jr. didn't have); otherwise, > there would have been no need for trials, Sirius Black could have > cleared his name, Dumbledore would have known who the spy was, etc. > (Actually, I think veritaserum may be another example of JKR creating > magic in her stories without thinking through the consequences, but > I'm trying to give her the benefit of the doubt.) > Perhaps veritaserum, like the potion Snape brews for Lupin, is a recent discovery and was not available at the trials. It could also be a result of R&D on Snape's part. Christi From blpurdom at yahoo.com Fri Jan 18 22:34:38 2002 From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 22:34:38 -0000 Subject: Wizard (under)Wear In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33713 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "blenberry" wrote: > > > Ronald Rae Yu wrote: > > > > The trio wear muggle clothing underneath their school > > > robes (in the books at least). > > > "judyserenity" wrote: > > > Perhaps the wizarding world is underwear optional? > > I just thought of another bit of evidence that *nothing* is worn > under the robes... When Harry and Ron polyjuice into Crabbe and > Goyle in CoS, they put on just bigger robes (sneaked by Hermione > out of the laundry) and shoes (stolen from the doped C & G). This is only evidence that it is easier to steal robes than additional clothes that would specifically fit C & G. (They can just get any robes that are big enough to accomodate the "borrowed" bodies.) Actually, if JKR really has been picturing the students all along as they appeared in the film, the reason they would have to segregate themselves to change is because of the Muggle-like uniforms they're wearing under the robes. I used to think it was odd for them to hide from each other while putting robes on as well, but the more formal uniforms with the neckties, etc., make sense of this. --Barb Get Psyched Out! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HP_Psych http://schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb From tracey_vampyre at yahoo.com Fri Jan 18 23:09:18 2002 From: tracey_vampyre at yahoo.com (tracey_vampyre) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 23:09:18 -0000 Subject: Is Ron a Seer? and maybe Harry? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33714 Hi, I think it's quite possible that Ron is a seer. But has been unable to develope the sight, or control it or understand what he is seeing. In GOF in chapter 14 the boys are doing their homework for Divations when both boys decide to make up the charts for the class. Rons list coming off worst in a fight. which he did when Harry was chosen as champion. Then he made up lists that he is drowning, which could be him forseeing the 2nd task where he is in the lake with the Merepeople. while he didn't actually drown, maybe he just didn't understand what he is seeing. Maybe you need to be trained in this field. On Harry's star chart he says he is going to be stabbed in the back by a friend and he sort of was by Ron. Then he says he is going to lose a treasured prossession (RON). Then Ron is the person he has to retrieve from the lake. I think there are many more in the other books but I'm currently rereading GOF so it's still fresh in my mind. There seems to always be hint to what Ron is capable of but he of course doesn't see that himself. Tracev Keeper of Snapes Viciousness From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Fri Jan 18 23:41:54 2002 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 23:41:54 -0000 Subject: VIABLE vs. the VICE SQUAD (was: Acronym Confusion) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33715 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amy Z" wrote: > Gentle readers, > > Welcome to . . . > > Inish Alley! > > =The= source for HPfGU acronyms. Check it out! > > http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/inishalley/ > Looking over this excellent archive of acronyms, I did note that we have none for Lord Voldemort. Since much debate centers on Voldemort's credibility as a literary character, it seems these two opposing schools of thought should be given name. Those who find the Dark Lord a supervillain of and for our time ally themselves with VIABLE Voldemort Is A Believable Likeness of Evil VIABLE is relentlessly opposed by their arch-enemies (who regard Voldemort a mere pulp-fiction construct), the VICE SQUAD Voldemort is an Improbable Caricature of Evil who Seems Quaint and Unsophisticated instead of Authentically Demonic I wrote a filk over this debate a few months back with Voldemort (of course) arguing his own side, and Harry as the spokesman for what is now the VICE SQUAD. http://home.att.net/~coriolan/voldemort.htm#Just_Call_Me_Voldemort Personally, I'm allied with VIABLE. - CMC From lipglossusa at yahoo.com Sat Jan 19 00:33:37 2002 From: lipglossusa at yahoo.com (lipglossusa) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 00:33:37 -0000 Subject: Sirius, The Fidelius Charm, and You-Know-Who In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33716 Cindy says, > The only thing I can think of to help the Fidelius Charm make sense > is to introduce a time element. In other words, if the backstory > contains some time constraint JKR hasn't told us about, then it would > make sense to have as many decoy secretkeepers as you could find. > Imagine that the backstory is that Voldemort has to kill Harry by a > particular date, say Halloween. Then Sirius' decoy plan makes a lot > of sense, because the decoy plan requires Voldemort to catch Sirius, > discern that Sirius is not the secret-keeper, kill Sirius out of > frustration and spite, and then track down Pettigrew. Okay, so if Voldemort had to kill the Potters by Halloween, was Sirius the original secret-keeper, and did he then "delete" himself from the charm and insert Peter to buy the Potters more time? In PoA, Sirius tells Harry that he went to check on Peter that night, and when he couldn't find him, Sirius went to Godric's Hollow, where the Potters were hiding, only to find he was too late. So Sirius knew where the Potters were all along. For the big secret it was supposed to be, it seems like an awful lot of people knew where the Potters were. Besides Peter and Sirius, Dumbledore knew, because he sent Hagrid there to get Harry. (By the way, how did Dumbledore know James and Lily were dead? Some kind of magical video monitoring?) I'm starting to think that the Fidelius Charm was doomed from the beginning; even if Peter had not been the traitor, Voldemort could've caught up with Sirius eventually, and by not being the keeper, Sirius was unprotected by the charm and could've slipped up the information to Voldemort. UNLESS, the charm calls for a person (i.e. Voldemort) to be specified as *the* person that the secret is being held from. It seems that the Potters' hideout wasn't supposed to be a secret from everyone, just Voldemort. Flitwick says that Voldemort could be looking through the house window and still not see the Potters because of the charm. Perhaps Voldemort would go temporarily deaf if he ever questioned someone who knew where the Potters were, but was not the actual secret-keeper. So, even if Sirius was not the keeper but still knew where the Potters were hiding, he could scream out the Potters' whereabouts until he was blue in the face and Voldemort would never hear him! Marina From brewpub44 at earthlink.net Sat Jan 19 01:22:28 2002 From: brewpub44 at earthlink.net (brewpub44) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 01:22:28 -0000 Subject: Is Ron a Seer? In-Reply-To: <71.1905e423.297907bf@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33717 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., mrgrrrargh at a... wrote: > Emily: > > > Maybe Ron will eventually notice his gift, but I hope he won't do > > something that will corrupt his natural ability. > > JKR said that a student would become a teacher. Could Ron be the next > Divination teacher? (Yes I realize that it is wildy improbably... but it > would rather funny) > Yeah, funny, but more improbable than you may think. You see, if Ron has seer talents as suggested by some really interesting posts on this thread, his talent is really 'latent'. So how do you teach latent talent? He didn't cast a single spell or anything else that can possibly be taught to get any of the premonitions he has had. So what can he teach? A Barkeep in Diagon Alley From gte510i at prism.gatech.edu Fri Jan 18 22:24:16 2002 From: gte510i at prism.gatech.edu (Catherine Peisher) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 17:24:16 -0500 Subject: elves and laundry In-Reply-To: <1011389840.2748.73715.m9@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33718 >Now, if freeing an elf can happen as inadvertently (on Malfoy's part) as it did to Dobby, how can elves do any of these jobs handling clothes? I thought one had to be careful not to pass them even a sock. I don't know about the Malfoys. But I think for other households its not an issue. Dobby is evidently the 'weirdo' of the breed as Hagrid puts it. Most Houselves don't want to be freed. So handing them some clothes to wash is simply that. For someone like Winky, who loves serving her master it would take a "Winky you're fired, this means clothes" for her to leave. The Malfoy family is probably well aware that Dobby wants his freedom and will be devious to get it. I don' think intent has anything to do with it because Lucius did not intend to free Dobby. He dropped a sock. Any other house elf would probably pick it up and fold it. The Malfoy's must be carefull. They have mistreated their elf and he wants out. Maybe (unlikely) that laundry is one of the few chores that the Malfoy family does for themselves. Or, as in the muggle world there are dry cleaners for people who don't have a maid and don't care to starch and press clothes or have special clothing that can't be washed. I'm sure the Malfoy's can afford to have a laundry service. Catherine From sweetusagi76 at yahoo.ca Fri Jan 18 23:50:14 2002 From: sweetusagi76 at yahoo.ca (sweetusagi76) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 23:50:14 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts admissions In-Reply-To: <18e.1f7fa64.2979d9ca@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33719 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Jefrigo21 at a... wrote: > "Sandi Steinberg" Wrote... > MY big question has always been: how are Muggle-borns chosen to attend Hogwarts? Is there someone in their ancestry lost to family history who actually WAS a witch or Wizard?.... Sandi, Well, I think I remember reading that all the children chosen to attend Hogwart's have displayed an aptitude for magic (unintentionally, of course) and this includes Muggle children, I'm sure. And the opposite is also true, that so-called "squibs" (members of wizarding families that show no magical aptitude, such as Filch) are not admitted to Hogwart's. I bet that most all of the Muggle children who are admitted to Hogwart's (or any of the other wizarding schools) do have a magical ancestor somewhere in their family lineage. And, as your signature states, there very well COULD be a magical quill that records the names of every magical child born in the world, Muggle or not. I could very well be off base here and find this a fascinating area to discuss! Angela From sweetusagi76 at yahoo.ca Sat Jan 19 00:12:38 2002 From: sweetusagi76 at yahoo.ca (sweetusagi76) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 00:12:38 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter in Schools Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33720 I saw this on CBC Newsworld (kind of like the CNBC of Canada) the other day and in all the discussion about the literary merit of Harry Potter, forgot to post this! It does tie into Kimball's Judeo- Christian worldview thing a bit. On Wed. (I think) there was a news article on CBC Newsworld concerning Harry Potter being included in the curriculum of a parochial school in Saskatchewan. There is a debat between some parents (of children who are not yet old enough to attend school) and the school board over the inclusion of Harry Potter in the reading curriculum. These parent are opposed to the HP series being included in a Christian curriculum because they feel it promotes witchcraft, which they feel has no place in a parochial school. The stance of the school board (which includes the priests and nuns of the parish) believe that there is nothing wrong with the inclusion of HP because it shows the battle between good and evil. They also believe that it is good because it promotes reading and is interesting to the children. I personally don't agree with the parents. For one thing, their children are not currently participating in this curriculum and who is to say that HP will no longer be included once their children are in the school? For another thing, I am quite strongly against the banning of books. HP is not inherently bad, there is no foul language (unless you count "damn" and "bloody hell", which are easily replaced) and no sexual connotations in the books. This is a book that is published to be enjoyed by children (When I was in the 6th grade or so we had to read a book about nazis, not for history class either!!) And finally, I don't feel that HP promotes honest to goodness witchcraft. I have read many books, some on Wicca (which is a form of modern day witchcraft) and the witchcraft in HP has nothing in common to the modern day practice of witchcraft/Wicca. JKR did take many things from mythology and medievel beliefs, but the magic of HP is completely fictitious and have no basis in real life. It is up to the parent to explain real and pretend to their child, IMO, because children cannot always discern the difference (though children are inherently intuitive). That's what parents are there for. Angela From plumeski at yahoo.com Sat Jan 19 00:13:18 2002 From: plumeski at yahoo.com (GulPlum) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 00:13:18 -0000 Subject: Wizard Wear In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33721 This isn't really a follow-up to any specific message. I've thought about the clothes myself for a long time, and as someone who came to the books having seen the movie first, I found the movie's ideas about uniforms somewhat anachronistic. Not to mention the cover illustrations (both US and UK) which have Harry wearing what looks like a rugby shirt under his billowing robe. One thing I always found perhaps a bit strange is why should all the adult wizards (ie males) we encounter wear robes, whilst the pupils at the school wear a standard UK school uniform (the only difference being a cloak instead of a blazer). Assuming most UK wizards have gone through Hogwarts, why would they all be so clueless about Muggle clothing, if they were used to wearing such a tasteful and non- wizardly uniform? From where, and at what stage, would they get the urge to wear long billowing robes instead? The only one we've met thus far who bucks the trend is Bill, who is said to look quite "trendy". In this discussion, I think there's a distinction some people appear to have overlooked, which is that the "robes" and the "cloak" (the only element of the uniform left in the movie) are two separate items. Re-read the shopping list from PS/SS for what I mean. :-) I therefore always concluded that the kids' clothes are unisex (with a tendency towards female rather than male Muggle ideas) - I never got the impression that the boys would be wearing trousers, or indeed that there'd be space for trousers under the robes. The one scene I thought might give us a clue was any description of the Champions diving into the Lake for the Second Task. The only extra information we get is that Krum is wearing swimming trunks, and Harry removes his shoes and socks to be left getting "his robes" wet. As for what they wear underneath, well, that's anyone's guess, but Hogwarts seems cold and draughty so I for one would not be prepared to ...errr.. "have a breeze around my privates". :-) -- Richard Sliwa aka GulPlum (Forgot to sig my previous - first - message to the list. Some of you will recognise me from alt.fan.harry-potter.) ;-) From carrie at williamstucker.freeserve.co.uk Sat Jan 19 01:24:52 2002 From: carrie at williamstucker.freeserve.co.uk (carrie1138) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 01:24:52 -0000 Subject: Sirius, The Fidelius Charm, and You-Know-Who In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33722 Speculating on the workings of the Fidelius Charm, Marina wrote: For the big secret it was supposed to be, it seems like an awful lot of people knew where the Potters were. Flitwick says that Voldemort could be looking through the house window and still not see the Potters because of the charm. Perhaps Voldemort would go temporarily deaf if he ever questioned someone who knew where the Potters were, but was not the actual secret-keeper. So, even if Sirius was not the keeper but still knew where the Potters were hiding, he could scream out the Potters' whereabouts until he was blue in the face and Voldemort would never hear him! --------------------- The Fidelius Charm does seem like a very complicated piece of spell work. Flitwick has to explain it to Madam Rosmerta in the Three Broomsticks (though that may be a literary device so Harry -- and the audience -- get to hear the explanation), and the wording of the explanation is, I think, deliberately vague. "The magical concealment of a secret inside a single, living soul". The "secret" here seems to be not merely the specific knowledge of the Potters' location, but something else, almost (this is the way I see it anyway) a physical representation of the secret. I can't explain this very well, it's not exactly clear in my mind either, but if you think of the secret as something separate from the actual knowledge it's a bit easier. Imagine something like the silver threads that are Dumbledore's thoughts as he puts them into the Penseive. The "secret" is taken from all who know it, so Dumbledore, Sirius, Lupin, Hagrid, etc, all give their knowledge of the secret, put it in something like a Penseive maybe, and then James and Lily perform the Charm and transfer the "secret" to Pettigrew. In this case, everyone who knew where the Potters were still have that knowledge, but maybe they can't articulate it. Maybe even if Sirius said to Lupin, "Let's visit James and Lily. Where are they staying again?" Lupin wouldn't be able to tell him, couldn't remember or whatever, but if they set out to go there, they could still find the place. Cindysphynx wrote: If revelation of the location of the Potters had to be voluntary, however, why would Voldemort bother to try to track down Sirius the Secretkeeper at all? Voldemort would know it would be futile to pursue the secretkeeper, who would just refuse to reveal the secret? I wonder if Sirius was worried Voldemort would place him under the Imperius Curse and obtain the Potters' location that way. --------------------- Imperius definitely seems a possibility, it can make people do things they would not choose to or even be able to do (witness Neville's gymnastics!). But Voldemort seems to be a highly skilled wizard, judging by what we see him do in the series. He can conjure a hand out of thin air, create a potion to give himself a body, possess others and speak out of the back of their heads, even break powerful memory charms while in a severely weakened state. So I'm sure that as soon as he knew the Potters were using the Fidelius Charm, he would be working on some way of breaking it. This is my first post here, so I hope it made sense! Carrie1138 (with apologies to the other Carrie I've seen on this list!) From jbryson at richmond.infi.net Sat Jan 19 01:37:20 2002 From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 01:37:20 -0000 Subject: Finding Muggle-Borns In-Reply-To: <18e.1f7fa64.2979d9ca@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33723 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Jefrigo21 at a... wrote: > "Sandi Steinberg" Wrote... > MY big question has always been: how are Muggle-borns chosen to attend Hogwarts? Is there someone in their ancestry lost to family history who actually WAS a witch or Wizard?.... > > ________ > I heard that there is a magica feather that writes the names down of the child who has magic in them.... The MoM detected Dobby's hover charm in CoS and sent Harry a nasty owl. So they can detect magic going on. So, they can detect the little magical accidents that Muggle-borns sometimes have. I suspect the MoM spends some resources dredging for Muggle-Born talent. From pengolodh_sc at yahoo.no Sat Jan 19 01:54:32 2002 From: pengolodh_sc at yahoo.no (pengolodh_sc) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 01:54:32 -0000 Subject: Wizard (under)Wear In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33724 --- In HPforGrownups, Barb wrote: > > This is only evidence that it is easier to steal robes than > additional clothes that would specifically fit C & G. (They > can just get any robes that are big enough to accomodate > the "borrowed" bodies.) Actually, if JKR really has been > picturing the students all along as they appeared in the > film, the reason they would have to segregate themselves to > change is because of the Muggle-like uniforms they're wearing > under the robes. I used to think it was odd for them to hide > from each other while putting robes on as well, but the more > formal uniforms with the neckties, etc., make sense of this. > > --Barb But the following quote, from PS, ten pages or so into Chapter Five Diagon Alley, does not mesh with the uniforms shown in the movie: "Madam Malkin stood Harry on a stool next to him [Draco], slipped a long robe over his head, and began to pin it to the right length." To me, that quote indicates that the robes cannot open to the front, since if they did, it should be more easy to put them on the regular way than slipping them over the person's head. Also, I feel the uniforms in the movie are too muggle in style - they are almost completely identical to the traditional view of an English boarding school's uniforms, with grey trousers, shirt and tie, and grey pullover. The only distinguishing mark is that instead of school blazers, they have something more akin to a barrister's court-robes, making it look like the school hopes for all the students to take the path of law-studies and append Q.C. to their names. I cannot, for that matter, imagine any Malfoy condescending to wearing clothes that to that degree are in muggle-style, even if ti is a conservative variant. Regarding the incident with the polyjuice, Harry Ron and Hermione removed nothing from Crabbe and Goyle except some hairs and the shoes, before locking them in the closet. It is mentioned also that Harry's robes tore, and if he had been wearing shirt and tie, and the rest of the ensemble, then there would have been buttons all over the room, since the clothes inside the robes are a much tighter fit than the robes themselves in the movie. Most likely both the shirt and the pullover would have been ripped (and the tie should be strangulating Harry), and new ones required, which would have to fit Slytherin. I am quite certain that they were wearing the uniforms at that point, as they drugged Crabbe and Goyle immediately after Christmas Tea, which took place in the Great Hall. It all fits much better if they were wearing robes which completely conceal their clothing underneath, without having been buttoned up to such a degree as is apparently only done when outdoors. Best regards Christian Stub? From zidanenomiko at yahoo.com Sat Jan 19 02:45:18 2002 From: zidanenomiko at yahoo.com (Hikaru) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 21:45:18 -0500 Subject: Sirius/Peter Secret-Keeper Workings Message-ID: <001801c1a093$56779a00$e8638541@compaq> No: HPFGUIDX 33725 Marina said: > V: Where are the Potters? > > S: I don't know. > > V: What do you mean you don't know, aren't you the secret-keeper? > > S: No, I switched with Peter. > > V: Oh. Okay, I'll ask Peter, then. When one becomes a secret-keeper, I would like to hope that the person who is keeping the secret, since all other information is sealed in a way, would also be sealed in the minds of the people who knew, mainly Sirius. I know it's a confusing explanation, so I'll try to explain it in easier terms.. Okay, everyone thinks that Sirius would be James' secret-keeper, because Sirius and James are best friends. And, naturally, James does approach Sirius to be his secret-keeper. However, Sirius is aware of the obviousness of James' decision and convinces him to have Peter be the secret-keeper instead. When the spell is cast, Sirius no longer remembers that Peter is the secret-keeper until Peter tells LV. When he tells the evil lord, Sirius remembers that Peter was James and Lily's secret-keeper, and automatically knows that something was up- which would explain why Sirius went after Peter, because he knew that Peter had given the secret up. He finds Peter gone and the rest is history... Using this explanation, it's easier to understand why Sirius didn't want to be the secret-keeper, because if LV did catch him, and he questioned Sirius-- even with the Veritaseum, he would not be able to tell LV that Peter was the secret-keeper, because Peter being the secret-keeper is also part of the secret. Well, that's my take anyway... -Hikaru Who believes that Sirius isn't a coward at all. http://daintyrose.org/catadamon/harry Catadamon * http://daintyrose.org/catadamon (fanfiction archive) Glomping Butterflies * http://daintyrose.org/catadamon/blog (fic blog) From plumeski at yahoo.com Sat Jan 19 01:54:34 2002 From: plumeski at yahoo.com (GulPlum) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 01:54:34 -0000 Subject: Literary Comparisons for HP (was Harry Potter: A Worthwhile Series?) In-Reply-To: <3C488EFA.5000005@swbell.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33726 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Penny & Bryce wrote: > GulPlum wrote: > > I'm not sure you can really comment on JKR's > "ambitions" per se though, and she's definitely said that she did *not* > have a target audience (of any age). She is a storyteller, and I think > she'd agree with your assessment in that regard. I'm not so sure she'd > agree that her one & only purpose in writing HP is to give children > pleasure. I don't think she writes with a target audience in mind or > with such a limited purpose specifically in mind either. I agree that > her success has been surprising to her, and she's said as much many > times. But I think that's more because she expected only a limited > "cult-like" following of her work, rather than the overwhelming > international sensation that it has become. OK, when I said that her intention was to "give children pleasure", I suppose I should've said "give her readers pleasure". :-) I'm with you on the doubts that "children" are the target readership, although JKR *is* on record (sorry, I can't look up specifics right now) as stating that the books should ultimately appeal to (something like) 12 year-olds and above. I stress the "and above" - after all, books, like movies, or any other art form, are about a baseline of understanding - anyone who has reached that baseline can appreciate them. One of the issues is, of course, just where that basline lies. One of JKR's more extraordinary achievements is that adults don't feel patronised by her storylines or style, which (as evidenced by several posts in this thread) can't be said for all readers of CS Lewis. That some elements of her plotting or characterisations are just a little simplified is something for which many people (including myself) are prepared to make allowances. On to the bit that I *knew* would be controversial and would need explaining. :-) I toyed with the idea of eplaining it in my previous last post, but it was already getting a lot longer than I'd anticipated. :-) > The Bobbsey Twins are "distinguished" company??! Perhaps I'm selling > the series short since it's been a good many years since I read one of > them, if ever. > This is like HP .... *how*??? I'm genuinely curious why you made this > particular comparison. Ahh... I said originally that I wasn't making comparisons on the basis of literary merit as such, but as a more personal experience. As a child of the sixties brought up in a working-class home in the UK, the Bobbsey Twins books were a revelation to me. I must add that I've not read any of them for 30 years or so, so I'm incapable of making any specific comments sbout the content. However, one of the few Xmas presents I remember getting pre-teen years was a set of something like 40 Bobbsey Twins books when I was 9. This opened a whole new world to me, a literary (and geographic) world outside the England of CS Lewis, Blyton or other authors I'd already read by that stage. This was a larger world, inhabited by characters completely outside my sphere of understanding, using a language I could recognise, but which was strange nonetheless. I was already an avid reader, but the books to which I had access were English, not American. The Bobbsey Twins were my first inkling that another world existed. In using the Bobbsey Twins as an example, I could just as well have said the Hardy Boys or Nancy Drew. The fact remains, though, that I've never read either of those. :-) My experience with the Bobbseys is just one of the reasons that I'm particularly obssessed with not seeing any point whatsoever in the "Americanisation" of the US editions of Harry Potter. If I, at 9, could appreciate some of the nuances, then I really cannot understand why the reverse should not apply WRT American readers of Harry Potter. Those bits I really couldn't understand, I learned about. With others, I made assumptions. Overall, though, it was a worthwhile experience which has stood me in good stead ever since. I went on from the Bobbsey Twins to Jennings, who is probably as much of an anachronism today as the Bobbsey Twins (though chronologically he comes a lot, lot later). Few people in the UK have got into the series within the last 30 years, and Anthony Buckeridge is probably absolutely unknown in the US. I won't even try to explain what Jennings is about, but think of him as a non-magical Harry Potter at a (fictional) UK Public (ie private in US-speak) School about 40 years earlier (Jennings didn't age between books; I don't recall exactly, but he was perpetually about 11). Here's the official web site which has lots of info (though probably not enough for complete novices): http://www.linbury-court.co.uk (Linbury Court was the name of Jennings' school). Jennings was my absolute hero between the ages of about 10 to 12, when James Bond took over. :-) > If you're new & interested, we had some discussions on the topic of how > to class HP within the last month (there were also discussions in April > and August of 2001 I believe). Many would agree with you that HP is > just childrens' fantasy literature -- I would not. Although that was my first post, I've been lurking around here in one form or another since the beginning of December, and I'm aware of most of the topics which have been discussed, and even know the POVs of several of the more prolific posters. :-) As for the characterisation of HP as childrens' fantasy literature, I'm largely with you, although I have my doubts. I was very tempted to wade into the discussion of that topic a couple of weeks ago, but by the time I felt ready to contribute, the thread had gone off in a different direction. I have, however, tried to introduce the topic to alt.fan.harry-potter, where it went off at a different tangent and left me equally unsatisfied. My current feeling, though, is that I'll reserve judgment until Book Seven comes out. > Er ... I wouldn't be so sure about the assumptions you're making in > terms of the number of males versus females in this group OR that women > wouldn't necessarily be familiar with the Fleming books. :) >From lurking here for well over a month, the number of prolific presumably female posters outnumbers thoe presumably male ones by a factor of perhaps 2:1. That is perhaps an erroneous perception, but it's the one I have. :-) As for Bond, I have honestly never met in the real world a female of whatever age who would admit to having read any of the books, whereas I know few men of my age group who hadn't read some (if not all) of them. I am by no means saying that no woman ever has, just as there are probably men who read Mills & Boon - I'm just saying that they're not very likely to have done. :-) -- Richard Sliwa AKA GulPlum From david_p at istop.com Sat Jan 19 03:16:30 2002 From: david_p at istop.com (david_p2002ca) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 03:16:30 -0000 Subject: Is Ron a Seer? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33727 A man who serves me beer (a nice stout, please) wrote: > Yeah, funny, but more improbable than you may think. > > You see, if Ron has seer talents as suggested by some really > interesting posts on this thread, his talent is really 'latent'. So > how do you teach latent talent? He didn't cast a single spell or > anything else that can possibly be taught to get any of the > premonitions he has had. So what can he teach? > > A Barkeep in Diagon Alley It may be possible for Ron to further refine his skill; to learn how to properly clear his mind, to learn to differentiate between his conscious and unconscious thoughts. If he can learn these skills, if he can learn to listen to the voice within, he may be able to help others develop the skill as well. It's not as improbable as it sounds - many athletes have natural and innate talents, but proper coaching can improve their abilities; no reason to think divination is all that different. David P. From babelfisherperson at yahoo.com Sat Jan 19 05:03:33 2002 From: babelfisherperson at yahoo.com (babelfisherperson) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 05:03:33 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts admissions In-Reply-To: <18e.1f7fa64.2979d9ca@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33728 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Jefrigo21 at a... wrote: > I heard that there is a magica feather that writes the names down > of the child who has magic in them.... That's correct. The magic quill is at Hogwarts, so presumably it only covers magical children in the British Isles, but whenever a magical child is born, regardless of their ancestry, the quill writes their name down. Apparently it's McGonagall's job to go through the list that the quill writes, and send letters to the children when they turn 11. Red XIV From cindysphynx at home.com Sat Jan 19 05:27:51 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 05:27:51 -0000 Subject: Sirius/Peter Secret-Keeper Workings In-Reply-To: <001801c1a093$56779a00$e8638541@compaq> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33729 Hikaru wrote: >When the spell is cast, Sirius no longer > remembers that Peter is the secret-keeper until Peter tells LV. >When he > tells the evil lord, Sirius remembers that Peter was James and Lily's > secret-keeper, and automatically knows that something was up- which > would explain why Sirius went after Peter, because he knew that Peter > had given the secret up. He finds Peter gone and the rest is history... Although I am thoroughly delighted to find another person who does not think Sirius is a coward, Sirius' account of the events on the night the Potters died causes trouble for this very creative idea: "The night they died, I'd arranged to check on Peter, make sure he was still safe, but when I arrived at his hiding place, he'd gone. Yet there was no sign of a struggle. It didn't feel right. I was scared. I set out for your parents' house straight away. And when I saw their house, destroyed, and their bodies . . .I realized what Peter must've done." That sounds like Sirius planned to check on Peter well before Peter revealed the secret, so Peter's role as secretkeeper wasn't a secret from Sirius. It also sounds like Sirius didn't automatically know what happened. It wasn't until he went to the Potter's house and saw what happened that he knew for sure. Thinking out loud, I guess there might be two separate issues: (1) what prevents a third party (Sirius) from being tortured to reveal that Pettigrew was secretkeeper, and (2) was the Potters' location only a secret from Voldemort and DEs or was it secret from everyone except Pettigrew, and if so, what caused Sirius and Dumbledore to find the Potters' bodies? On the first question, I'd say nothing at all prevents a third party from mentioning to Voldemort that Pettigrew was secretkeeper. The fact that Sirius and the Potters kept the change in secretkeeper very quiet suggests that it was important to minimize the number of people in a position to identify the secretkeeper and to hide or protect those who did know. On the second question (how did Dumbledore and Sirus know that the Potters had been killed and where they were), how about this? Once Peter is the secretkeeper, he is the only one on the planet who knows how to find the Potters. Once the charm is broken, everyone (Sirius and Dumbledore) suddenly knows the Potters' location. Either of two things can break the Fidelius Charm -- the death of the Potters or the death of Pettigrew. There might be other ways to break the charm (like having the Potters themselves lift the charm), but that's not important for our purposes. Revelation of the secret alone does *not* disrupt the charm so that people like Sirius know the Potters' location. That way, Pettigrew could reveal the secret to someone like Dumbledore without automatically putting the Potters in peril by inadvertently breaking the charm. Pettigrew could also tell Voldemort, and the two of them have time to go to the Potters' house before others (or the Potters) know that the secret has been revealed and the Potters are in danger. So here's how the events unfold under this theory. On Halloween, Sirius has made plans to check on Peter (as Sirius knows Peter is the secretkeeper but does not know where the Potters are). As he arrives there or while he is on the way, all of a sudden, Sirius gets a feeling that he can pinpoint the Potters' location, which means the charm has been broken. But Sirius doesn't know if it has been broken because Peter died or Lily and James died. He panics, and finds no Peter at the hideout and no Peter's corpse. He races to the Potters' house, and finds out the hard way that the Potters are dead, which is why the charm was broken. Why would Sirius go to Pettigrew's place first? If he thinks the charm has been broken by someone's death, why not race to the Potters' first? Well, if Peter's death has broken the charm, the Potters are alive and also know the charm has been broken, so they would flee their home before Voldemort arrived. So there's no point going to the Potters' house first because they are either gone or dead. I like this theory because it makes Sirius out to be really brave, which is always my goal. :-) Volunteering to be either the secretkeeper or a decoy is really dangerous. Voldemort can break the charm most quickly by killing the secretkeeper, so he wouldn't even bother with torture. He would just kill Sirius on sight, so Sirius was not being at all cowardly by serving as a decoy. Does that work? Cindy From Whirdy at aol.com Sat Jan 19 05:38:25 2002 From: Whirdy at aol.com (Whirdy at aol.com) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 00:38:25 EST Subject: What Makes Scabbers So Special? Message-ID: <46.211568e9.297a6051@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33730 In PS/SS, the list of everything you need states quite clearly "Students may also bring an owl OR a cat OR a toad." So, how come firtst-year RW gets to bring along Percy's old rat, notwithstanding his important role in being the first of our side to attack one of the evil ones, i.e., Goyle's knuckle; the second being Neville going after Crabbe and Goyle and ending up with Hermione's slapping Malfoy. whirdy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From christi0469 at hotmail.com Sat Jan 19 06:02:47 2002 From: christi0469 at hotmail.com (christi0469) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 06:02:47 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Harry_Potter=96A_Worthwhile_series=3F=3F?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33731 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "kimballs6" wrote: > Much debate is swirling around the Harry Potter books versus > C.S. Lewis's and Tolkien's stories. Many argue that these > books are all similar--just fantasy, pure and simple. I disagree. > They are fantasies (Lewis going into allegory), but that is where > the similarity ends. After reading the first book in the Potter > series, reading The Hobbit, and brushing up on The Lion, the > Witch and the Wardrobe, I see a tremendous gulf between > Rowling and the other two writers. This paper discusses the > difference between their world views and the incredible gulf > between writing abilities. > There have already been many worthy posts refuting the points made in this "paper", the quality of which I'm afraid I would be hard put to match; however, there is one more point I would like to explore. Stating that all three series are fantasies (pure and simple) is in my opinion a bit too simple. Tolkien would have the distinction of creating a pure epic fantasy. The Narnia cycle is more that fantasy going into allegory, it is an allegory that exists in a fantasy environment. The cycle can be read simply as a fantasy, but Lewis's intention was allegory. Rowling has fantasy elements without a doubt, but IMHO the HP series is very difficult to catagorize as far as genre. I've seen several insightful posts pointing out the child- exile elements. There are satirical elements that give the series a humorous note, which is very refreshing given the dark tone that is emerging. Mystery is one genre I particularly enjoy, so I recognized the use of misdirection and end of book revelation (often by the villain). When the series is completed we may notice evidence of more genres, the coming of age story being one possibility. There is enough of the adventure genre to entice reluctant readers away from their computers, televisions, and gaming systems (no small accomplishment in today's adrenaline dependent society). This complexity of genre may be one of the reasons that the books enjoy universal rather than niche popularity, as they offer something for (almost) everyone. Christi From morsethanatos at yahoo.com Sat Jan 19 07:45:26 2002 From: morsethanatos at yahoo.com (morsethanatos) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 07:45:26 -0000 Subject: A reply to the essay "Harry Potter-Worthwhile reading??" Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33732 Upon reading the essay I must say I am greatly infuriated by the commentary that has been presented. The author not only attempt to demonize the books but misrepresents parts of the text, takes lines out of contexts and argues using a world view that is not just naive but silly for a mature adult. The author's first assertion is that breaking rules is glorified, but interestingly only for the special cases. The author however fails to think about the motivations of the actions and their results. So saving human life, even if some rules are broken is forbidden. This is a gross failure, or a purposeful attempt, to ignore the fact that the world is not black and white, but far more complex. People do not just do things but do them for a reason. In the case of Harry and gang the motivations are positive and they usually get away. In the case of Malfoy the intent is of pure malice and he gets punished. The author attempts to zero in on specific and simply ignores(on purpose I assume) the greater message that is being delivered. Apparently the author would have wanted Harry to give Voldemort the stone so that the whole world could be destroyed. But for that matter I wonder how many humans out there can say they have never uttered a lie. There is not one. The comparison of Harry's lie to Dumbledoe's refusal is simply invalid as the circumstances are quite different. But again the author fails to see this. The point about adult authority is in my opinion simply ridiculous. The line by Fred is simply a joke, which everyone is aware of. The comment generalizing Hogwarts teachers is simply false. The problem here is that the author forgets that the books are trying to deliver the viewpoint of children to us and at that age many of us found adults hindrances since they always were trying to prevent us from making mayhem. And the mention of the library notes is simply irrelevant since it can be quite easily inferred that this is a joke. The final paragraph addressing Rowling's world view is a gross generalization formed from the false inferences that the author has presented. Going to the treatment of the world views of Lewis and Tolkien I must address only Tolkien as I have not read the Narina books. Here the author glorifies the black and white view of the world and claims that in Rowling's books good an evil are not distinct. Again simply false. What is unique about Rowling's works is that they do not present the "evil does this", "good does this" picture. The author simply chooses to ignore the fact that things are far more complex than that. As for the example that in the mist of battle there is order. This is laughable, a review of WWII or Vietnam can quite clearly show that. As for the rewards of good and evil, I can refer the author to the rest of the Potter series, though no doubt it would be twisted and demonized as well. In the final paragraph the author applauds the two authors for their clear lines of good and evil and support of order. But Tolkien wrote something like an epic, not a realistic portrayal of world. I state again, the author does not seem to realize that in reality right and wrong are much more blurred and the world far from being ordered. Then the essay turns to the character development. It seems that the author holds the view that children should live with abusive parents (in this case foster) and like them for it. An interesting view I must say. The last paragraph addresses giving the books to children. Firstly, I have serious reservations about anyone under the age of ten or even older reading these books. Secondly the books that the author applauds are merely fairy tales that give a false view of the world. Rowling on the other hand tries to be a bit more realistic. I have no children and am myself not much out of being a child(and still act like one a lot), but I would think that is it wiser to prepare children for the real world rather and bringing them up ignorant and naive, in which case they will themselves learn and it will be far less pleasant. I will not address the grammar issues since I am far from qualified in that area. I must say however that the submission to the English language is ludicrous. One example that pops up is Shakespeare, apparently he is a bad writer. Rowling writes with a modern, light style that is easy to read. Some call this bad writing, they have the right to their opinions. In closing, and to vent my anger completely I must say that this piece that has been presented to us utter garbage, though those who have not read the books might find it quite convincing. I also apologize if most of what I wrote makes no sense what's so ever, it is quite late and I am tired. Morsethanatos. From klhurt at yahoo.com Sat Jan 19 08:59:45 2002 From: klhurt at yahoo.com (Kelly Hurt) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 00:59:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: Neville's Parents + Middle Names (US) + Snape/Shrieking Shack + Ethnicity + Mandrakes + Dumbledore's Letter In-Reply-To: <4b.16b49909.29729907@aol.com> Message-ID: <20020119085945.40989.qmail@web14205.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33733 --- SpyGameFan wrote: >Weren't both of Neville's parents >Aurors? Neville's father was an Auror but we haven't as yet been told if his mother was. --- Ronald Rae Yu wrote: >Where I live, at least, the mother's >maiden name is the child's middle >name. Just correct me if I'm wrong >somewhere in my reasoning. This is seen occasionally -- especially in wealthy families -- in the US, but is by no means a rule. --- david_p2002ca wrote: >- He went out to the Shrieking Shack >to protect Harry (and incidentally Ron >and Hermione) from a werewolf (PoA) No book handy, but Snape went out because he saw *Lupin*, in the tunnel, running toward the Shrieking Shack. He didn't know the Trio were there; he just hoped to catch Lupin and Sirius Black together. --- cindysphynx wrote: >Consequently, I think it is reasonable >to ask that she also treat issues of >gender and race in a way consistent >with the real world. JKR has dropped hints about various secondary characters' ethnicity and now portrays them in the exact same way as all the other kids in Hogwarts. That's the whole idea isn't it? Also, she has portrayed the wizarding world as far more tolerant of inter-ethnic relationships than the way I perceive the current real world situation (at least, in the US): * One of the twins takes Angelina, who we're told is black, to the Yule Ball. * Ron & Harry go with the Patil twins, whose names certainly seem to indicate a Pakistani/Indian/Middle Eastern heritage. * Cedric dates Cho Chang. * Seamus, an Irish lad, & Dean Thomas, who is black, both find the Patil twins to be the prettiest in the year. All of these things happen **without** causing raised eyebrows or whisperings which is the way it should be. --- blenberry wrote: >...are mandrakes that rare that no >mature ones could be acquired for >months, from anywhere? No book handy, but I believe Dumbledore tells Filch that Professor Sprout "has managed" to acquire some mandrakes which sounds as if they are difficult to come by. --- Whirdy wrote (about letter left with Baby Harry): >Given VD's penchant for destroying >messages from Hogwarts and Dumbledore, >is it possible that the letter has >survived. I like to think that Dumbledore enchanted the letter so that it couldn't be destroyed and, if taken somewhere and thrown away, it magically reappears inside #4 Privet Drive. Kelly the Yarn Junkie ===== Pensieve A Harry Potter List for Adults Low Traffic - High Quality http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pensieve __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ From judyshapiro at earthlink.net Sat Jan 19 09:10:20 2002 From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 09:10:20 -0000 Subject: Snape (still!) In-Reply-To: <00b001c1a04f$10fd97c0$0200a8c0@Nshare> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33734 "Olwyn" wrote: > Was [Snape] ever a true DE in the first place?... > Was he possibly a double agent for Dumbledore et al right from the > beginning... > Olwyn (who's determined to prove somehow that Snape is completely > worthy of our adoration) Well, of *course* Snape is worthy of your adoration! But, I think it's pretty clear that Snape was a real Death Eater at one time. In the Pensieve scene, Dumbledore says "Severeus Snape was indeed a Death eater. However, he rejoined our side before Lord Voldemort's downfall, and turned spy for us..." So, in this short quote, Dumbledore actually says 3 times that Snape was a Death Eater. In addition to directly saying "Snape was indeed a Death eater," Dumbledore also talks of Snape *rejoining* Dumbledore's side and *turning* spy, both of which imply that Snape was initially a true Death Eater. If Snape had been on Dumbledore's side all along, I'm sure Dumbledore would have said so. Bonnie / sing2wine said: > I didn't realize there would be so many Snape champions on in this > group! I for one, hate him! I cannot forget that Draco Malfoy is > his favorite student ... for Snape to still be so > cruel to Harry and to still favor Malfoy makes him intensely > dislikable to me. Fairplay is very important to me - Snape does not > do that. He's always taking points from Gryffindor for things he > ignores in Slytherin... Bonnie, thems fightin' words!!! (Just kidding. Welcome to the forum!) The character of Snape is highly open to interpretation. Perhaps he is only pretending to like Draco, in order to ingratiate himself with Lucius Malfoy and be in a position to spy on the Death Eaters again. This would also explain why he he has to be mean to Harry (who vanquished Voldy), Hermione (who is a "mudblood"), and Neville (whose dad was an Auror) and why he is nice to the Slytherins, many of whom have Death Eaters for parents. Given how important spying on Voldy would be, it might justify how mean Snape is to the Gryffindors. Not to mention, his own life is at stake. I made a longer version of this argument within the past couple of weeks. It should be in the archives somewhere... From judyshapiro at earthlink.net Sat Jan 19 10:47:50 2002 From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 10:47:50 -0000 Subject: Is Harry the Heir of Gryffindor? (Was: Bloodline theory) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33735 This post is in reference to several previous threads; I'm sorry that I don't remember specific posts that originally raised these issues. Someone mentioned that Harry might be the "Heir of Gryffindor" and therefore the counterpart to Voldemort being Heir of Slytherin. This theory makes a lot of sense to me; it seems that JKR is setting up the conflict between the Dark Side and the other (Light?) side as essentially a continuation of Salazar Slytherin's conflict with Godric Gryffindor. Not counting turncoats, all of the DE's that we know of are Slytherins and the supporters of Dumbledore all seem to be Gryffindors. Harry is the main defense against Voldemort. So, Harry is the "Heir" of Gryffindor at least in the sense that he is continuing Gryffindor's battle against Slytherin. But is Harry actually a blood descendent of Godric? Well, I kind of hope he isn't. I think the series already has too many overtones that talent, morality, etc. are genetic. I really don't want JKR putting any more emphasis on the nature side of the nature versus nurture debate. However, *if* Harry was the a blood descendent of Godric Gryffindor, that would explain why he got Gryffindor's sword in CoS. (An aside -- I wonder if the sword had been in the hat for 1000 years? Or was it somewhere in Dumbledore's office?) And, it would give JKR a reason for eliminating the rest of Harry's paternal relatives -- this would make Harry the *last* remaining descendent of Gryffindor, as Voldy is the last descendent of Slytherin. It would also give Voldy a motive for killing James and Harry -- he was trying to eliminate Gryffindor's remaining descendents. It would also give a reason why Voldy didn't feel a need to kill Lily, since she was not a Gryffindor descendent. (Of course, Voldy kills people even when he doesn't need to, so this isn't a full explanation of why he tried to spare Lily.) It might even explain why James had a house in "Godric's Hollow." So, given all the above reasons, I predict that Harry will in fact turn out to be the last living descendent of Godric Gryffindor, even though I don't like the implications that has for the role of genetics in the Potterverse. By the way, JKR said in an interview that some characters would develop in surprising ways, and the most surprising will be *The Sorting Hat*. The Hat has already played a role in the Harry vs. Voldemort conflict, when it sided with Harry in CoS. I predict that the Hat will play some sort of decisive role in winning the battle against Slytherin's Heir. The hat belonged to Gryffindor, not Slytherin, after all. Perhaps Gryffindor forsaw the role his hat would play, and that's why he suggested using it to sort students in the first place? On the topic of bloodlines, "evershade1" wrote: > ...What if Tom Riddle's mother actually gave birth > to twins, the other child being a girl. Hence, there were now > actually two heirs of Slytherin. The girl grew up as a muggle, and > showed no magical powers. Later she married a man named Evans, and > gave birth to two daughters, Petunia and Lilly... > What if James Potter was a direct descendent of Gryffindor? > Harry Potter would then have the blood of > both Gryffindor and Slytherin in his veins > ...This hypothesis could explain many clues in the story of Harry > Potter. Harry's physical similarity to Lord Voldermort, his > ability to speak Parseltongue... Well, it's an interesting theory, but I don't think Lily can be a descendent of Salazar Slytherin, because this would make Harry (and Petunia) descended from Slytherin. Harry was afraid he was a descendent of Slytherin and asked Dumbledore about it at the end of CoS. Dumbledore very clearly ruled this out, saying that Voldemort was the last descendent of Salazar Slytherin. (Other than that Dumbledore said "ancestor" instead of descendent, which presumably was a mistake.) Harry's ability to speak parseltongue was already explained as a result of the failed AK curse. Harry's physical resemblance to Voldy could be a coincidence. And anyway, the features Harry has in common with Voldy, such as his black hair, seem to come from his father's side, not his mother's side. So, there is really no reason to think that Voldy was related to Lily. --Judy From Edblanning at aol.com Sat Jan 19 11:38:55 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 06:38:55 EST Subject: Fidelius/Sirius Message-ID: <29.213206c7.297ab4cf@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33736 This clearly is a very complicated charm. One of the problems I still have is with it only being broken by the secret-keeper *deciding* to reveal the information. Now if I were being tortured, I might very well *decide* to put an end to it by telling. Of course, I'm not Sirius, who does seem, from his survival of Azkaban, seem to be mentally very strong. That strength seem to have surprised him, though, so maybe he was not sure enough of himself at the time. My other problem (*pace* Cindy) is that I have the clear impression that Sirius knew all along where the Potters were. Otherwise, why didn't he say clearly that when he found Peter gone, he knew he must have betrayed them since the mists had cleared and he suddenly knew where to find them. In fact, why was it only after finding Peter gone that he knew something was wrong, unless we assume that the secret was betrayed at the moment he reached Peter's hiding place? If Sirius and Dumbledore, too, for that matter, knew, then we are back to the theory that something magically prevents those in the know from telling or from being understood. The idea that the secret is being kept specifically from an individual or individuals is appealing, but I'm not sure it's practical. Just because eg Voldy can't find them, it doesn't mean one of his henchmen can't and we know that Dumbledore's spies haven't provided a complete list of them, otherwise, apart from anything else, he would know about Pettigrew. On the other hand, is it significant that Voldy *himself* is their murderer? I have often wondered just why he did it himself. Perhaps for the sheer, evil, pleasure of it, or is there more to it? Were there other protections in force, so that the Fidelius was needed only aginst Voldy? Katze suggests (I think) that Godric's Hollow is (or is in?)a muggle community. I always assumed there was something significant in this name clearly suggestive of Gryffindor. Any ideas? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lav at tut.by Sat Jan 19 12:01:44 2002 From: lav at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 14:01:44 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry Potter a worthwhile series Message-ID: <1793059482.20020119140144@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 33737 Greetings! The history of my reply to Kevin's letter is amusing. First of all, when I was writing first version of it, all electricity was turned off in the house. Then again, when I was in the middle of my work. That frustrated me a lot, and I forgot about it... Until Catherine letter came. I had suddenly found that there was at least one person who was really interested by Kevin's letter and even considered it worth reading. Hmm... maybe it's not that bad after all? I dug into my archives, found Kevin's letter and studied it. Still, no sense was found there. Still, I wrote a reply. And sent it. It was lost. It never came to the Yahoogroups. Damn. Finding out what had happened took almost 2 days. It was a flux at my ISP mail server. Hence my reply is in fact late for 3-4 days already. So I don't think there's any sense in sending it completely, as it is quite big and detailed (more than twice the size of the original letter). And anyway too many points were already answered by other people, often better than I did that. So I only left the topics which either were left unanswered (don't think there are any) or the ones where my reply differs from already presented ones. My worldview is quite different, of course. So far nobody has positioned himself as a pure materialist when replying to Kimball's letter, though there was a lot of Christians. I think my letter should fix that... :) All right, without further ado... > MS. ROWLING'S WORLD VIEW: > Rowling presents an arbitrary world in which good and evil are > simply two sides of the same sorcery--the "Dark Side" and the > other side, although no name is ever given for it. I can do nothing but add something to this. Not only "of the same sorcery", but just "of the same world". Anything in JKR books has two sides - and there's always choice. You can select your side without applying sorcery at all - it's just a handy tool to make a fairy tale, not the central concept in the book. Of course, characters will often say that Voldemort has gone on the Dark Side, but this has no direct connection with sorcery. Just like muggle-world firearms, sorcery is just a tool - and nothing more. > Harry and his > friends must choose which side they're on, but of course the line > between the two is always moving. I must put the idea of the "line" under strong suspect. It just so happens that I cannot imagine any "line" that would help us to say that "this is Good, and that is Evil". Again, the problem is that we live in Real world (some would say "unfortunately", I will disagree). As Dumbledore used to say, "the consequences of our actions are too complex...". That's that. In late Soviet fiction, there was an excellent character, an almost omnipotent wizard, who has said that he cannot imagine a miracle, that would cause no harm, direct or undirect, to a human or other species, here or in other part of the Universe, in present or in the future. IMHO anybody who claims that he knows the Line, must first refute this one simple statement. (Interesting that the novel I'm talking about is perhaps the most close one to JKR's series. Only Rowling has a magic school, while the novel has magic research institute in the "best" Soviet style...). > Determining where the line > is between good and evil becomes an individual choice, leaving > the reader wondering why something is okay for this person and > not the other. Perhaps that left _you_ wondering, but please avoid making over-generalised statements about all readers. For my part, I usually have no trouble identifying the reasons. Maybe I'm overconfident, of course. Still... > Sometimes breaking rules is honorable, > sometimes it must be punished. Sometimes a lie is bad, > sometimes it is good. First we must identify what the "lie" is. It's not as simple as one might think. With the Rules, I think you confuse the End and the Means. Never have I seen the rules that were the End. Much more often they are just the Means to achieve something - for example, some resemblance of order in an initially chaotic society. I will not go into depths on whether this is good or bad, but will say simply that there will always be situations, where following the Rules will achieve a completely opposite result than the one intended. And indeed, "to break or not to break" becomes the subject of individual choice. There's simply no other way around. The only question that remains is: why humans are so naive as to constantly confuse the End and the Means, again and again throughout the centuries? :) > And finally, adult authority is attacked > harshly, leaving ultimate authority in the hands of the kid who > can grab the most power. Leaving ultimate authority in the hands of the kid, yes. Simply because the tale is about kids who are adult enough to make adult decisions. My sister is only 13, but I trust her common sense much more than common sense of many adults I know personally and who are still psychological teenagers. In fact, I can recommend the books to all kids, no matter of what age, for that very reason - for study on how to make their individual decisions. I won't even comment the end of the sentence. It has no direct or indirect connection with the book in question, and only serves to emotionally strengthen author's point. > Second, Rowling leaves the option of lying up to the individual, > and even glorifies it. Leaves the option, yes. Glorifies? No comments. > If Harry needs to lie, he simply will: "When > facing a magic mirror, Harry thinks desperately, `I must lie,..I > must look and lie about what I see, that's all.'" And yes, he is > rewarded with the Sorcerer's Stone. Again, no comments. You have seemingly missed the entire situation. But please answer the single simple question: what would happen if YOU was there instead of Harry? Would you tell the truth and handle the Stone to Dark Lord? When one of the Apostols has betrayed the Christ, he was following the Rules - he was ordered to do that by the Church. Anyone wants to object? Especially Kevin Kimball? (I cannot guarantee the correct spelling - I'm not good in English religious terms - and don't know how that bastard's name is spelled in English - only in Russian). > Rowling sometimes > glorifies lying, and other times doesn't consider it as an option. > Rowling appears confused on the issue of lying. The fact that she does not give a single simple answer applicable in every case does not mean she is confused. You run into self-contradiction here: first you say that Rowling has no fixed views about lying, and then you say that because of that she is confused. She would be if she had your moral system and made that choices. But that's not the case. (Aren't you confused by my reply to Kevin's confusion? I hope there's no confusion out there, though I'm myself quite confused by my answer... 8) > Finally, concerning the adult world, or those who would be in > authority, there is only derision. Fred tells his mother, "Honestly, > woman, you call yourself our mother?" And another time, "All > right, keep your hair on." This was already commented. Again, just quoting a single phrase without it's context perverts it's meaning entirely. Or should I provide some exerpts from the Bible to make the Book look similarly stupid? I don't think that's worth the effort (and anyway, it's not the Bible discussion list :). > "Honestly, Hermione, you > think all teachers are saints or something..." And do YOU think all teachers are saints or something? I don't. > and when referring > to late notices for library books, Rowling writes: "He [Harry] > didn't belong to the library, so he'd never even got rude notes > asking for books back." Is it really `rude' to remind a person of a > commitment he has made? Being slightly familiar with the subject, I can do nothing but say that the reminders are usually just that - rude. Not because it's "rude to remind", but because of their style and composition. Librarians are usually very frustrated with people who don't return the books in time, so... > Rowling's characters twist truth into their own desires--breaking > whatever rules necessary to get whatever they want,--become > quite adept at lying, and see themselves as the final authority, far > superior to any adult wisdom. My conclusion is as follows: instead of relying on the rules that might prove to be wrong in critical situations, Rowling's characters rely on their own conscience and common sense and see themselves as the final authority, just like any normal human does. > C.S. LEWIS'S AND J.R.R. TOLKIEN'S WORLD VIEW: > > In contrast, Lewis and Tolkien present a world where truth is > absolute and transcends the individual. Because the world has > absolute truth, it is also a world in which order is upheld as an > honorable characteristic for which to strive. Good and evil are > two distinct things, with the rewards and consequences for the > characters' choices reflecting absolute values. And finally, > adults can be good or evil, and the good are presented with > nobility of character. Well, that proves that both CSL and JRRT worlds are idealistic ones. There a character will never face a moral dilemma. The only choice a character has is between the simple and the right way to choose. Instead of a multi- dimensional characters, we have single-dimensional ones. If you really think that lack of dimensions (in fact lack of personal freedom) is an advantage, maybe I'm simply wasting time answering this letter. Both CSL and JRRT worlds are excellent places, and IMHO would be far more interesting if there was no absolute Good and Evil. > First, C.S. Lewis presents truth as absolute and transcendent. > Even Aslan and the Witch are bound by the ancient laws. When > seeking what she claims is rightfully hers, the witch says to > Aslan: "You at least know the magic which the Emperor put into > Narnia at the very beginning. You know that every traitor belongs > to me as my lawful prey and that for every treachery I have a right > to a kill." When Susan begs Aslan to work against the `Deep > Magic,' C.S. Lewis writes: "`Work against the Emperor's magic?' > said Aslan turning to her with something like a frown on his face. > And nobody ever made that suggestion to him again." Even > Aslan and the Witch are bound by the laws of the Emperor. What you are talking about is not Absolute Truth, but Physical Law. Both in CSL and JRRT worlds there are limits of what one can do. Even Aslan is bound by the laws of nature. But isn't the situation in Potterverse the same? Limits of what Rowling characters can do are even more strong than that of Lewis heroes. > Second, respect for order is a part of a Judeo-Christian world > view. Respect for order is a general characteristic of biological species known as "homo sapiens". > Even in the midst of battle there is order. The sentence has the least meaning for me. Being a military history fan I am, I can do nothing but advice you to visit a midst of a battle some day. I'm serious here. > Tolkien also recognizes the role of order in a Judeo-Christian > world view. In The Hobbit the goblins "hated everyone and > everything, and particularly the orderly and prosperous...." > Chaos versus order. Which one draws out the best in us? I can say little about goblins. If you was hunted by everyone you would certainly hate everyone around. Somehow I cannot remember a case where _anybody_ in LOTR would approach an orc or a goblin with the forgiveness that Bible advocates... And anyway, goblin society is much more promising from the point of view of technological progress... > Thirdly, good and evil are distinct. When Edmund first heard the > name Aslan, he "felt a sensation of mysterious horror." It was > evil coming face to face with good. The Evil that shudders in horror when facing the Good deserves nothing but pity... Man, you haven't read books about _real_ Evil... ;) > Good and evil choices also have rewards and consequences. > Edmund chooses evil when he decides to serve the White Witch, > resulting in a curse that affects all around him, including Aslan, > the one who would save him. Payment is always necessary for > disobedience, and Edmund realizes the extent of his selfish > actions when Aslan sacrifices himself to the witch in place of > Edmund. His evil choices have painful consequences. Edmund was following your advices: he was obedient to an adult, and he was following the rules of the place he got into. His brother and sisters, however, were violating that very rules. Here we come to a very important conclusion: not all rules are good, and not all rules are always good. This conclusion of course contradicts your earlier statements, but it's based on an example you provided _yourself_. > In The Hobbit , Bilbo struggles against the pull of evil, sensing > the outcome of his decisions. When he slips the coveted > Arkenstone into his pocket, he knows that he is giving in to his > greedy desires: "All the same he had an uncomfortable feeling > that the picking and choosing had not really been meant to > included this marvellous gem, and that trouble would yet come > of it." Later Bilbo gives up the Arkenstone for the sake of peace, > but "not without a shudder, not without a glance of longing, [he] > handed the marvellous stone to Bard...." Gandalf cheers his > decision: "`Well done! Mr. Baggins!' he said, clapping Bilbo on > the back. `There is always more about you than anyone > expects!'" The internal struggle has been great, yet Bilbo > eventually chooses the good and right. Despite the fact that everything turned into a good result, this must not overshadow the truth that Bilbo was nothing more but a thief. Why don't you blame him for that? Isn't he defying the ideas you are trying to protect? Where's your logic, after all? And I must say here that his theft achieved NOTHING. No matter would he steal or not, dwarves would ally with elves and humans after all, due to pure military necessity. Hence, not only his theft is NOT punished, it doesn't even bring any good... > There is a vast difference between Dumbledore's > foolishness and Aslan's nobility. Never confuse humour with foolishness - you may end up with a reputation of a man with no sense of humour. > At the beginning of Harry Potter, Harry hates his family, laughing > at their stupidity and dreaming of revenge - "...the largest snake > in the place. It could have wrapped its body twice around Uncle > Vernon's car and crushed it into a trash can...." The words about the snake are not Harry's thoughts. Please avoid misquoting the original text - it leaves the impression that you have no real arguments and have to make fake ones... > Contrast that with Edmund and Bilbo. At the beginning of The > Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, Edmund is truly a spiteful, > mean-spirited brother: "When Peter suddenly asked him > [Edmund] the question he decided all at once to do the meanest > and most spiteful thing he could think of. He decided to let Lucy > down." Yet by the end of the story, he's a new person: "When at > last she was free to come back to Edmund she found him > standing on his feet and not only healed of his wounds but > looking better than she had seen him look--oh, for ages; ... He > had become his real old self again and could look you in the > face. And there on the field of battle Aslan made him a knight." Instead of Edmund, please take Lucy. How much growth is _there_? Little to none, indeed. Your comparison is incorrect because in the beginning Harry is not a spiteful and mean-spirited like Edmund. > Although there are many more avenues that can be explored-- > including witchcraft versus mythology--the preceding points are > enough to show that yes, there is quite a world view gulf > between Rowling and Lewis/Tolkien. In handing any book to a > child, one must know if the child can discern the world views and > not be swept into a view that is counter to the truth being instilled > in him. I would prefer to see not a truth be instilled in the child, but inner ability to discern the truth from untruth. IMHO that's much more important. Anyway nobody knows the Truth, so the thing you instill in your child may as well be a Lie... Not trying to insult, just analysing the possibilities. > MS. ROWLING'S WORLD VIEW APPARENT IN HER LITERARY > STYLE: > > Ms. Rowling's world view of no absolutes and the flaunting of all > authority and rules carries over into her writing. Either she does > not have a basic understanding of grammar and writing, or she > purposely writes this way in keeping with her world view. > Although it can be appropriate to read books with varying world > views, encouraging the reading of poorly written books is at best > unwise. Shakespeare's language is clearly incorrect by modern grammar rules. Would you recommend his sonets to a child? (P.S. Someone has already used Shakespeare as an example). I will neither cite nor comment the part of your letter that concerns grammar. I'm not an English language professor, or even a student, to be so bold. :) > When I give my children a book to read, I also give them a pencil > and ask them to mark anything that stands out to them: clues as > to the author's world view, the hero's words or actions that > inspire them, sentences or paragraphs that are well written, > vocabulary that peaks their interest, etc. My copy of Harry Potter > is well marked and even dog-eared, but not because of > inspiring passages or quality writing. Instead of doing that, try just reading. I know of no author who intended his books to be marked like this. IMHO this shows nothing but disrespect to the author. > Beyond that, encouraging a child to read > poorly written yet "sensational" literature may produce a child > who can read Harry Potter stories, but it will not produce a > reader. Have you ever tried doing that? No? Then how can you judge that? No more comments. Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, (Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed), always happy to throw weird ideas into the community. From bethz1 at rcn.com Sat Jan 19 04:59:51 2002 From: bethz1 at rcn.com (Ms. Found in A Bottle) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 23:59:51 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Where is Dumbledore's Letter? Message-ID: <036401c1a0a6$20cff740$7d3bfea9@cable.rcn.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33738 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > > In SS/PS Dumbledore leaves a letter for the Dursleys in Harry's basket. Given VD's penchant for destroying messages > from Hogwarts and Dumbledore, is it possible that the letter has survived. It should contain some very interesting > information, enough to persuade them to accept HP and keep him in safe, abject misery for 11 years. I'm *so* glad this has been brought up. Because after seeing the movie for the 3rd time I always wondered if we ever found out exactly what was in Dumbledore's letter to the Dursleys. (I was afraid to ask, because I was afraid it was clearly stated in one of the books and I completely overlooked it). But I certainly hope that comes up sometime in Book 5, 6 or 7...because I'm nosey like that. Beth From bethz1 at rcn.com Sat Jan 19 14:42:45 2002 From: bethz1 at rcn.com (Ms. Found in A Bottle) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 09:42:45 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Is Harry the Heir of Gryffindor? (Was: Bloodline theory) References: Message-ID: <008801c1a0f7$8f2027a0$7d3bfea9@cable.rcn.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33739 ----- Original Message ----- From: "judyserenity" > Not counting turncoats, all of the DE's that we know of are Slytherins and the supporters of Dumbledore all seem to > be Gryffindors. Harry is the main defense against Voldemort. So, Harry is the "Heir" of Gryffindor at least in the sense that > he is continuing Gryffindor's battle against Slytherin. But what about the fact that the Sorting Hat told Harry he could be great in Slytherin? That part always makes me so curious to know how things could have been different if Harry *had* been put in Slytherin instead of Gryffindor. Of course Harry does get time to worry about it in CoS...but I just always think it would be neat for the series to be written with Harry going into Slytherin (even in JKR didn't write it...since she already has her hands full with writing her vision). Beth From klhurt at yahoo.com Sat Jan 19 15:28:32 2002 From: klhurt at yahoo.com (Kelly Hurt) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 07:28:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Is Harry the Heir of Gryffindor? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020119152832.58535.qmail@web14203.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33740 --- judyserenity wrote: >So, given all the above reasons, I >predict that Harry will in fact turn >out to be the last living descendent >of Godric Gryffindor, even though I >don't like the implications that has >for the role of genetics in the >Potterverse. I, too, believe that Harry is the last of the Gryffindor bloodline, but I don't see it as being a genetics thing as far as story & plot go. I see it as more of an identification thing. I.e., a prophecy that reads "the last of the Gryffindor blood is the only one who can kill Voldemort" could just as easily read "the boy with the unruly hair and a scar on his forhead is the only one who can kill Voldemort". Either way, it simply identifies Harry. By the way, if Harry is indeed a direct descendant of Gryffindor and if Trelawney's first genuine predicition was something like "Gryffindor's Blood will be Voldemort's undoing", it would explain (1) why Voldemort want James & Harry dead and (2) Dumbledore's much discussed look of triumph. Kelly the Yarn Junkie ===== Pensieve A Harry Potter List for Adults Low Traffic - High Quality http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pensieve __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Sat Jan 19 16:09:28 2002 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 16:09:28 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Harry_Potter=96A_Worthwhile_series=3F=3F?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33741 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "kimballs6" wrote: > . > > MS. ROWLING'S WORLD VIEW: > > Sometimes breaking rules is honorable, > sometimes it must be punished. Sometimes a lie is bad, > sometimes it is good. In real life and in literature ranging from the highest to the crummiest level, lies are also sometimes bad and are sometimes good. To give just one counter-example from LOTR, Frodo lies to Faramir about the true nature of his mission and his relationship with Smeagol in The Two Towers. And he was obviously prudent in doing so. And the "good guys" in Scripture at times tell lies, which prove to be beneficial. For example, Jacob lies to father Issac to obtain his blessing over his brother Esau, and so becomes the third & last of the great Judeo-patriarchs. So much for the clearly delineated "truth good/lies bad" of the Judeo-Christian World View. - CMC From keegan at mcn.org Sat Jan 19 16:06:44 2002 From: keegan at mcn.org (Catherine Keegan) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 08:06:44 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hogwarts admissions and country boundries... In-Reply-To: References: <18e.1f7fa64.2979d9ca@aol.com> Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.20020119080426.00aeea90@mail.mcn.org> No: HPFGUIDX 33742 At 05:03 AM 1/19/02 +0000, Red XIV wrote: >The magic quill is at Hogwarts, so presumably it only >covers magical children in the British Isles, but whenever a magical >child is born, regardless of their ancestry, the quill writes their >name down. Do you think it records all of Ireland or just the north? Do Muggle borders have anything to do with the Quill and/or MoM? When were the borders drawn? Catherine from California From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com Sat Jan 19 17:48:24 2002 From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 11:48:24 -0600 Subject: Is V the descendent or the ancestor? References: Message-ID: <3C49B168.C0CEBD38@kingwoodcable.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33743 judyserenity wrote: > ...this would > make Harry the *last* remaining descendent of Gryffindor, as Voldy is > the last descendent of Slytherin. >...Dumbledore very clearly ruled this out, saying that Voldemort > was the last descendent of Salazar Slytherin. (Other than that > Dumbledore said "ancestor" instead of descendent, which presumably > was a mistake.) I'm not meaning to be nitpicky, but there is controversy over whether V is the last ancestor or last descendent of Slytherin. We aren't sure which is the mistake as both have been used. This is discussed in the Mysteries and Inconsistencies at the Lexicon: http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/faq/mysteries.html The Lexicon also gives pointers to message on the groups where this has been discussed (which I need to go back through) Rowling also answered a question from HPFGU during an interview in October 2000: -- Question: Harry Potter for grownups again! Is Voldemort the last remaining ancestor of Slytherin, or the last remaining descendent of Slytherin? Answer: Ah, you spotted the deliberate error. Yes, it should read "descendent." That's been changed in subsequent editions. (Keep hold of the "ancestor" one, maybe it'll be valuable one day!) -- Rowling is intentionally misleading us, and that just opens a whole bunch of new doors. If V is the last ancestor (would that just make him the oldest of the living heirs?), then it is quite possible for someone else in the HP books to be an heir of Slytherin. If he is the last descendent, it's impossible for any living characters (Harry) to be related. -Katze From mat at hooper11.freeserve.co.uk Sat Jan 19 17:48:20 2002 From: mat at hooper11.freeserve.co.uk (Martin Hooper) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 17:48:20 +0000 Subject: The books a Hogwarts Cover-up??? Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020119173429.00a19a90@pop.freeserve.net> No: HPFGUIDX 33744 Just had a thought... What if Hogwarts was real and Dumbledore/MoM has asked JKR to write a series of books on the history of the school as a sort of cover up. Sort of putting in people's heads that Hogwart's only exists in books so no one would be interested and come looking... Martin Hooper AIM:martinjh99 ICQ: 43933602 From tabouli at unite.com.au Sat Jan 19 18:35:19 2002 From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 05:35:19 +1100 Subject: Ethnicity in HP: A utopian depiction? Message-ID: <001f01c1a118$40b86d40$bb30c2cb@price> No: HPFGUIDX 33745 Kelly: > JKR has dropped hints about various secondary characters' ethnicity and now portrays them in the exact same way as all the other kids in Hogwarts. That's the whole idea isn't it?< Ahhh. Well. Time to unleash the cross-cultural psychologist again. I see JKR's efforts in this department as utopian: presenting the world the way it "should" be to set a good example (all people should be treated exactly the same regardless of race). However, anyone who's had intimate contact with a culture (different from race, though there's usually a reasonable correlation between the two for various obvious reasons) other than their own will realise that although "treating everyone exactly the same" intuitively sounds fair, in actual fact it's anything but, because people from different cultures are operating by different "rules" of behaviour. Let's take an Anglo-Australian schoolteacher, for example, dealing with two children in her class (one Anglo-Australian student and one from culture X). She suspects one of them of stealing someone's keyring, and calls them up in front of the class to ask them questions. When she interviews the Anglo child, he looks her in the eye and promptly answers all her questions, denying everything. According to her rulebook of behaviour, this means he is being honest, respectful and helpful. She therefore concludes he is not guilty. She then treats the child from culture X in exactly the same way. Fair and non-racist, right? The X child, on the other hand, avoids her eye and looks at the floor. He appears deeply uncomfortable, and seems reluctant to answer the questions. According to her rulebook, this means he has something to hide, is being uncooperative, feels guilty and is therefore probably to blame. She therefore punishes him. When the keyring later turns up behind the couch, she is rather puzzled: why did the child from X act so guilty? The problem here is that she is imposing her own cultural rules on a child who has been raised according to a totally different rulebook. In X, being publically criticised is about the most disgraceful thing imaginable, especially for a child. Moreover, in X it is considered extremely rude to look your elders in the eye: a respectful child should look down and receive rebukes in silence. Effectively, the child from X is being disadvantaged and indeed punished for something he didn't do because he and the teacher do not read behaviour in the same way (and she is convinced that treated everyone exactly the same is the way to be fair and non-racist). Things like "behaviour which indicates guilt" and "polite, respectful behaviour" are almost invariably defined very, very differently across cultures, and the results if people don't understand this can be catastrophic (70% of Australian companies who attempt to open branches in Asia fail due to these sorts of differences!) It probably isn't the teacher's fault that she doesn't know how X operates and has only her own cultural assumptions to "read" with, but neither is it the child's that he doesn't realise the likely Anglo-Australian interpretation of his perfectly X-appropriate behaviour (of course, if I may put in a little plug here, a little cross-cultural training for at least the teacher would probably go a long way in this sort of situation...) I therefore see JKR's depiction of children of non-Anglo-Saxon background as utopian, rather than realistic. If the differences between cultures really were that cosmetic (different skin colour, food and language, but otherwise Just The Same As Us) there would be no such thing as culture shock, and, I strongly suspect, much less "racism". I can't speak for the US, but for an increasing number of people in major urban centres in Australia the problem is less "racism" (prejudice based on physical race alone) than ethnocentrism... the belief that one's own culture is normal, right, good, etc., and the standard by which all cultures and people should be judged. I worked for a while in a residential college with half Anglo-Australians and half international students. The students who weren't "white" but had Australian accents, Australian tastes in entertainment, Australian attitudes, etc. were happily embraced by the Anglo-Australians. However, international students (even those of the same "race" as their non-Anglo friends) were avoided and treated with extreme suspicion and discomfort. They just didn't know what to say to them, they were too "different". Not racially, but culturally. More Kelly: > Also, she has portrayed the wizarding world as far more tolerant of inter-ethnic relationships than the way I perceive the current real world situation (at least, in the US)< (snip examples) >All of these things happen **without** causing raised eyebrows or whisperings which is the way it should be.< I must admit, the stories I hear about inter-racial relationships in the US make my blood run cold (Spike Lee's "Jungle Fever" didn't help, either...). Is it really that bad? (and what about the UK? Is the no-eyelids-batted reaction to Fred/Angelina plausible?) Asian/Caucasian relationships are quite common among young, educated Australians. Even in the seventies my parents never had anyone spitting on them in the street or refusing to serve them. There aren't a lot of people of African descent over here (though there's more and more immigration from the Horn of Africa), but I've certainly heard a groundswell among the young educated Australians suggesting that people who are "racially" African but culturally Western (e.g. African Americans) are considered among undergraduates to be about the coolest possible catch one could aspire to! I'm not alone in surmising this: a rather gorgeous-looking Kenyan-Swiss woman I met in Geneva expressed deep fear about going to "racist" Australia, and the other Australian present emphatically reassured her that far from it, she's be considered incredibly exotic and sexy ("A beautiful black woman with a French accent? Are you kidding? Forget racism, the Aussie men will be beating a path to your door!"). Which, of course, could be read as doubtful for different reasons, but anyway. And I'd be cautious about extending that reassurance too far beyond the educated middle class in major urban centres, or into the institution of marriage... The most serious prejudice in Australia is against the indigenous people (the Aborigines), where it really is bad. I suspect a Caucasian/Aboriginal relationship would pose much more of a "Jungle Fever" esque problem. Answers to OT... Tabouli. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dragon_starz at hotmail.com Sat Jan 19 19:04:34 2002 From: dragon_starz at hotmail.com (dragon_starling) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 19:04:34 -0000 Subject: The books a Hogwarts Cover-up??? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020119173429.00a19a90@pop.freeserve.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33746 I'm sure that several have had that exact same wishful thought, I know I have. It really would be wonderful that there really is magic out there and a Hogwarts, a whole different world alongside yet set apart from our 'muggle' one. Though if it were real I'm sure the wizards wouldn't be nearly so ignorant of us muggles and many of the other aspects in the book would be different but then these are childrens' books and have to be written accordingly. The one problem I would have with the books being a cover-up is that I'd like to know if there was a whole magically world out there and I'd like to think that muggles and wizards could work toghether instead of being so seperate. ~Star~ From Zarleycat at aol.com Sat Jan 19 19:13:43 2002 From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 19:13:43 -0000 Subject: Snape and those Troublemakers (was Snape (still!) In-Reply-To: <6a.19ad40a7.297986fb@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33747 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote:> > However, I'd like to expand a theory I mentioned once before. What if Snape > never was really a 'bad guy'? What if he's always been battling the two sides > of his nature? I agree with jchutney that Snape may see Dumbledore as a > surrogate father. I think he probably wanted to do so whilst at school. If > so, he must have been constantly disappointed by Dumbledore's apparent > favouritism for those troublemakers, Potter and Black. Can you give some examples of Dumbledore's constant favoritism towards Potter and Black? Does you mean that Snape went through seven years at Hogwarts trying to find a way to make a connection with Dumbledore as a father figure, only to be pushed away because Dumbledore preferred James and Sirius? Or are you saying that Snape's perception while at school was that Dumbledore as Headmaster let Potter, etal. get away with things, even if that was not the case? Potter/Black certainly caused trouble, according to McGonagall, at least. And, in order to be recognized as troublemakers, obviously, they had to get caught a fair amount of the time. (If their pranks remained anonymous, they would not have had the reputation they seemed to have developed over the years they were at Hogwarts.) I don't know of any evidence that Dumbledore constantly let them get away with things. I think it more likely that Snape felt that they never got enough punishment or a severe enough punishment and that may have colored his vision of whether or not they were Dumbledore's Pets. His view may have been reinforced by the fact that James became a prefect and then Head Boy. Snape could perceive this as favoritism, but, IIRC, Dumbledore doesn't unilaterally choose who will fill those posts. And, if a misbehaving student is caught, it is up to the Professors, as well as the Headmaster to mete out punishment. That was not Snape's business. Ah, you're all saying, but what about the infamous Prank? I think that is the only incident we know about where Snape has a case for finding Dumbledore too lenient. I don't blame Snape for his feelings here. At the time, he didn't know the whole story, seeing as how he thought Lupin was in on it, too. But, I can't help but wonder how much of the real story was explained to Snape afterwards, and how much of that he chose to believe or ignore. We have the following lines in PoA: Snape: Sirius Black showed he was capable of murder at the age of sixteen...You haven't forgotten that, Headmaster? Dumbledore: My memory is as good as it ever was, Severus. That exchange has always struck me as a case where two people viewed a past incident differently. Snape is still convinced that Sirius truly intended to murder him, using Lupin as a weapon. Dumbledore, it seems to me, sees a different, and perhaps a more encompassing view of the whole picture. Marianne From chiflipgrl at aol.com Sat Jan 19 17:57:50 2002 From: chiflipgrl at aol.com (chiflipgrl at aol.com) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 12:57:50 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] The books a Hogwarts Cover-up??? Message-ID: <188.205b416.297b0d9e@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33748 Oooh!! that's an interesting concept... i reckon we set out and look for it!! I'm already on a quest to find Avalon... Maybe I'll find a real Hogwarts on the way! ::giggle:: *~*~*~* Janice *~*~*~* - who ponders "What if Harry is a real person?!?!" [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From katilian at earthlink.net Sat Jan 19 18:13:06 2002 From: katilian at earthlink.net (katilian) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 18:13:06 -0000 Subject: Laws of the universe (was Harry Potter a worthwhile series) In-Reply-To: <1793059482.20020119140144@tut.by> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33749 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Alexander wrote: <<>>> Going off in a completely different direction here... I *think* it was Orson Scott Card who said that one of the keys to creating a believable sf/fantasy universe was to create consistent laws by which magic/technology/etc. worked with that universe. For example, magic can work by willing something to happen (without spells, etc.), by saying spells, by saying spells and performing specific actions, by mixing potions and using other objects, or by some combination of the above, but one shouldn't have it *only* work one way one time and *only* work another way another time, or else the reader won't believe in the universe. (Card-or-whoever was much clearer in his explanation :-)) When I read Alexander's statement (quoted above), I started thinking about Rowling's use of 'laws' to govern her universe. It seems to me that the magic system is a mixture of magic-by-will (for example, Harry 'teleports' himself to the school roof to get away from Dudley&co. and he makes the glass around the snake cage disappear, both before he even knows he can do magic) and magic-by-spells-plus-actions (they all seem to say words and point/wave wands) *and* magic-by-potions (the polyjuice potion, the fact that they take a potions class, etc.). I'm not sure, though, were the actual rules lie. Are the words-and-wands simply a means to focus the magic user's will so that weird things don't happen? Harry's use of magic prior to Hogwarts does seem to be random and to have unexpected consequences, so maybe a specific focus is required to keep the magic from doing bizarre and unexpected things. That would make sense in light of the fact that Ron's magic went awry when his wand was broken. On the other hand, wouldn't that imply that a sufficiently determined magic user could perform spells without the wands-and-words (at least in situations where he/she focused completely on the desired outcome) *without* having things go nuts? Or are the wands-and-words something that strengthen the magic act? For example, Harry has an inherent magical ability that he can use in times of stress, but for 'everyday activities', he needs the wand with its magical core element, as well as the word(s) that describe the action he wants to have happen, in order to give his magic the extra push required to get something done? And while I'm here, does anyone know if there are websites discussing or listing the spells/potions/etc. used in HP? Katie From cmf_usc at yahoo.com Sat Jan 19 18:16:43 2002 From: cmf_usc at yahoo.com (cmf_usc) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 18:16:43 -0000 Subject: V descendent or ancestor?/ bloodline theory In-Reply-To: <3C49B168.C0CEBD38@kingwoodcable.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33750 Hi all! Chris stated-- <> I completely agree with this part of the theory! I have thought for a while that Harry must be related to both S & G, as a living philosophers' stone whose power Voldie wants to absorb. (Came up with this based on the alchemical symbolism in the books; msg 33154 if anyone's interested). But I hadn't come up with exactly *how* he was related, and this sounds really plausible. Then, Katze wrote-- <> <> I'm with you Katze! I think JKR is misleading us; that's why she had Dumbledore tell Harry only half the truth (because we know he doesn't lie). I know JKR joked about the Voldemort-related-to-Harry-idea, saying it would "be a bit Star Wars-ish", but that doesn't mean she's denying it! Also, this Dumbledore-Harry conversation reminds me of SW too. Remember when Obi-Wan tells Luke his father's not alive in the first movie? And by the third movie he's saying, well, I wasn't really lying, the man who was your father is gone and Darth Vader has taken his place? (sorry can't remember exact quote) That's the sort of vagueness & half-truth telling I read into the D/H scene. So, IMHO, this interpretation of ancestor/descendant issue takes care of one of the objections to the Harry-related-to-Slytherin-theory. And, to address another objection, maybe Lily chose not be in Slytherin herself, much as Harry did. And finally, I like the idea of Harry being related to both S & G for another reason. If he has the genetics of both in his nature--his choice to "do the right thing" is all the more interesting, IMO. I like to believe that Harry's powers (including Parseltongue) are really his own; that Harry (& all of us) are being led to place too much importance on the scar as a link to Voldemort. That Harry can be an incredible force for good or evil, whichever he so chooses. Thanks for listening! Caroline From lav at tut.by Sat Jan 19 18:39:36 2002 From: lav at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 20:39:36 +0200 Subject: Fidelius Charm - alternative explanation Message-ID: <13122863662.20020119203936@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 33751 Greetings! I thought that perhaps an alternative explanation of Fidelius Charm may be of use, especially since this thread seems to undeservedly stuck dead. So far it's common point that Fidelius hides the actual location. Indeed it does, but why to resort to the difficulties discussed? Why to make everyone forget about actual Potters location? We know for sure that in the Wizarding World there are things that are "more inside than outside". Why cannot Fidelius work the same way? It is said that Voldemort could peer into Potters' house windows and not find them. Ok, let's assume that Fidelius does NOT remove actual knowledge about Potters location, only makes it impossible to FIND them there. From a mundane point of view, the spell actually creates a duplicate of the house they live in, and hides it from everyone but Secret Keeper. Now it gets interesting. Actual address may be known to Voldemort, but most likely it will be nothing but one of many possible addresses that come from many sources. In spying games, there's no chance to get a simple piece of intel that wouldn't contradict other similar pieces. I would suppose that Voldemort was forced to check each and every address that as he knew could be Potters'. And if Dumbledore had any brains, he would put some effort into spreading a LOT of fake addresses throughout the wizards community (in military theory this method is known as Reflections Waltz). Of course he had REAL Potters' address - among many others. But only the Secret Keeper can actually FIND them there. Now it's Pettygrew. He is the Secret Keeper. Peter, Sirius and Dumbledore indeed know Potters' address. Only Peter can actually find Potters there until the Fidelius is broken. He reveals the Secret to Voldemort, they go there and kill Potters. Everything simple, and no "revelations" occur to either Sirius or Dumbledore about what is happening. There's no need for that, as we see below. (It's most likely that telling the Secret is not just a simple thnig - most likely it's a spell of sorts). Sirius arrives to Peter's house. He still has no idea on what happened - no sudden mystical "revelations" proposed earlier in the newsgroup. He just arrives and alas! - no Peter, no signs of fighting. Scared to death, he runs to Godric's Hollow - he knows the address, but if he cannot find Potters there it means that Peter just ran away... The hope always dies last, as a Russian saying goes. He arrives to the address he knows and find Potters dead. Whoops. That's it. No need to extract actual knowledge from people brains. No need for mystical revelations that occur suddenly when the Secret Keeper is dead. The Charm may be broken at any moment - Keeper's death, Keeper's betrayal, Potters' death - it doesn't matter as the explanation above fits with all theories. Even more. In case of this theory I could assume that there was a warden of sorts in Godric's Hollow, his duty to check Potters' house regularly to see if he can find them. Warden is of course placed by Dumbledore, and as soon as Voldemort arrives he informs Dumbledore about the fact. I would even go as far as to say that it was the warden who has found Harry first... I would really love to know who he was - after all this was the first person who knew _everything_ (and most likely the person from whom the information leakage happened that caused wizard's festivities). Of course, there should be similar wardens near many fake addresses, just in case this one is revealed, so Voldemort couldn't guess Potters are here if he finds the warden due to a lucky chance. So far, everything seems to be explained. Sirius behavior. Dumbledore knowledge about Potters, Harry and Voldie fate. Theory fits with explanation of Fidelius in PoA. Sirius is a brave man, this will definitely soothe many hearts here on the List. :) Sirius story as he tells it to Harry in PoA is also correct. Everything fits well, what really makes me suspect that it's not as simple as I've described... :) Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, (Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed), who does not believe that Ron is a seer, despite all that discussions on the List. From blenberry at altavista.com Sat Jan 19 19:44:16 2002 From: blenberry at altavista.com (blenberry) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 19:44:16 -0000 Subject: Scabbers In-Reply-To: <46.211568e9.297a6051@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33752 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Whirdy at a... wrote: > In PS/SS, the list of everything you need states quite clearly "Students may > also bring an owl OR a cat OR a toad." > So, how come firtst-year RW gets to bring along Percy's old rat? Yeah, well, that pet policy can't be too strict. I think it must be more along the lines of *suggested* pets. After all, doesn't Lee Jordan bring a giant tarantula? Barbara From lav at tut.by Sat Jan 19 20:54:08 2002 From: lav at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 22:54:08 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The books a Hogwarts Cover-up??? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <17530936780.20020119225408@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 33753 Greetings! > Star wrote to us: d> I'm sure that several have had that exact same wishful thought, I d> know I have. It really would be wonderful that there really is magic d> out there and a Hogwarts, a whole different world alongside yet set d> apart from our 'muggle' one. Though if it were real I'm sure the d> wizards wouldn't be nearly so ignorant of us muggles and many of the d> other aspects in the book would be different but then these are d> childrens' books and have to be written accordingly. The one problem d> I would have with the books being a cover-up is that I'd like to know d> if there was a whole magically world out there and I'd like to think d> that muggles and wizards could work toghether instead of being so d> seperate. d> ~Star~ Despite the attractiveness of the theory, I must disagree. If it really was a cover-up, it would be much better worked through. There would be no such glaring errors like the ones Rowling books have. And, what's even more important, there would be the "big picture" in the background. Take LOTR as an example. You read the book, but most of the information isn't told in it. It's in the background, and characters operate with this information easily and without familiarising reader with it. You read the book, but you also get an impression of the real world that stands behind it. The same applies to almost any literature except fiction. In most fantasy/fiction books there's no big world lurking in the background - you read the story and that's just that, nothing more. Rowling almost managed to create an impression of Wizarding World. Still there are just too many inconsistencies, errors, omissions and contradictions to truly believe into it. The world "doesn't live" - it exists only in writer's imagination, but a reader trying to imagine the world runs into a deadlock almost immediately. If we were dealing with a society that had some experience in spying, I would expect to find a second layer of logic here (that is, the books were created with that many errors intentionally to provoke this very arguments). But this doesn't seem to be the case. Thus sorry guys, but I don't think there are wizards like the ones Rowling described. Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, (Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed), Ministry of Magic Operation "Cover-Up" Chief. From lav at tut.by Sat Jan 19 21:09:05 2002 From: lav at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 23:09:05 +0200 Subject: Gryffindor Quidditch Team Message-ID: <12331834226.20020119230905@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 33754 Greetings! Has anybody noticed the inconsistencies in JKR books concerning the Gryffindor Quidditch team? It definitely looks like the team has no reserve players. Only in Book 1 does Rowling say a word about Alicia Spinnet being an ex-reserve player - and that's all. Throughout books 1-4 there are no reserve players training for GryQuiT, though in Book 4 there are no trainings at all. It seems that after Harry appearance Oliver has forgotten about "younger generation" completely. There are no mentionings about young Quidditch players - does that mean there are no talents in Gryffindor during years 1991-1993? What will happen to the Team if one of the players will be unable to play? We have seen in SS/PS and CS that there is no reserve Seeker in the team. But why? Isn't _any_ Seeker better than no Seeker at all? After all, they could take Neville... :) Who will be the new Team captain now that Wood has finished his education? And, most of all, who will be the new Defender? Are there any ideas? Bits of data? Useful hints from JKR interviews? Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, (Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed), who actually believes Harry is the heir of Gryffindor, Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff _simultaneously_... ;) From IAmLordCassandra at aol.com Sat Jan 19 21:59:48 2002 From: IAmLordCassandra at aol.com (IAmLordCassandra at aol.com) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 16:59:48 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Gryffindor Quidditch Team Message-ID: <69.20c06506.297b4654@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33755 <> Another thing I noticed (if this hasn't been picked apart already) is that they talk about Quidditch trials in book one, yet there is no mention of any sort of try-outs in the next year or the year after or the year after and the team stays the same. Is there no one in all of Gryffindor aside from the current members of the team who can play Quidditch? And does anyone know what year you have to be in to try out (unless it's for a special circumstance, of course ^^)? ~Cassie~ From abigailnus at yahoo.com Sat Jan 19 22:01:48 2002 From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 22:01:48 -0000 Subject: Sirius/Peter Secret-Keeper Workings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33756 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > > Thinking out loud, I guess there might be two separate issues: (1) > what prevents a third party (Sirius) from being tortured to reveal > that Pettigrew was secretkeeper, and (2) was the Potters' location > only a secret from Voldemort and DEs or was it secret from everyone > except Pettigrew, and if so, what caused Sirius and Dumbledore to > find the Potters' bodies? I'm not sure this is how the Fidelius Charm works. As I understood it, casting the spell meant that Voldemort could have walked straight into the house in Godric's Hollow but would be unable to see the Potters unless Peter had revealed them to him (whether that means that Peter had to be with him physically or whether it would have been enough for him to reveal their location to Voldemort I'm not certain of.) Which means that everyone could have known where the Potters were (at the beginning of PS McGonagall certainly does - she tells Dumbledore that people are saying Voldemort went to Godric's Hollow the previous night) and they could have told Voldemort where to go, and it wouldn't have done him any good because he wouldn't have been able to see the Potters - what you can't see,you can't kill (at least in theory.) Only the secret keeper could break the spell and allow Voldemort to kill the Potters. I was going to write that I didn't have the energy to look up the spell in the book and see if I'm right, but as it turned out I do. This is from PoA, Chapter 10, The Marauders Map, Prof. Flitwick is describing the Fidelius Charm: "...The information is hidden inside the... Secret Keeper, and is henceforth impossible to find... As long as the Secret Keeper refused to speak, You Know Who could have searched the village where Lily and James we staying for years and never find them, not even if he had his nose pressed against their sitting room window!" This is a little more ambiguous than I'd thought about whether other people could have known where the Potters were, but evidencs seems to suggest that they did and it didn't matter - the Potter's lives were in Peter's hands. Abigail From pengolodh_sc at yahoo.no Sat Jan 19 22:28:52 2002 From: pengolodh_sc at yahoo.no (pengolodh_sc) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 22:28:52 -0000 Subject: Laws of the universe In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33757 --- In HPforGrownups, Katie wrote: [snip] > It seems to me that the magic system is a mixture of > magic-by-will [...] and magic-by-spells-plus-actions [...] > *and* magic-by-potions [...]. > > I'm not sure, though, were the actual rules lie. Are the > words-and-wands simply a means to focus the magic user's will > so that weird things don't happen? Harry's use of magic > prior to Hogwarts does seem to be random and to have > unexpected consequences, so maybe a specific focus is required > to keep the magic from doing bizarre and unexpected things. > That would make sense in light of the fact that Ron's magic > went awry when his wand was broken. On the other hand, > wouldn't that imply that a sufficiently determined magic > user could perform spells without the wands-and-words (at > least in situations where he/she focused completely on the > desired outcome) *without* having things go nuts? I believe in the theory of magic being done by will (possibly apart from potions - consider the below as skipping potions). The use of formulae such as "wingardium leviosa" and "petrificus totalus" seem to me to be more a form of mental trick, where you associate the proper method for your mind to command or control the magic to achieve the desired result, with a specific set of words. The wand is needed, I think, because the magic otherwise would spill all over the place, meaning much more effort must go into achieving the desired result, while there's lots of excess magic going all over the place, creating a risk for random magic side-effects. most mages simply do not have the ability to focus the actual emission of magic well enough to be able to do any magic of note in everyday- situations, when he does not have adrenalin helping him focus on what is necessary for survival. Take the analogy, if you like, of a nozzle on a garden-hose - you need it to focus the spray of water the way you want. Without the nozzle, you have to use a finger on the end of the hose, and the results you achieve then are not always good enough for your purposes, and inevitably, water gets spilled. When Harry does his spontaneous magic, by the above analogy he does not have the nozzle, and instead has to subconsciously focus his energy as best he can. Chances are that he had a semi-conscious thought of it being cool to be able to get on the roof of the school- kitchen to get away from his pursuers, that being the will-effort required, combined with an adrenalin-induced urgency that possibly contributed to his focusing-ability. > Or are the wands-and-words something that strengthen the magic > act? For example, Harry has an inherent magical ability that > he can use in times of stress, but for 'everyday activities', > he needs the wand with its magical core element, as well as > the word(s) that describe the action he wants to have happen, > in order to give his magic the extra push required to get > something done? As I said above, I think the words are not part of the magic as such, but are a mental method, with the purpose of helping the mind command the magic properly. The wand on the other hand, is an extension and refining of the person's actual ability to control the focus and amount of magic he is sending out in his spell. As such, I do not think that there are any "universal words" of magic, and certainly not taht we have seen any so far, even if they exist. The words we hitherto hace seen in spells seem to be Latin or pseudo-Latin, while it seems probable to me that magic existed a long time before Latin existed. If there were any such words, they might be in proto-indoeuropean, but as I said - I do not really think there are any. (Of course, according to Murphy, JKR will in book five refute everything I have written above :) ) > And while I'm here, does anyone know if there are websites > discussing or listing the spells/potions/etc. used in HP? > > Katie You should try Steve van der Ark's Harry Potter Lexicon, at http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/ Best regards Christian Stub? From morsethanatos at yahoo.com Sat Jan 19 22:34:48 2002 From: morsethanatos at yahoo.com (morsethanatos) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 22:34:48 -0000 Subject: HPfG-FAQ: Location of Durmstrang Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33758 Hi, I started reading the FAQ and found that Latvia is mentioned as a possible location. I came from Latvia when I was small, and just got done interrogating my grandfather about it. Latvia has many many beautiful lakes. It is certainly cold enough in the winter and daylight would generally last from 8 AM to about 5 or 4 PM. Unfortunately there is not a mountain anywhere. There are hills and some elevated areas but no mountains. Morsethanatos. From christi0469 at hotmail.com Sat Jan 19 22:55:18 2002 From: christi0469 at hotmail.com (christi0469) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 22:55:18 -0000 Subject: Ethnicity in HP: A utopian depiction? In-Reply-To: <001f01c1a118$40b86d40$bb30c2cb@price> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33759 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Tabouli" wrote: > Kelly: > > JKR has dropped hints about various secondary characters' ethnicity and > now portrays them in the exact same way as all the other kids in > Hogwarts. That's the whole idea isn't it?< > > Ahhh. Well. Time to unleash the cross-cultural psychologist again. I see JKR's efforts in this department as utopian: presenting the world the way it "should" be to set a good example (all people should be treated exactly the same regardless of race). > > Tabouli. But why would JKR chose a utopian treatment of ethnic diversity when she has chosen a "shades of grey" approach for most everything else? My theory is that she is downplaying RL discrimination and prejudice in order to highlight the forms of discrimination specific to Potterverse. The first chapter of PS/SS reveals bigotry in the Dursley's opinion of the Potters (or anything un-dursleyish). We actually read from VD's POV so we can fully appreciate the depth of Vernon's bigotry. Petunia seems to share this bigotry, and Dudley takes advantage of it in order to bully Harry. The first wizard child Harry talks to is Draco, who introduces us to the concept of discrimination against muggle-borns, which proves to be important to the series so far. Draco later taunts Ron about being poor, which shows prejudice based on economic situation. Prejudice against muggle-borns is very important to the plot of CoS, and in this books we learn that mudblood is a very derogatory term for muggle-borns. We are also introduced to slavery in the wizarding world when we meet Dobby. Harry is disturbed by the treatment of Dobby enough to trick Lucius Malfoy into freeing him, but does not seem to wonder about the treatment of house-elves as a group. In PoA we learm of discrimination against werewolves. Lupin is a very sympathetic character, which enforces how unfair that particular prejudice is. Hagrid is also a very sympathetic character, which makes the article "outing" him as a half-giant seem very unfair indeed. GoF also gives us Hermione's reaction to the house-elf situation, and we see that it is more complicated than we might have imagined. With the exeption of Dobby, house-elves seem very happy and indeed are scandalized by the thought of being free. But how can slavery ever be fair? Christi From pengolodh_sc at yahoo.no Sat Jan 19 23:09:35 2002 From: pengolodh_sc at yahoo.no (pengolodh_sc) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 23:09:35 -0000 Subject: HPfG-FAQ: Location of Durmstrang In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33760 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "morsethanatos" wrote: > Hi, > I started reading the FAQ and found that Latvia is mentioned > as a possible location. I came from Latvia when I was small, > and just got done interrogating my grandfather about it. > Latvia has many many beautiful lakes. It is certainly cold > enough in the winter and daylight would generally last from 8 > AM to about 5 or 4 PM. Unfortunately there is not a mountain > anywhere. There are hills and some elevated areas but no > mountains. > > Morsethanatos. That is known, but not all the FAQs are in a similar state of update. I have myself postulated locations in Scandinavia or on the Kola peninsula (at the inner end of the Kandalaksa bay), and JKR has since that time (at a book-reading in Glasgow some eight months ago, IIRC, stated the location to probably been in the far North of Sweden or Norway. Best regards Christian Stub? Not in any way associated with the FAQ-team, but with a long-standing membership on HPfGU. From NOTaMuggleFamily at aol.com Sat Jan 19 23:28:50 2002 From: NOTaMuggleFamily at aol.com (NOTaMuggleFamily at aol.com) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 18:28:50 EST Subject: Why couldn't Voldemort kill Harry? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33761 I wonder how everyone *knows* Voldemort killed James and Lily...no one really saw what happened...even little Harry only remembers Lily crying out and a light. Is there actual proof, or is this just an assumption? ~shahara in wi ~*~serendipitously smitten with severus snape~*~ From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Sun Jan 20 00:24:29 2002 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 00:24:29 -0000 Subject: Finkin' Ol' Draco (filk) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33762 Finkin' Ol Draco (To the tune of Finch'han dal vino from Mozart's Don Giovanni) Hear the aria (from Act 1, Scene 15) at http://www.designhouse.net/lecagot/samples.html The libretto can be found at http://www.karadar.it/Librettos/mozart_don_giovanni.html#1_15 (THE SCENE: Gryffindor Commons. On the eve of a game with Slytherin, HARRY leads a butterbeer toast in a denunciation of Gryffindor's most- hated rival) HARRY Finkin' ol' Draco Him we detest-a 'Tis no contest-a That predator! No trophy in the Quidditch Will go to that kid rich, Draco's sure to quail-a He'll never score! Slyth'rins grow all dimmer-a, With their disgraced crap Robed like dement-os Herm will their face slap, They are so menta, Morons they are Once more will Gryffindor A far more diff'rent dorm Conquest-a the Slyth'rins, Foiling Malfoy's heir. Ah! Into the trash kick All of the slashfic That dares to depict We two as a pair! That depicts we two as a pair! - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From catlady at wicca.net Sun Jan 20 02:47:06 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (Rita Winston) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 18:47:06 -0800 Subject: Comments on some posts in 33400 range Message-ID: <3C4A2FAA.229243E9@wicca.net> No: HPFGUIDX 33763 TOKEN ETHNIC CHARACTERS Cindy Sphynx wrote: << (none of the major characters fighting evil are minority). >> Until GoF, I had a vague impression that Hermione was a light-skinned black, maybe of West Indian ancestry. I probably got that idea because Hermione reminded me of a girl I once knew so I imagined her looking like that girl. If Hermione had been stated to be West Indian, there would have been complaints that she was an 'Oreo' and acted just like a white kid thus disrespectfully ignoring ethnic differences in culture. (Except that many people would have reflexively assumed that she founded SPEW because of being a minority herself.) And if the author had conscientiously tried to model her on brainy offspring of West Indian dentists, there would have been complaints of stereotyping, limiting West Indians to reggae music and jerked chicken and excluding them from classical music and French cuisine. It's another can't-win situation for an author. (Btw, are you Textual Sphinx?) Barb wrote: << I would love to know whether Lupin also had the third year Slytherins study boggarts, >> I wrote a fanfic about that. It's on The Dark Arts http://www.thedarkarts.org/authorLinks/Catlady/ This is actually relevant to the above conversation, because I'm always afraid that someone someday is going to accuse me of being a bigtime racist because the one kid who screamed and ran away from her Boggart is the one kid who was explicitly described as 'brown' (in another fic). I hadn't intended for ANY of the kids to fail, but it happened... and her 'ethnic background' is just a matter of how she looks: she was raised totally old-fashioned British lower-upper class. SLYTHERIN Alexander Lomski wrote: << Difference between a Slytherin and a Gryffindor IMHO lies (snip) in their inner motivations. For a Slytherin, ambition is perhaps the most important quality >> That's what the Sorting Hat keeps saying, but watching the Slytherin characters (Draco, Goyle, Crabbe, Parkinson, Bulstrode, Snape, Riddle) in action makes me think that revengefullness is even more basic to being a Slytherin personality. A Barkeep in Diagon Alley wrote of Draco: << His father, there's a different story. He deserves whatever is coming to him. >> I agree. Lucius is a horror, quite deliberately evil. But as long as people are discussing how Draco, and Dudley, and Riddle, and old Salazar himself, came to be evil, is anyone wondering how Lucius became Lucius? It seems to me that it would be relevant to the Draco discussion if Lucius got that way simply because he was raised much the same way he is raising his own son. Alexander Lomski wrote of Salazar and Muggleborn students: << Another reason is that if it was security issue, Salazar would definitely bring it into debate on whether mudbloods should be accepted >> According to Professor Binns in CoS, he DID. "He disliked taking students of Muggle parentage, believing them to be untrustworthy." Lucky Kari wrote: << (Which makes me wonder why the orphanage didn't try to track down that worthless Riddle Sr.?) >> My theory is that Riddle Sr never actually MARRIED Jr's mother. He may have broken off the engagement because he found out she was a witch, or he might have never intended more than a casual affair in the first place. I believe the latter: the son of the big house thought he was casually seducing a girl from the village. He was surprised that she was so stupid enough to think that he was really going to marry her just because she got pregnant. He never did find out that she was a witch. Despite this, she remained enough in love with him to name the baby after him, and she told her parents that she and Tom Sr had secretly married because she was ashamed of being an unwed mother. It WAS the 1920s. WITCH BURNING Lilah P, Margaret Dean, SpyGameFan, LordCassie, et alia wrote of witch burning. 1) I have been told there is a book titled BURNING WITCHES IN MISSISSIPPI which recounts an event which took place in 1913. 2) If the Muggles had taken away Wendelin's wand before tying her to the take, she would not have been able to save herself with a Flame Freezing Charm. The wizarding folk can be very helpless if we catch them asleep or without their wands. GRUBBLY-PLANK Amy Z wrote: << Is it just me, or is JKR slyly informing us about Professor Grubbly-Plank's sexual history when she has Lavender say about the unicorn, "How did she get it? They're supposed to be really hard to catch!" (Medieval tradition had it that only a female virgin could tame a unicorn. >> Professor Grubbly-Plank always struck me as a gentle parody of the aging political lesbian. What is the definition of 'virgin' for unicorn catching purposes? ------------------------------------------------------------------ /\ /\ ___ ___ + + Mews and views ( @ \/ @ ) >> = << from Rita Prince Winston \ @ @ / \ () / ("`-''-/").___..--''"`-._ \ / `6_ 6 ) `-. ( ).`-.__.`) \/ (_Y_.)' ._ ) `._ `. ``-..-' _..`--'_..-_/ /--'_.' ,' (((' (((-((('' (((( From southernscotland at yahoo.com Sat Jan 19 23:50:30 2002 From: southernscotland at yahoo.com (southernscotland) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 23:50:30 -0000 Subject: Is Harry Potter a Worthwhile Series? (otherwise known as Harry-Potter-bashing) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33764 To: Our original poster I hope you are still here. It could be thought of as brave to send that message. You may feel like a poodle at a cat show, but I thank you for helping me crystallize some thoughts of the past few days. I won't get into the specific areas covered by those who have so eloquently answered your article. However, I have a few points, and one point for me that has not yet been stated. Great literature must have great characters. To me, Harry Potter is a great character. The character of Harry is a singular creation, whom I think is on a par with Frodo and Bilbo. He is wonderful, original, and unforgettable. I see him as a bundle of contradictions - ennobling yet exasperating, frank and fascinating, modest but mythic. In all my years of reading, I have never found anyone like him. His creation is a marvelous achievement. Readers identify strongly with him, and care what happens to him and his friends. If you would but read all the books, I think you might come to see that. Additionally, through his books Harry Potter shows our struggle to live an honorable life in the 21st century. The series is well- meaning and good-hearted. And as for me, the setting doesn't matter - it could be Africa, Tattooine, Middle-Earth, or Rigel 7. As the reluctant hero, Harry tries to make the best of sometimes murky moral choices in an uncertain modern world. Since the books have many readers, the books can have an influence. More thoughtful persons can ponder the consequences of the characters' motivations and actions to those in their own lives. The series certainly and assuredly can be seen as a Christian one, and I think it most certainly is. I am a Southern Baptist Christian. We are known to be quite conservative. Our state association has come out officially against the series. I have seen my share of "Harry-Potter-bashing". My whole family loves the books, and currently, I am reading the third one to my nine-year-old son. I could tell you how wonderful they have been for my teenage daughter, but this is not the time nor the place for that. To me, what is worrisome is the possibility of more negative articles of the type you have provided. As the series becomes darker, as the author has said that it will, some who might learn the most from her stories might not get the opportunity to read them. This darkness is necessary because, as the author has stated, she does not want to treat superficially the coming battles of good versus evil. Seriousness sometimes is called for, and can be the responsible thing to do when dealing with these issues. I am worried that some future readers might not have the chance to discover this wonderful series of seven books - unique to the world of literature. That will be due at least partly to persons like yourself who could not even be bothered to read it. I'm sure you know the story about the blind men describing parts of an elephant. No one gets the whole picture. You, and some like you, would be judge, jury, and executioner - all without a fair and just trial. Did not Jesus say that he who is without sin may cast the first stone? I am pondering what an appropriate fan response to others of your type, especially in the mass media, might be. If and when you decide to become more familiar with the literature of which you speak, your further thoughts would be appreciated. lilahp From fiatincantatum at attbi.com Sun Jan 20 01:56:49 2002 From: fiatincantatum at attbi.com (Fiat Incantatum) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 20:56:49 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Laws of the universe In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3C49DD91.19460.2BDE417@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 33765 On 19 Jan 2002 at 22:28, pengolodh_sc wrote: > As such, I do not think that there are any "universal words" of > magic, and certainly not taht we have seen any so far, even if they > exist. The words we hitherto hace seen in spells seem to be Latin or > pseudo-Latin, while it seems probable to me that magic existed a long > time before Latin existed. If there were any such words, they might > be in proto-indoeuropean, but as I said - I do not really think > there are any. (Of course, according to Murphy, JKR will in book > five refute everything I have written above :) ) Latin (or else Greek) would make sense for a Europe-based system of magic. I suspect that in other traditions (Asian, African and those native to the western hemisphere to name a few) the "magic words" would be in a different dead or semi-dead language. Potion ingredients would probably differ too ... I don't think dragons per se existed in any of the cultures native to the western hemisphere, for example, so dragon liver wouldn't be a very useful ingredient unless you were doing some sort of odd fusion magic (think fusion cooking ... it could get very scary very quickly) IMHO the "magical stuff" inside the wand probably serves as a conductor the way metal serves as a conductor inside wires. Some metals and some other materials carry electricity better/differently than others and in different situations and "magical stuff" would seem to behave in much the same way ... different creatures would produce different qualities of magical current. Further along the electricity thought, you do see plenty of free electricity (lightning, static) in the environment and you can sort of direct it, sometimes, if you do it right. Lightening rods and the grounding tethers that are used in working with delicate electronics, for example. However, working with free electricity (or magic) is hazardous, hence our coated wires, grounded plugs, and habit of not standing under trees during thunderstorms. wondering if this all makes sense! -- 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 vmadams at att.net Sun Jan 20 02:33:04 2002 From: vmadams at att.net (torimarie_1216) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 02:33:04 -0000 Subject: Scabbers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33766 --- "blenberry" wrote: > Yeah, well, that pet policy can't be too strict. I think it must be > more along the lines of *suggested* pets. After all, doesn't Lee > Jordan bring a giant tarantula? I think you must be right. There are other pets and I think the emphasis of the word "OR" in caps between the different options is meant more to convey the fact that each student may only bring one pet. But I think the staff can fall back on the policy at any time to exclude any pet that might be too dangerous, such as Hagrid's keeping of Aragog which ultimately gets him expelled. After all, the magical world has a greater variety of creatures than the Muggle world. They can't possibly foresee all the possibilities that might come up, for instance that someone's cat--thinking of Crookshanks here--could be part Kneazle. "torimarie_1216" From ickle_ronniekins at yahoo.com Sun Jan 20 05:15:57 2002 From: ickle_ronniekins at yahoo.com (Ronald Rae Yu) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 21:15:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: Scabbers Message-ID: <20020120051557.6302.qmail@web21101.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33767 It is just stated that 'Students may also bring an owl OR a cat OR a toad'. No restrictions on rats or other pets. Although I wonder what's the point of stating what students may bring. Ron Yu __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ From ickle_ronniekins at yahoo.com Sun Jan 20 05:30:50 2002 From: ickle_ronniekins at yahoo.com (Ronald Rae Yu) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 21:30:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: HR&H in Pratchett Message-ID: <20020120053050.9798.qmail@web21101.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33768 I think this should go to the OT mailing list, but anyway it's kinda interesting... A few days ago I posted a tidbit about Terry Pratchett's novel _The Truth_ having characters named Harry, Ron, and Hermione. Interesting coincidence, but I was just halfway through the book then. What's more interesting is that I found another HR&H in the later part of the book. So there are 2 HR&H's, namely: Clarence Harry Harry King Foul Ole Ron Ronald Carney Lady Hermione Hermione (just that) Call me overexcited but this is a pretty cool coincidence. I mean, Harry and Ron together in a book is not uncommon, but with 2 of them plus 2 Hermiones is another thing... No, I don't think it's another Nancy Stouffer case. Ron Yu __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ From alexpie at aol.com Sun Jan 20 04:41:47 2002 From: alexpie at aol.com (alexpie at aol.com) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 23:41:47 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Digest Number 1601 Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33769 In a message dated 1/19/02 9:49:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com writes: Tabouli wrote: > I must admit, the stories I hear about inter-racial relationships in the US > make my blood run cold (Spike Lee's "Jungle Fever" didn't help, either...). > Is it really that bad? It may, indeed, be a little bit difficult--but not impossible--for my generation (Baby Boomer). But the twenty-somethings that I work with are, in fact, very much like the inhabitants of JKR's world. I know of so many interracial, interreligious combinations that are both unlikely, happy, and lovely. Maybe JKR is foreshadowing the next generation, which I see in my daily life (admittedly, I live in a very fashion forward, downtown Manhattan neighborhood). I must add at this point that there are now two Barbaras on the list. The more recent Barbara is cogent and very literate. Therefore, I will retire as Barbara and, henceforward, sign myself as Barb (my preference anyway) Cheers to all in the northeast in the US who are now finally, finally enjoying SNOW! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jchutney at yahoo.com Sun Jan 20 05:25:32 2002 From: jchutney at yahoo.com (jchutney) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 05:25:32 -0000 Subject: Ethnicity in HP: A utopian depiction? In-Reply-To: <001f01c1a118$40b86d40$bb30c2cb@price> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33770 I don't think JKR's depiction of race is utopian - I think it is "realistic" considering the rest of the wizarding world. All of the kids at Hogwarts are presumable British born (we know there are wizarding schools all over the world). This leads one to believe that even though Cho is ethnically Chinese, or the Patels are ethnically Indian, that all the children at Hogwarts were born and bred in the UK. So "culturally", these kids act "British". Fred and Angelina undoubtedly have MUCH MUCH more in common than Fred and Fleur. We see a big difference between the British wizards and the non-Brits (Viktor, Fleur, Karkaroff, etc). Fleur and the Beuxbatons are presented in a condescending manner -- flighty and emotional -- surely the British version of the Continent. Viktor and his ilk seem harsh at first, stereotypically Eastern European. Of course, once we get to "know" Viktor, he turns out to be very nice indeed. In GoF there's a reference to Ali Bashir who wants to import flying carpets and Ludo Bagman says they'll never replace brooms. There's definitely a tone of "our" broom are better than "their" carpets. And at the World Cup, the Irish and the Bulgarian are fanatical about their teams, etc. It seems to me that the wizarding world's view on race and culture is "realistic" given it's set-up. Since there are very few wizards to begin with, why would they segrate based on race? Even though JKR doesn't call "wizarding" a religion it effectively acts as one. In this wizarding world, the most important things that would seperate people (wizarding or muggle) are (1) their magical ability, (2) their wizarding blood line (different wizards place differnt value on this), (3) their "culture" and (4) their race. I'd go as far to say that the other 3 things are so important to wizards that race becomes a non-issue (which makes total sense). From Zorb17 at aol.com Sun Jan 20 07:07:44 2002 From: Zorb17 at aol.com (Zorb17 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 02:07:44 EST Subject: Latin and Magic (WAS: Laws of the universe) Message-ID: <36.21eca451.297bc6c0@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33771 Christian said: <> While I agree that the words of the spells are probably just another way of focusing, I've been turning over an idea in my mind for a while and thought I might share it now. What if the words don't come from Latin, but the other way around? Perhaps what we think of as Latin/pseudo-Latin is actually an ancient Wizarding language. With that theory, the spells would be more universal. Those crazy Romans, in their classic tradition, borrowed the basics of their language from wizards of the time. Forget a secret, separate wizard world; our Muggle world is founded on magic! Zorb [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mlfrasher at aol.com Sun Jan 20 08:07:42 2002 From: mlfrasher at aol.com (mlfrasher at aol.com) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 03:07:42 EST Subject: Location of Durmstrang and Durmstrang musings Message-ID: <88.128d8d3b.297bd4ce@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33772 Christian Stub? wrote: >That is known, but not all the FAQs are in a similar state of update. I have myself postulated locations in Scandinavia or on the Kola peninsula (at the inner end of the Kandalaksa bay), and JKR has since that time (at a book-reading in Glasgow some eight months ago, IIRC, stated the location to probably been in the far North of Sweden or Norway. I can't say I wasn't surprised about this. When I read the FAQ, Latvia didn't seem right to me. "Durmstrang" is an obvious derivative of a Germanic language roots, and since no part of Germany, past [Prussia] or present, has that kind of day/night conditions/mountains/cold, (the province of Schleswig-Holstein too flat, and the Teutons hung out in Poland for a while, but didn't go too far North) I thought farther up North would make more sense. Latvia does have roots with the Western Prussians, but this is through language, not direct occupation (Scandinavia, however was all over this area). Latvian is part of the Indo-European family - West Baltic and East Baltic are the Latvian family group, and West Baltic has a *distant* trace with Old Prussian, which according to the UCLA language web, has been extinct since the 1700s. But then thinking about these dates I thought that if the school was established before the 1700s (as Hogwarts was) then there would be a chance -- with both the occupation of the Scandinavian groups and the weak Old Prussian language connection. The climate is right and the day/light factor. [Incidentally, having spent WAY too much time in Alaska in the winters I would not last in Durmstrang! Walking outside in -40 below temps, is not fun! I sympathize with these students...and it also made me think I'd turn to some DA real fast without sunlight....] Having said all this, Scandinavia still made more sense because of the connection to the German language sounding name and the geography. Also, the Nordic boat imagery was a nice touch. I pictured a big Erik the Red kind of boat bringing the students to Hogwarts. Just thought I'd ramble on my thoughts and wondered if this had occurred to anyone. I don't think JKR researched the Baltics this indepth to come up with a name for the school though..... A few other musings about Durmstrang: I wonder if they sort them into houses like Hogwarts? I got the impression it was DA focused.....headmaster a former DE and all.... If Krum was a Bulgarian, why go to school way up North? No schools in the East? I would think language might be a problem, as Bulgarian is the closest language cousin to Russian. (His 'accent', although hard to tell in a paraphrased english text, and it sounds germanic. I know there are others on this list who read HP in other languages, so I wonder how they translate an accent in Russian. Alexander? :) From kristie_renee at yahoo.com Sun Jan 20 08:13:13 2002 From: kristie_renee at yahoo.com (Kristie) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 00:13:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: Gryffindor Quidditch Team In-Reply-To: <1011494886.99461.93704.m2@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20020120081313.64421.qmail@web10006.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33773 > From: Alexander > Subject: Gryffindor Quidditch Team > > Greetings! > > Has anybody noticed the inconsistencies in JKR > books > concerning the Gryffindor Quidditch team? It > definitely > looks like the team has no reserve players. Only in > Book 1 > does Rowling say a word about Alicia Spinnet being > an > ex-reserve player - and that's all. Throughout books > 1-4 > there are no reserve players training for GryQuiT, > though in > Book 4 there are no trainings at all. This did bother me too. I figured in Book 1 they might have had Quidditch trials but we didn't really hear of them since they weren't important to Harry. After all he didn't know how to fly or anything about Quidditch, so he probably didn't care. I also theorized that Wood was looking high and low for a Seeker and couldn't find a decent one during trials. Or else he'd have had one already and he wouldn't have looked so excited when Professor McGonagall found Harry for him. I suspect finding a good Seeker is hard, as they're the most important players and have to be on top of their game. With Wood being so determined to win he probably only entrusted the position of Seeker to the very best of the best. The only workable theory for lack of Quidditch trials in other books in the other is that Wood kept the same team because they worked well together. He didn't want to mess with success. As for the Reserves... I believe they do have them, but as finding a Seeker was so difficult they didn't have one for that position. As a matter of fact in Chapter 13, where they find out Snape's refereeing the next match, Ron and Hermione are telling Harry to find a way not to play. "Pretend to break your leg," Hermione suggested. "Really break your leg," said Ron. "I can't," said Harry. "There isn't a reserve Seeker. If I back out, Griffyndor can't play at all." Also, maybe the Reserves don't practice with the regular team? They don't appear to be needed much. In Book 4 there was no Quidditch because it was cancelled in favor of the Triwizard Tournament. I wouldn't imagine them practicing. I do wonder how they will address Quidditch in Book 5. Now with Wood gone it's a totally different team. No neurotic leader with a "Win or Die Trying" attitude to drive them. :) Maybe JKR will finally show us some Quidditch trials!!!! Here's to hoping, Kristie __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ From pigwidgeon37 at yahoo.it Sun Jan 20 09:18:22 2002 From: pigwidgeon37 at yahoo.it (=?iso-8859-1?q?pigwidgeonthirtyseven?=) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 09:18:22 +0000 (GMT) Subject: A Different Racism (WAS:Ethnicity in HP: A utopian depiction?) Message-ID: <20020120091822.63869.qmail@web14702.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33774 Just a short response to Tabouli's insightful post: My impression is that JKR has very strong opinions on ethnicity, and more generally, diversity questions which are- sadly- linked to xenophobia and racism. And I think that she has chosen a very intelligent means of communicating her POV to the readers, above all the younger ones, by avoiding traditional settings for conflict (i.e. black vs white, Christians vs. Muslims) and shifting it to another level: As far as we can see from canon, ethnicity doesn't seem to have overwhelming importance in the HPverse, whereas the eternal Pureblood/ Halfblood/ "Mudblood" questions works as a substitute, and very effectively so. I won't bother everybody with examples from the books, for the terminology problem as well as the various characters' attitudes towards those who are different have already been subject of lengthy discussions. But IMO, the HPverse is far from utopian as far as coping with "difference" is concerned, and I believe that JKR's ideas about how to handle it are more than clear. Just my two cents (Euro-Cents of course- how lucky we are to be able to use this expression now as well, and rightfully so ;) ) Susanna/pigwidgeon37 "And how come those portraits seem to be alive?" "What'ya mean? All paintings move." "No, they don't. We have lots of paintings in our villa, among them a real Chagall, and none of them..." "And d'ya expect that something painted by a jackal will move? Now really..." --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Get personalised at My Yahoo!. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From catlady at wicca.net Sun Jan 20 11:47:25 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (Rita Winston) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 03:47:25 -0800 Subject: Draco / Harry in Slyth / Petunia / Dobby Message-ID: <3C4AAE4D.4B7D761E@wicca.net> No: HPFGUIDX 33775 Margaret Dean wrote about Draco: <> Our guys would offer to take him in because they are Good Guys and feel sorry for an underage orphan, even Draco. Beth wrote: << I just always think it would be neat for the series to be written with Harry going into Slytherin >> There are fanfics with that plot. Ask on HPff for recommendations of good ones. HPff is http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HP_FanFiction/messages Sandi Steinberg wrote: << Suppose the Evans, unable to conceive a child, ADOPTED PETUNIA, before giving birth to Lily? >> I like to fantasize that Petunia was Narcissa's older sister but her parents threw her away for being a Squib, perhaps giving her to the Evanses because they were Muggles who already had some contact with the wizard world. Then Petunia's hatred of magic could be connected to her vague understanding that magic is why her first parents threw her away (if she was three years old at the time, she would remember it but vaguely). Catherine Peisher wrote: <> IMHO Dobby is not a weirdo, it's just that the Malfoys are so bad that working for them makes any House Elf crave freedom. Someone else suggested that Dobby was not originally a Malfoy servant, but a Potter servant, and after the Potter house was destroyed, he was placed with the Malfoys, but never felt the customary loyal to them, even before being abused by them. Placed by the Bureau of House Elf Relocation, which was mentioned in Newt Scamander's preface to FB. From catlady at wicca.net Sun Jan 20 11:51:38 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (Rita Winston) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 03:51:38 -0800 Subject: Magic R&D / Wizard Wear / Godric's Hollow / LOTR Shades of Gray Message-ID: <3C4AAF4A.54759A13@wicca.net> No: HPFGUIDX 33776 Cindy Sphynx wrote: << It makes sense that there ought to be a department at MoM developing new spells and magical aids. >> When Arthur is pointing out people from MoM to the kids at the QWC, one of them (I forget the name) is from the Committee on Experimental Charms; 'he's had those antlers for a while now'. Gilbert Whimple. I checked the Lexicon. In CoS, Arthur says: "Mortlake was taken away for questioning about some extremely odd ferrets, but that's the Committee on Experimental Charms, thank goodness" which implies that there are laws against experimenting with magic, at least on ferrets. Personally, I **HATE** the idea of the government having a monopoly on research!!! Let them hand out grants and otherwise keep their noses out! Let every wizard do research who wants to, and the peer-reviewed journals or the marketplace decide which research was worthwhile. Cyndysphynx wrote: << I can't imagine one could make a great deal of money off of such a potion, as the target market consists of werewolves who can't find paid work.>> Maybe MoM pays for Wolfsbane Potion, via the Werewolf Support Services office of the Beings Division of the Department for Regulation and Control of Magical Creatures (according to FANTASTIC BEASTS). Ronald Rae Yu wrote: << The typical (and only?) 'wizard wear' is robes. What do they wear underneath them? I only could think of muggle clothing. But wizards seem to be not too accustomed to it. A good example is during the Quidditch World Cup. A lot of people dressed awkwardly as muggles, and there's this guy who insisted on wearing women's clothing.>> That guy explained his preference for a dress by saying he liked 'a healthy breeze' around his 'privates', which suggests that he wears NOTHING under his robes. When I read that scene, I thought that JKR had put it in to answer all the people who asked her what wizards wear under their robes. I prefer to believe that wizards born before around 1910 don't wear drawers, those born after around 1975 wear Muggle-style underwear, and the ones born in-between (the parents of our school kid characters, and most of the teachers) wear non-Muggle style underwear: drawer that are like knee breeches with drawstrings at waist and knees, chemises that are like "peasant" blouses with drawstring necks, and something like corsets instead of brassieres for the females. The drawstring underwear could have become fashionable as a result of a hit play (wizards have pop groups, surely they have theatre as well) with a scene of the romantic hero or heroine getting dressed, and heesh couldn't very well be accurately NAKED on stage, so the costume director dressed himer in something hastily invented for the purpose. The later change of fashion to Muggle-style underwear, correlating with the Muggle-style jeans that the Weasley kids wear but the Weasley parents don't (except Arthur at the QWC), is some kind of result of the upheaval caused by Vold War I (VWI). Ed Blanning wrote: << Katze suggests (I think) that Godric's Hollow is (or is in?)a muggle community. I always assumed there was something significant in this name clearly suggestive of Gryffindor. Any ideas?>> I always thought that Godric's Hollow was a wizard place, until someone explained that the new scene added to the movie, the one that JKR had written for the book and then removed, was the scene of V attacking Lily, which revealed that the Potters were living in a regular Muggle house. In re the Kimball essay, Alexander Lomski wrote: << Well, that proves that both CSL and JRRT worlds are idealistic ones. There a character will never face a moral dilemma.>> My friend Lee and her husband are two of the only three people I know who didn't love the FOTR movie. Lee and her husband have been huge Tolkien fans at least since 1961 (when Lee was 20 years old and in grad school in English Lit). One of their loud complaints against the movie is that it did not show that Boromir was a good man with a viewpoint worthy of debate: he argued that the Ring should be used to FIGHT Sauron, thus saving Gondor and all the Light Side. At least at first, he would have been happy for Gandalf or Elrond to have used the Ring for that purpose, not insisted on himself being the Ringbearer. That's one example of a moral dilemna at the heart of LOTR. From catlady at wicca.net Sun Jan 20 12:18:14 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (Rita Winston) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 04:18:14 -0800 Subject: Wizard-Muggle Marriages / and the children's race and culture Message-ID: <3C4AB586.354E4B96@wicca.net> No: HPFGUIDX 33777 I haven't forgotten that HPfGU main list has a one post per day limit. I've just decided that because I couldn't post on Monday or Tuesday or Wednesday because I was sick, or on Thursday or Friday because as soon as I got well, Tim came down with the same thing, I could count some of today's posts as being from Monday or Tuesday or Wednesday or Thursday or Friday. Hey, RICHARD SLIWA, I am a female who has read a couple of James Bond books. Do I need to prove that by mentioning that one was about having an affair with a Russian girl who told he looked like Hoagy Carmichael? And another about being rescued from drowning by archaic Japanese fishermen and having amnesia and marrying their daughter and assuming that because he's white, he must be Russian, so setting out to hitchhike to Vladivostok in hope someone there will know who he is. Who is Mills & Boon? Tabouli asked, of wizard-Muggle marriages: << how on earth do they meet? >> I think there are three explanations: 1) Muggle-born wizards would continue to associate with their Muggle relatives and friends, and might marry one of them, 2) the wizard close friends of the Muggle-born wizard would come along to meet the Muggle friends and relatives, and might marry one of them, 3) SOME wizards hang out in the Muggle world so competently that they pass as Muggles. We just haven't seen them doing so in canon yet. There have been some posts about wizards who even have paid jobs in the Muggle world. Tabouli wrote: << because people from different cultures are operating by different "rules" of behaviour.>> and J Chutney replied: << All of the kids at Hogwarts are presumable British born (we know there are wizarding schools all over the world). This leads one to believe that even though Cho is ethnically Chinese, or the Patels are ethnically Indian, that all the children at Hogwarts were born and bred in the UK. So "culturally", these kids act "British". Fred and Angelina undoubtedly have MUCH MUCH more in common than Fred and Fleur. >> I wrote a reply and then found that J Chutney's was much better written than mine. However, mine had some nitpicking about students being Muggle-born or wizard-born. There is some evidence hinting that the Patils are wizard-born and none hinting that they are Muggle-born. It is entirely possible that the Patil parents (whether wizard or Muggle) were immigrants to Britain. In which case, they would have raised their children in a mixture of Britain around them (a wizard subset of Britain if they were wizards, a South Asian immigrant subset of Britain if they were Muggles) and their own South Asian culture. This is really Tabouli's department! The parents, even the grand-parents, also could have been wizard-born in Britain. After that many generations, even if all the people were 'racially' South Asian, the family's culture, in which the children were raised, IS British Wizarding Culture. So they would have MORE in common with Ron and Draco than Harry or Justin Finch-Fletchley does. We don't know whether Angelina is Muggle-born or wizard-born; we don't know if Cho is Muggle-born or wizard-born; IIRC the only student whom we KNOW to be both minority and Muggle-born is Dean Thomas. From lav at tut.by Sun Jan 20 10:47:43 2002 From: lav at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 12:47:43 +0200 Subject: Location of Durmstrang and Durmstrang musings In-Reply-To: <88.128d8d3b.297bd4ce@aol.com> References: <88.128d8d3b.297bd4ce@aol.com> Message-ID: <4011290347.20020120124743@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 33778 Greetings! > mlfrasher wrote to us: mac> If Krum was a Bulgarian, why go to school way up North? No schools in the mac> East? I would think language might be a problem, as Bulgarian is the closest mac> language cousin to Russian. (His 'accent', although hard to tell in a mac> paraphrased english text, and it sounds germanic. I know there are others on mac> this list who read HP in other languages, so I wonder how they translate an mac> accent in Russian. Alexander? :) Hard to tell anything here. My parents (both) were in Bulgaria on holidays, but father hasn't read GoF yet, only me (mother doesn't like fantasy in general, so no chance here :). There's little to say about Krum's accent. I'm myself not a linguist under any approximation, hence I'll simply dump all examples of his accent here and wait for someone else to analyse them. 1. Yuleball. Krum trying to spell "Hermione". correct Russian version: [Ermiona] Krum's versions: [Yermioun] (most close to _English_ :) [Ermi-ou-nina] (with delays) [Ermi-o-nina] (with delays) (Note that "nina" is a common Eastern girl name, while "yermi" or "ermi" sound real foreign for the eastern ear). 2. Second Task. Soft "d" replaced by soft "t": "vodianoy" -> "votianoy". (here "ia" stands for a single sound) Hermione name spelled: [Ermi-o-nini] (with delays) 3. After Third Task Hermione name spelled: [Ermionina] (This is the final version, Krum spells her name in this fashion until the end of the book. The only error is "ni" in the middle - perhaps inserted to show him being used to eastern names?) (Note that English "r" and Russian "r" are two _different_ things. On English lessons at schools it takes a lot of time to teach children pronounce English "r" correctly). ----- The rest of Krum's language is clear Russian. Even the most complex words are spelled correctly (even those not familiar to anybody west of Russia). On the other hand, accents are quite underrepresented in the Russian translations. Hagrid's speech is absolutely correct in spelling, though it has simplified sentence composition (when I have first seen Hagrid's speech examples in English I was surprised!). Fleur and Madame Maxime are definitely French with strong accent. Karkaroff's language is clear - but it should be, so no trouble here. Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, (Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed), always happy to throw weird ideas into the community. From aiz24 at hotmail.com Sun Jan 20 13:31:17 2002 From: aiz24 at hotmail.com (Amy Z) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 08:31:17 -0500 Subject: ADMIN: No limits in this here fishin' hole Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33779 Hi all! There is not a set limit on the number of posts per day. Rather, we ask people to avoid multiple short posts that could easily be combined into one. Please do not feel the need to refrain from posting because you have already posted that day, or to pad out a message that really requires only one line. As the Netiquette advises: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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"). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- If you have questions about this or any other list guideline, please consult the admin files-- http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/admin http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/netiquette http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/vfaq http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/welcome http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/shorthand http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/archives --or write to your List Elf in his/her particular kitchen, or to the Mods-n-Elves-n-Poltergeists at hpforgrownups-owner at yahoogroups.com. We live to serve. Thanks! Amy Z Magical Moderator Team --------------------------------------------------------- A tremendous amount of thought went into choosing a title for this book. My personal choice, designed to appeal to the book-buying impulses of today's consumer, was Tuesdays with Harry Potter. --Dave Barry, Dave Barry is Not Taking this Sitting Down --------------------------------------------------------- _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx From lav at tut.by Sun Jan 20 10:52:34 2002 From: lav at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 12:52:34 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why couldn't Voldemort kill Harry? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8611580714.20020120125234@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 33780 Greetings! > NOTaMuggleFamily wrote to us: Nac> I wonder how everyone *knows* Voldemort killed James and Lily...no one really Nac> saw what happened...even little Harry only remembers Lily crying out and a Nac> light. Is there actual proof, or is this just an assumption? Nac> ~shahara in wi Nac> ~*~serendipitously smitten with severus snape~*~ There's a proof that James and Lily were killed by Voldemort's wand, though there are indeed no proofs that it was Voldemort who killed them. Both James and Lily shadows appear from Voldemort's wand in GoF when he duels with Harry. Still, we don't really know for sure the man was James, right? :) I mean he didn't name himself... Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, (Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed), always happy to throw weird ideas into the community. From Edblanning at aol.com Sun Jan 20 15:48:12 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 10:48:12 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Sleepy Lupin-- WAS Throwaway comment in POA Message-ID: <114.b0d9177.297c40bc@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33781 In a message dated 16/01/02 00:21:41 GMT Standard Time, lipglossusa at yahoo.com writes: > I too have wondered about whether Lupin was really asleep or not on > the infamous train ride. At first I thought the reason he was so > exhausted was because he had been up all night in his werewolf state, > probably locked up in a room somewhere, breaking furniture. > But I've since reread the previous chapter carefully, when Harry > goes to bed in his room at the Leaky Caldron and there's no mention > of a full moon the night before. Of course it could have been a full > moon outside and Harry just doesn't notice because he's thinking > about Sirius Black. But why didn't JKR throw this detail in anyway, > if she wanted this to be the explanation? After all, there are many > things that happen that the reader notices but Harry doesn't. > > I too, had thought he was sleeping off a werewolf attack in the previos few days. I thiought I'd try and work it ou, bearing in mind that we know from Snape's bringing of the Wolfsbane potion to Lupin on Oct 31 and that Lupin expected to need some more the next day, that a full moon was imminent. By that reckoning, I worked out that there should have been a full moon some time in the week from Sept 5 onwards, so that the train journey was actually just *before* a potential transformation. THEN, I hit on a web site that gives the phases of the moon for any given year. PoA is set in 1993/4 isn't it? The full moon for Oct 93 seems to be Oct 30 and for Sept [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Edblanning at aol.com Sun Jan 20 15:59:19 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 10:59:19 EST Subject: Sleepy Lupin cont Message-ID: <181.259a176.297c4357@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33782 Sorry, I accidentally clicked on the send when trying to get this back from under the lunar chart In a message dated 16/01/02 00:21:41 GMT Standard Time, lipglossusa at yahoo.com writes: > I too have wondered about whether Lupin was really asleep or not on > the infamous train ride. At first I thought the reason he was so > exhausted was because he had been up all night in his werewolf state, > probably locked up in a room somewhere, breaking furniture. > But I've since reread the previous chapter carefully, when Harry > goes to bed in his room at the Leaky Caldron and there's no mention > of a full moon the night before. Of course it could have been a full > moon outside and Harry just doesn't notice because he's thinking > about Sirius Black. But why didn't JKR throw this detail in anyway, > if she wanted this to be the explanation? After all, there are many > things that happen that the reader notices but Harry doesn't. > > I too, had thought he was sleeping off a werewolf attack in the previous few days. I thiought I'd try and work it ou, bearing in mind that we know from Snape's bringing of the Wolfsbane potion to Lupin on Oct 31 and that Lupin expected to need some more the next day, that a full moon was imminent. By that reckoning, I worked out that there should have been a full moon some time in the week from Sept 5 onwards, so that the train journey was actually just *before* a potential transformation. THEN, I hit on a web site that gives the phases of the moon for any given year. PoA is set in 1993/4 isn't it? The full moon for Oct 93 seems to be Oct 30 and for Sept, Sep 30 and possibly Sep 1, or it *could* be Aug 31, hard to tell. Aug 31 ties in with his sleeping on the train, but means he should have finished with being wolfish by Hallowe'en, so JKR doesn't seem to be using the real lunar calendar. On the other hand , if we go back to the first theory, what is all the sleeping about? I am now thoroughly confused. Eloise, who's worried she's turning into a LOON [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From midwife34 at aol.com Sun Jan 20 16:19:19 2002 From: midwife34 at aol.com (jrober4211) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 16:19:19 -0000 Subject: The books a Hogwarts Cover-up??? In-Reply-To: <188.205b416.297b0d9e@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33783 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., chiflipgrl at a... wrote: > What if Hogwarts was real ?~*~*~* Janice *~*~*~* > - who ponders "What if Harry is a real person?!?!" > > >All I can say is "never say never" because there are stranger things in heaven and earth than we can ever fathom. Let me point out an example of this kind of synchronisity via Jungian psychology. Jung had a basic belief that all people were subconciously hooked up to a type of cosmic knowledge, for lack of a better word. If you review Jules Vern's ( spelling?) works you might see good examples of this. Reading these old science fiction books is almost like reading about our modern times through a perspective of one who lived over a century ago. There is a very specific example of this regarding Vern's account of the first man on the moon - his character's name was Armstrong, the ship took off on the exact date that the first lunar mission did, and the the ship returned to earth in the exact location that the capsule actually splashed down. Whose to say that middle earth is not a post- apocalyptic version of our world? And whose to say that the Wizarding World in some form or another, might never exist? After all, JKR did say the idea suddenly came to her as an epiphany on a train... Has anyone ever heard of the Philadelphia experiment? Might that not be man's first attempt at apparating? Jo Ellen From Edblanning at aol.com Sun Jan 20 16:44:50 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 11:44:50 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Wizarding justice (was use of unforgivable curses) Message-ID: <51.17acf8ef.297c4e02@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33784 In a message dated 17/01/02 20:29:14 GMT Standard Time, mlfrasher at aol.com writes: > You can say that ethically it's up to the person who uses the curse/weapon, > but some things are so horrible that no matter who uses them -- you are > automatically put in the arena of public opinion. I can't think of an > instance where kedavara was used and someone said, "Oh what a great idea!" > The impression I get is that it's so bad, people don't even like to mention > it, let alone use it. There have been constant reminders throughout the > series that curses like AK and much of the DA aren't widely talked about > (except in hushed tones or for ppl specially trained in them - far and few) > and students were shocked when Moody said he was going to teach them. How were Lupin and Sirius going to kill Pettigrew? For Sirius, not so much of an issue (I'm going to commit the *murder* for which I was imprisoned)....But for Lupin? Would the MoM accept this summary kind of justice? Perhaps,under the circumstances, but even Lupin doesn't seem to consider taking Petigrew up to the Castle to be brought to justice. And what about the Dementor's kiss? At what point is it decided to let the Dementors perform this, rather than sending someone to (or back to ) Azkaban? It seems to be a bit ad hoc. Strange that Beaky can have an appeal against a death sentence, whilst Crouch is just, to all intents and purposes, disposed of, without his story being officially told. Yes, we know the details, but all Fudge knows is that he's alive and been recaptured. He doesn't even believe Harry's story that Crouch has been helping Voldy. Sirius had a trial, as Dumbledore testified at it. I should have thought that from the wizarding point of view, if anyone qualified for a kiss, it was him, given the number of people he was supposed to have killed. And then there's Azkaban itself. Seems a bit much for minor misdemeanors. How are they dealt with? Or do wizards only commit crimes on a grand scale? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cindysphynx at home.com Sun Jan 20 16:47:49 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 16:47:49 -0000 Subject: Government Treatment of Werewolves (WAS Magic R&D / Wizard Wear / ) In-Reply-To: <3C4AAF4A.54759A13@wicca.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33785 Cindy wrote: > << I can't imagine one could make a great deal of money off of such a > potion, as the target market consists of werewolves who can't find paid > work.>> > Rita responded: > Maybe MoM pays for Wolfsbane Potion, via the Werewolf Support Services > office of the Beings Division of the Department for Regulation and > Control of Magical Creatures (according to FANTASTIC BEASTS). I'd be very surprised if these government agencies are actually supportive of werewolves. We have the Werewolf Capture Unit, the Werewolf Registry, Werewolf Support Services, and the Werewolf Code of Conduct. Canon is unclear, but I always assumed that these lovely agency names were cover for what is really going on: state-sponsored harrassment of and discrimination against werewolves. Fudge's statement to Dumbledore that he "let him hire werewolves" suggests werewolves are not well regarded by MoM. That statement, coupled with the general hostility toward werewolves, Lupin's shabby condition, and his inability to find work suggests that the government is not about to provide wolfsbane potion (or anything else) to werewolves. Although my gut says that it is wrong for the government to treat werewolves badly (assuming that is what is going on), another part of me says that discrimination against werewolves ought to be just fine. After all, every werewolf really is dangerous. So we are left with the unusual situation in which a minority group (werewolves) is the subject of oppressive government conduct based on actual, verifiable dangerous traits (as opposed to oppression based on myth and prejudice, as we see in the real world). Oppression of werewolves is also different from oppression of groups like convicted prisoners in the real world because werewolves are oppressed before they have injured anyone based on the risk that they will. So is it wrong for the government to enforce policies hostile to werewolves to protect the wizarding and muggle populations? Well, perhaps the government ought to adopt a policy of reasonable accommodation of werewolves. That is what Dumbledore did when he hired Lupin. But then again, even that policy may not be practical, because as Dumbledore discovered, you never know when a werewolf will forget to take his potion, miscalculate or otherwise behave irresponsibly and endanger everyone around him. I know there is an interesting discussion of philosophy and social policy in there somewhere. Cindy (going on record that prejudice, discrimination and oppression are bad, but thinking that the werewolf issues in canon might be complex) From mercia at ireland.com Sun Jan 20 17:32:41 2002 From: mercia at ireland.com (meglet2) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 17:32:41 -0000 Subject: Fidelius/Sirius In-Reply-To: <29.213206c7.297ab4cf@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33786 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote: > > > Katze suggests (I think) that Godric's Hollow is (or is in?)a muggle > community. > I always assumed there was something significant in this name clearly > suggestive of Gryffindor. Any ideas? > >JKR in an interview or on-line chat (can't quite remember) congratulated someone who asked if Godric's Hollow was related to Godric Gryffindor, but of course without specifying the exact significance of the link. I would guess it is something to do with James (and so Harry) being the heir of Gryffindor and so being under additional protection in a village that bears his name and (given the long history of many English villages) was probably the home of GG himself in the far mists of time. But it is clearly one of those things that will become clearer with the progression of the series. Perhaps Godric's Hollow will be one of those places that we are promised Harry will go to in Book 5, maybe in search of his roots. meglet2/mercia > From blenberry at altavista.com Sun Jan 20 18:30:45 2002 From: blenberry at altavista.com (blenberry) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 18:30:45 -0000 Subject: Quidditch Questions In-Reply-To: <20020120081313.64421.qmail@web10006.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33787 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Kristie wrote: > in Chapter 13, where they find out Snape's refereeing the > next match, Ron and Hermione are telling Harry to find > a way not to play. > > "Pretend to break your leg," Hermione suggested. > > "Really break your leg," said Ron. > > "I can't," said Harry. "There isn't a reserve Seeker. > If I back out, Griffyndor can't play at all." And Harry's not really right about that either, since apparently they do play without him while he's in the hospital wing (Ron: "you missed the last Quidditch match, we were steamrollered by Ravenclaw without you" Chapter 17). My question is... all that training, and Gryffindor only plays *three* games the whole season? And counting the matches not involving Gryffindor, there are a total of *five* Quidditch matches the whole school year. A little disappointing if you ask me! I'd want a game every weekend. Barbara From christi0469 at hotmail.com Sun Jan 20 18:42:50 2002 From: christi0469 at hotmail.com (christi0469) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 18:42:50 -0000 Subject: Wizarding justice (was use of unforgivable curses) In-Reply-To: <51.17acf8ef.297c4e02@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33788 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote: >> Sirius had a trial, as Dumbledore testified at it. I should have thought that > from the wizarding point of view, if anyone qualified for a kiss, it was him, > given the number of people he was supposed to have killed. > Sorry, but I have to correect you on that point. "Oh, I know Crouch all right" [Sirius] said quietly. "He was the one who gave the order fir me to be sent to Azkaban-without a trail." Dumbledore was present a Karkaroff and Bagman's trails, and testified at the trial of Barty Crouch, Jr./Lestranges/?. I'm guessing that there is no death penalty in the british wizarding community (is there a death penalty in Britain?). Aurors were empowered to use the unforgivable curses in carrying out their duties, presumably as a last resort. We are told that Moody always tried to bring DEs in alive and would only kill them if he had no choice. And being kissed by a dementoer would be worse than death, so even wizards who wanted revenge for the reign of terror might be reluctant to call for it. Respectfully, Christi From judyshapiro at earthlink.net Sun Jan 20 18:43:37 2002 From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 18:43:37 -0000 Subject: Gryffindor Quidditch Team -- Reserve players In-Reply-To: <20020120081313.64421.qmail@web10006.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33789 Alexander said: > > Has anybody noticed the inconsistencies in JKR > > books concerning the Gryffindor Quidditch team? It > > definitely looks like the team has no reserve players. Only in > > Book 1 does Rowling say a word about Alicia Spinnet being > > an ex-reserve player... Kristie wrote: > ...As for the Reserves... I believe they do have them, > but as finding a Seeker was so difficult they didn't > have one for that position. As a matter of fact in > Chapter 13, where they find out Snape's refereeing the > next match, Ron and Hermione are telling Harry to find > a way not to play. > "Pretend to break your leg," Hermione suggested. > "Really break your leg," said Ron. > "I can't," said Harry. "There isn't a reserve Seeker. > If I back out, Griffyndor can't play at all."... What's really weird is that when Harry really does get injured (in the fight for the Philospher's Stone w/ Quirdemort), the match is played anyway, even though he's unconscious and his team has no seeker at all. What's the point of that? Wouldn't *any* seeker have been better than none at all? And, then in PoA, Slytherin gets to postpone a match because Draco is malingering and pretending his arm is hurt. So, in PS/SS, Gryffindor has to play even though their seeker is in a coma, but in PoA, Slytherin gets to postpone their match when their seeker has (at most) one arm injured. (I suppose that maybe Gryffindor's match couldn't be postponed because it was the end of the term, but you'd think they'd at least get to bring in a substitute seeker.) Very inconsistent indeed. -- Judy From Littlered32773 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 20 18:50:29 2002 From: Littlered32773 at yahoo.com (oz_widgeon) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 18:50:29 -0000 Subject: Harry's parents really are dead In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33790 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., NOTaMuggleFamily at a... wrote: > I wonder how everyone *knows* Voldemort killed James and Lily...no >one really saw what happened...even little Harry only remembers >Lily crying out and a light. Is there actual proof, or is this >just an assumption? In PoA Sirius says he saw their bodies after Voldemort attacked. "...The night they died....I set out for your parents' house straight away. And when I saw their house, destroyed, and their bodies..." (PoA 365 US Version) I think this is pretty solid evidence that they did actually die. Even Peter says in POA that he told Voldy where they were hiding. It's a very long passage, so I won't write it all here, but you can read where Peter admits to telling on pages 374-375 of the US version of PoA. I think from this can be taken that it _was_ Voldy who did it. Besides, we _know_ he tried to kill Harry, but the spell bounced back, which caused him to lose his powers. This is stated several times in various books and even by Voldy himself IIRC in GoF. From jbryson at richmond.infi.net Sun Jan 20 18:52:33 2002 From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 18:52:33 -0000 Subject: Sleepy Lupin cont In-Reply-To: <181.259a176.297c4357@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33791 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote: > > Aug 31 ties in with his sleeping on the train, but means he should have > finished with being wolfish by Hallowe'en, so JKR doesn't seem to be using > the real lunar calendar. > On the other hand , if we go back to the first theory, what is all the > sleeping about? > I am now thoroughly confused. > Speaking from experience as an "over 60," I recall that I have had a knack for going to sleep on public conveyances since I was about 40. So, it might be just Lupin's way of handling boredom. It's possible to gain full awareness fairly quickly, if something enteresting is happening, such as a plane about to land, your stop coming up, or somebody interesting to talk to sitting by. Moreover, I suspect the boarding of the train by a dementor would do it. From blenberry at altavista.com Sun Jan 20 18:51:57 2002 From: blenberry at altavista.com (blenberry) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 18:51:57 -0000 Subject: Another Durmstrang musing In-Reply-To: <88.128d8d3b.297bd4ce@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33792 I was wondering how in the world Krum could be a professional Quidditch player *and* attend school? The professional season surely isn't just in the summer? It would have to be very short... July-August... to fall during school holidays, if Durmstrang's school year is like Hogwart's. Any theories? Barbara From terrilyn at ameritech.net Sun Jan 20 18:39:55 2002 From: terrilyn at ameritech.net (Terri Lyn Layman) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 13:39:55 -0500 Subject: Lack of traditional academics... Message-ID: <000201c1a1e1$db9875c0$96bdfea9@c8b5v1> No: HPFGUIDX 33793 A topic which has bothered my husband and I, for one. We were discussing how JKR seems to have done a decent job of laying out the groundwork for the magical coursework. However, we noticed that there was a complete lack of traditional coursework at Hogwarts. This would be work in English (grammer, literature, etc.), Mathematics (where's the calc, algebra, and trig? There's arithromancy... but JKR neither explains the content nor is it a required class), more traditional science than is in potions/herbology/COMC. What about art classes? Music, painting, and the like? You can't tell me that Fat Lady just showed up like that... someone had to have painted her. We know there's insturments (the harp and flute by fluffy), where are they taught how to play them? Does Hogwarts have a pep band (either in general or per house) that plays during Q'ditch matches? And another course that seems to be lacking is psychology. Wouldn't it make sense to have a base way of evaluating the subject of your charm to see if they would actually mentally "buy" it? It just doesn't make sense that they would have to write reports (on werewolves, or what happened in potions) without being taught how to write good reports. And the logic taught by mathematics would surely be invaluable in making decisions on many levels. You can't say that they got all the requisite knowlege in maths and "english" from whatever educational institution they were in till 5th grade (US). You could say that they are getting this information by inference in their various classes, but some basic subjects like math and "english" would require a dedicated instructor. Just one of two major gripes we've collected. -TerriLyn From terrilyn at ameritech.net Sun Jan 20 18:52:27 2002 From: terrilyn at ameritech.net (Terri Lyn Layman) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 13:52:27 -0500 Subject: Dumbledore's an idiot... Message-ID: <000301c1a1e3$9c0361c0$96bdfea9@c8b5v1> No: HPFGUIDX 33794 Ok, not really, but he does lack in administrative skill. Things seem to go on at Hogwarts that he has no knowlege of. There's also nearly unabashed favortisim on some levels towards various instructors. Yet, some of the instructors that I would classify as needing to be "in the loop" the most, don't seem to be. He has a non-graduate teaching a seemingly importaint course. Now, unless I'm mistaken, there seems to be no framework whereby Hagrid could get equivelent owls/newts. But, if there is, why hasn't Dumbledore had him take them? I'm sure that an intensive summer with McG, Snape, et. al, and he could be in top form to take these equivalency exams. I guess this isn't overly cohereant, but I'm just looking at D'dore and comparing him to the president of my university. I know that if the head of Purdue acted like D'dore, that he would be asked to reevaluate his desire to continue in his position. Just our second big gripe.. -TerriLyn (who notes that the rest of her and hubby's gripes are related to JKR being an immature writer and have been discussed already.) From mjollner at yahoo.com Sun Jan 20 19:27:42 2002 From: mjollner at yahoo.com (mjollner) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 19:27:42 -0000 Subject: Sirius, Remus and the Fidelius Charm Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33795 One more element to consider when pondering the whole Fidelius Charm morass: according to the Shrieking Shack scene toward the end of PoA, Sirius thought Remus was spying for Voldemort (and vice versa), which was why Sirius wanted to change the Secret-Keeper in the first place. Not that this explains how the whole thing works - I do hope JKR will illuminate us on that point in a future book! - but it adds an element to Sirius' motivation. He wanted to fool Remus because he thought he was a traitor. And therefore chose Peter... "mjollner" From blenberry at altavista.com Sun Jan 20 19:34:06 2002 From: blenberry at altavista.com (blenberry) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 19:34:06 -0000 Subject: Sleepy Lupin cont In-Reply-To: <181.259a176.297c4357@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33796 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote: >...what is all the sleeping about? Lupin is described as looking ill and tired a lot. My impression was that his health suffers from his poverty (which in turn is due to werewolf-discrimination). Before coming to Hogwarts, he was probably living no better than a vagrant, and that's a pretty exhausting life- style that teaches you to nap wherever you can. When Lupin shows up for the first DADA class, he's described as looking "healthier than he had on the train, as though he'd had a few square meals." I just think you might be reading too much into it trying to establish a werewolf transformation the night before. He's probably exhausted for days after those, anyway. Barbara (who worries about where Lupin went after leaving Hogwarts, and wishes she could send him a care package) From jbryson at richmond.infi.net Sun Jan 20 19:32:38 2002 From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 19:32:38 -0000 Subject: Wizarding justice (was use of unforgivable curses) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33797 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "christi0469" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote: > >> Sirius had a trial, as Dumbledore testified at it. I should have > thought that > > from the wizarding point of view, if anyone qualified for a kiss, > it was him, > > given the number of people he was supposed to have killed. > > > Sorry, but I have to correect you on that point. "Oh, I know Crouch > all right" [Sirius] said quietly. "He was the one who gave the order > fir me to be sent to Azkaban-without a trail." Dumbledore was > present a Karkaroff and Bagman's trails, and testified at the trial > of Barty Crouch, Jr./Lestranges/?. I'm guessing that there is no > death penalty in the british wizarding community (is there a death > penalty in Britain?). Aurors were empowered to use the unforgivable > curses in carrying out their duties, presumably as a last resort. We > are told that Moody always tried to bring DEs in alive and would > only kill them if he had no choice. And being kissed by a dementoer > would be worse than death, so even wizards who wanted revenge for > the reign of terror might be reluctant to call for it. There may be other spells that are fatal other than the UC's. For example, you might conjure a washing machine or a large safe over an opponent's head. Wizard farmers or butchers may have a charm that scalds, srapes, skins, and eviscerates a pig, plus deviding it up into proper cuts for the meat market. This would no doubt be fatal to the pig (or human). Hopefully, one would kill the pig or render it unconscious befor casting the spell. From the kitchen, one might find a charm that debones chickens for a'la king(also likely fatal to the chicken). Of the UC's, Imperius should be sufficient to make an arrest, without AVARA. In fact, I scarcely understand why Imperius is an UC. Tex From meboriqua at aol.com Sun Jan 20 20:29:05 2002 From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 20:29:05 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's NOT an idiot... In-Reply-To: <000301c1a1e3$9c0361c0$96bdfea9@c8b5v1> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33798 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Terri Lyn Layman" wrote: > He has a non-graduate teaching a seemingly importaint course. Now, unless I'm mistaken, there seems to be no framework whereby Hagrid could get equivelent owls/newts. But, if there is, why hasn't Dumbledore had him take them?> It could be very hard to hire teachers at Hogwarts. Here in NYC we are dealing with a major teaching shortage and finding new, qualified, licensed and good teachers is, unfortunately, a rarity (I teach in the south Bronx so I get to see the problem up close). Hogwarts' pay may not be good and many qualified candidates may not want to live away from their families for ten months out of the year. We also know that Dumbledore and Hagrid have a special relationship and Dumbledore was giving Hagrid a chance. While I agree that Hagrid is incompetent, I love Dumbledore for giving him a chance. He gave Lupin a chance too, and he was truly an excellent teacher. > I guess this isn't overly cohereant, but I'm just looking at D'dore and comparing him to the president of my university. I know that if the head of Purdue acted like D'dore, that he would be asked to reevaluate his desire to continue in his position.> I think Dumbledore is a super administrator. I can't stand administrators who are in everyone's face all the time. Just because Dumbledore doesn't know every little thing that goes on in his school doesn't mean he isn't doing a good job. I think my administrators are great, but they aren't every where all the time. Besides, I think there are plenty of things Dumbledore does know about but chooses to leave alone, which is fine. He has a hands-off policy with the kids, too, which I like, because he is encouraging them to be independent and to learn lessons on their own. I think that's the best way (it certainly was for me). Yes, there are times when things slip through, but Dumbledore isn't a god. How could he have possibly known that the Triwizard Cup was a portkey? Or that Scabbers was really Peter Pettigrew? These are all wizards we're talking about; the possiblities to be trickes are seemingly endless. As far as complaints about teachers, I don't see too many people, save Lucius Malfoy, approaching Dumbledore. Many kids, like Neville, choose to suffer in silence and Dumbledore does give off an air of being unapproachable, even though he is really the opposite. Hey, it took Harry some 600 pages to approach Dumbledore about something as serious as his scar hurting while dreaming about Voldemort; I don't imagine that too many other students want to go running to Dumbledore for their problems. What I think makes Dumbledore so super is his compassion, intelligence and power. I feel as Harry does; when Dumbledore comes in, I feel a bit safer too. Dumbledore knows his stuff, or at least knows what is important. He is also known to be extremely powerful and is feared by Voldemort. He defeated a previous dark wizard. He is also running what is known to be one of the best schools for witchcraft and wizardry around. I'd say Dumbledore's positives far outweigh his negatives. --jenny from ravenclaw, who'd work for Dumbledore as a House Elf if she had the chance ******** From jbryson at richmond.infi.net Sun Jan 20 20:22:46 2002 From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 20:22:46 -0000 Subject: Wizarding justice (was use of unforgivable curses) In-Reply-To: <51.17acf8ef.297c4e02@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33799 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote: > In a message dated 17/01/02 20:29:14 GMT Standard Time, mlfrasher at a... > writes: > > And then there's Azkaban itself. Seems a bit much for minor misdemeanors. How > are they dealt with? Or do wizards only commit crimes on a grand scale? > Hagrid certainly went to Azkaban without any kind of hearing and not even any formal charges. He seems to have been held in something like protective custody. But he still got the full treatment from the dementors. As UC's get life in Azkaban, then there must be shorter sentences for lesser crimes--perhaps thirty days for stealing broom straws? In colonial North America, theft was a hanging offence for the second conviction (hand branding for the first). So, Wizard Justice might be more draconian than ours. The Dementors sound like a good way to reform a budding criminal. But then, I favor caning to sending delinquents to jail, suspecting that it might be more humane in the long run. "tex" From catlady at wicca.net Mon Jan 21 00:52:29 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 00:52:29 -0000 Subject: Unforgiveable/Killing Pettigrew / Werewolves / Quidditch Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33800 Ed Blanning wrote: << How were Lupin and Sirius going to kill Pettigrew? For Sirius, not so much of an issue (I'm going to commit the *murder* for which I was imprisoned)....But for Lupin? Would the MoM accept this summary kind of justice? Perhaps,under the circumstances, but even Lupin doesn't seem to consider taking Pettigrew up to the Castle to be brought to justice.>> MoM surely would not accept that summary justice, despite it being Pettigrew who had already been declared dead. Sirius and Remus both have life experiences which do not lead them to think of MoM and justice in the same sentence. They expect to make their own justice and then be on the run for the rest of their lives. Remus is willing to give up his beloved teaching job and his relative freedom from arrest warrants out of loyalty to his friend Sirius and the memory of his friend James. << whilst Crouch is just, to all intents and purposes, disposed of,>> I'm sure that MoM counts Crouch's desouling as an accident rather than a punishment. It's like when police kill someone in a shootout, someone who started the shootout against them, is not considered capital punishment. Cindy Sphynx wrote: << I'd be very surprised if these government agencies are actually supportive of werewolves. We have the Werewolf Capture Unit, the Werewolf Registry, Werewolf Support Services, and the Werewolf Code of Conduct. >> Scamander wrote that the Capture Unit and the Registry were in the Division of Beasts while the office of Support Services was in the Division of Beings. I expect Support Services DOES provide some support, perhaps paid prescriptions for Wolfsbane Potion. Perhaps instead of prescriptions, the poor werewolves have to go to the Support Services offices to take each dose under "direct observation" (how humiliating). Then if someone did FORGET to take hiser Potion, the Capture Unit could be immediately sent after himer. (In that case, Dumbledore got Lupin a pass to be at Hogwarts instead.) And I think Support Services might pay them a small monthly stipend in exchange for 'community service' (you know, scut work like graffitti clean-up, like General Relief recipient and convicted misdemeanants have to do). The stipend wouldn't be 'paid work' but would allow Lupin to buy food but not be enough to buy clothing... Perhaps the "support" is merely "providing a safe place" to stay during transformation, i.e. a locked cage full of fellow werewolves, and reporting to it each month at Full Moon is not optional, except that Dumbledore got permission for Lupin to be kept at Hogwarts instead. THESE ARE FORMS OF SUPPORT THAT SERVE TO PROTECT OTHER PEOPLE FROM THE WEREWOLF. It's obvious how keeping the werewolf locked up under guard during transformation protects the others. It's obvious how making sure that the werewolf takes Wolfbane Potion protects the others. Less obviously, seeing to it that the werewolf gets enough food for survival discourages himer from turning to theft, robbery, or unsightly public begging. Barbara blenberry wrote: <> I believe that JKR told one untruth in canon and another in interviews. I have come to believe that even though she said that Hogwarts is the only wizarding school in Britain and has 1000 students, it actually is one of three or four schools in the British Isles (Britain + Ireland + Man etc) and each has around 250-300 students. Hogwarts is the BEST and OLDEST of the lot. This idea can actually be massaged to agree with her statement bu SAYING that the other schools are subsidiary campusses of Hogwarts. I have come to believe that even tho' she wrote only of intramural Quidditch, there is actually extramural Quidditch as well. Perhaps the four House teams compete for the right to play the people from the other schools? Or the four Houses are each a member of the league... a league of seven teams if there are four schools but the others field all-school teams. <> Every OTHER weekend would be better. The kids do need to study SOMETIME. <> 1) Maybe he doesn't play for a regular pro team, but was selected straight from school for the National Team because he is so fabulous. Practising with the National Team would be time-consuming, but not as time-consuming as playing for the Bialystok Bagels or whatever. 2) According to Ron, Viktor is already 18 at QWC. Therefore, he is a year older than Hogwarts seventh-years, who turn 18 during GoF. I thought that might be because he arranged to go to his 'seventh-year' school half-time for two years in order to have time for the National Team. From catlady at wicca.net Mon Jan 21 01:45:43 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 01:45:43 -0000 Subject: Mottoes for Houses Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33801 Will people please (answer on OT: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com ) help me think of funny mottoes and serious mottoes for the four Houses? I can explain what I mean by examples: HUFFLEPUFF Loyaulte me lie (translation: Loyalty Binds Me) Semper Fidelis (translation: Always Faithful) Nothing great was ever achieved without hard work. Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration. I may be slow but I'm ahead of you. RAVENCLAW So many books, so little time. He who dies with the most books, wins. Knowledge is Power. Veritatem Dilexi (translation: Search for Truth) SLYTHERIN Old age and treachery always beat youth and skill. My lawyer can beat up your lawyer. History is written by the winners. GRYFFINDOR Follow Me Always Ready From tabouli at unite.com.au Mon Jan 21 02:06:13 2002 From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 13:06:13 +1100 Subject: Further musings on ethnicity; Pratchett & JKR Message-ID: <002a01c1a220$64bc4dc0$b435c2cb@price> No: HPFGUIDX 33802 jchutney: > I don't think JKR's depiction of race is utopian - I think it is "realistic" considering the rest of the wizarding world. All of the kids at Hogwarts are presumable British born (we know there are wizarding schools all over the world). This leads one to believe that even though Cho is ethnically Chinese, or the Patels are ethnically Indian, that all the children at Hogwarts were born and bred in the UK. So "culturally", these kids act "British". Fred and Angelina undoubtedly have MUCH MUCH more in common than Fred and Fleur.< Actually, this is a different point from the one I was arguing... as jchutney points out, it appears that JKR has *created* a world (a utopia, if you like) in which the cultural distinctions that are significant in the real world do not apply, presumably because the "wizard culture" bond is stronger. With regard to the real cultural differences in the Muggle world, the Wizarding World is a utopia where they really do not seem to matter. Of course, as a couple of people have pointed out, JKR *is* exploring the theme of prejudice through her own "ethnic" categories (Muggle-borns, Squibs) which enables her to avoid the baggage attached to writing about "real" ethnicity. I wrote a post about this myself, once, many many months ago. Note also that being "born and bred" in the UK does not at *all* guarantee that a child has undiluted British cultural values! I myself was born and bred in Australia and have one Anglo-Australian parent, and yet I am still discernably Chinese in a lot of ways (particularly in the social domain). Complete "assimilation" isn't as common as people might think (one reason being that the way you look is closely related to the way people behave towards you: you are identified with your ethnic group even if you don't identify with it yourself). In fact, migrant communities, sticking together for comfort and familiarity, often react against the majority society and become "more Greek than the Greeks", and raise their children accordingly. My mother has been in Australia over 30 years and she is still extremely Chinese in her values. I've read lots of research which shows that some cultural values (especially those relating to the family and relationships) last for three generations or more of residence in a new culture, especially if there is no marriage outside the ethnic group. I also know many, many Australian-born people of non-Anglo/Celtic ethnicity who definitely have a lot of values and behaviours which are more typical of their ultimate culture of origin than of the majority Australian culture. If Cho and Angelina and the other non-Anglo children were Muggle born and went to British Muggle primary schools, they would probably *sound* British, and have mostly British norms about classroom behaviour (i.e. be "educationally" British), but it's likely that some of the social values they picked up at school would not at all be appreciated by their parents. Cue for intergenerational conflict and developing two different modes of behaviour: home (behaviour and even accent fitting in with parents' ethnic group) and school (as British as can be managed with parents' opposition). I did it myself even within my family: Malaysian accent with my mother, Australian accent with my father. As Hogwarts is a boarding school, I imagine it would promote rapid acculturation towards British Wizarding norms, but this doesn't mean there will be no differences at all. If some or all of the non-Anglo children were home schooled pure wizards, it depends on other factors. If Cho was British born but her parents were migrants, 11 years of home schooling from her Chinese parents without the high level of contact with British children she would have got in school might well make her culturally very Chinese indeed. Of course, as judyserenity suggests, it's possible that the strength of the Wizarding community identity overwhelms the ethnic identity in most domains... at this stage we really don't know enough to judge. Alas, poor JKR. Putting "ethnic diversity" into creative writing is a minefield. As Rita says, it's a no-win situation for the author. Speaking as writer more than cross-cultural psychologist, if you pretend people are "All The Same Regardless Of Skin Colour", some people will see this as admirable, and others as tokenistic and unrealistic. If you have only a few characters of non-majority culture, a lot of people seem to believe they have to be impeccable and above criticism in every way, otherwise the author is being "racist". If you explore the typical cultural issues associated with a particular group, some people are bound to accuse you of stereotyping; if you don't, people will accuse you of inaccuracy. Some people will declare it invalid for anyone to write about an ethnicity to which they do not belong. As far as I can see, whichever option the writer chooses is going to upset *someone*. I don't know. Perhaps the best option is to ensure you have a good insight into and knowledge of any of the cultures you are writing about (interview people? read about it?), so that you can represent them with a level of understanding and accuracy appropriate to your work, and beyond that let your own artistic integrity rather than a thousand factions' conflicting political opinions be your guide (and be prepared to defend your approach, whatever it is...). It would probably also be a good idea to arrange a couple of informal reviewers from the ethnic groups you are representing, for feedback. On Terry Pratchett: Once upon a time, I made one of my attempts to stir up some rousing discussion comparing Pratchett and JKR, and after Ronald's comments (as well as recent debates on gender roles) methinks it might be worth another go. I'm quite curious to compare Pratchett's portrayal of the bossy, smart token girl in the Johnny series, the Nomes series and Good Omens, with JKR's depiction of Hermione. An interesting comparison, given that both are British authors writing in the same era. I always mused that Pratchett was a little nervous with his female characters, being male himself and all too obviously anxious to be Non-Sexist. I always got the impression that he was much more comfortable writing about male characters (boys' school education?), and tries to compensate by adding one Strong Smart woman and throwing in a few other comic relief female characters. Not that I mean to slam Pratchett's work in general... I like his books very much, it was just something I always noticed. (NB The above problem with ethnicity also applies to gender!) Probably the best parallel is between Kirsty in the Johnny series and Hermione (Johnny=Harry? The parallel isn't bad). In the grand tradition initiated by David on OT, let's have a comparison: K: Bossy girl who hangs around with boys H: Bossy girl who hangs around with boys K: Frizzy red hair H: Bushy brown hair K: Child prodigy who goes to a "school for the terminally clever" and is brilliant at everything H: Top student in Hogwarts, academically very bright, extremely studious, good at everything except Divination and flying K: Left wing politics (esp feminism), stridently held ideological views in the face of opposition but sometimes rather misguided H: Signs of feminism ("A couple of what, excuse me?"), SPEW (see above) Certainly a similar "character type", if such a thing exists. The main difference I see is that Hermione is more sympathetically portrayed, and becomes increasingly fleshed out and believable (and likeable!), whereas Kirsty is quite a harsh parody of the academically brilliant ballbreaker with no social skills. This is partly because Pratchett's work is closer to pure satire than JKR's, but I also suspect it may have something to do with the gender of the writers... Any thoughts? (or is the problem that no-one else on this list has actually read the Johnny series??) Tabouli. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lipglossusa at yahoo.com Mon Jan 21 03:16:16 2002 From: lipglossusa at yahoo.com (lipglossusa) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 03:16:16 -0000 Subject: Sleepy Lupin cont In-Reply-To: <181.259a176.297c4357@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33803 Eloise wrote: > The full moon for Oct 93 seems to be Oct 30 and for Sept, Sep 30 and possibly > Sep 1, or it *could* be Aug 31, hard to tell. > > Aug 31 ties in with his sleeping on the train, but means he should have > finished with being wolfish by Hallowe'en, so JKR doesn't seem to be using > the real lunar calendar. > On the other hand , if we go back to the first theory, what is all the > sleeping about? > I am now thoroughly confused. > Okay, I guess I have to reject my "Lupin is tired from a werewolf transformation" theory. But I do think that applying our muggle calendar to the HP world makes us run into all sorts of problems, especially since the timeline established in CoS is debatable (the Lexicon goes into more detail on that.) So, either Lupin was really asleep (tired from howling at the moon all night, up late partying at the Leaky Cauldron) or he's just faking it. OR, maybe he took a sleeping potion (like the one Harry takes in GoF) before he got on the train so he wouldn't have to sit through a long train ride with a bunch of loud teenagers. Marina, who adores Remus and will be very put-out if he doesn't come back in book five. From theennead at attbi.com Mon Jan 21 02:24:55 2002 From: theennead at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 02:24:55 -0000 Subject: Snape, the DEs and the Longbottoms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33804 Hello. Newbie here, bleary and dry-eyed and trembling from weeks of staring at the computer screen reading old posts, and now finally ready to de-lurk with a few comments on Snape, the DEs, and the Longbottoms. Proposing that Snape's shoddy treatment of Neville might be partially motivated by some old grudge against the Longbottoms, Dicentra spectabilis wrote: > The Longbottoms were powerful enemies of the Death > Eaters, undoubtedly when Snape was one of them. Why > would Snape hold a grudge against someone who was > fighting for a cause he eventually embraced? Well, why on earth wouldn't he? Embracing a cause is one thing. Embracing the individuals responsible for hunting down and killing your old friends, colleagues, and classmates is *quite* another. Just because Snape chose to betray the Death Eaters doesn't necessarily mean that he didn't retain a good deal of personal affection for them, and as Judyserenity pointed out, Snape's old classmates do seem to have had a poor track record with the Aurors. In the Pensieve chapter of GoF it is strongly implied that Evan Rosier met his death at Moody's hands -- and according to Sirius, Moody was *exceptional* for the extent to which he tried to avoid killing. So God only knows how many of Snape's old colleagues Frank Longbottom might have offed. For all we know, he could have been the one who killed Wilkes. While we're on the subject of Snape's old Slytherin gang, I've noticed a curious tendency of fans, both here and elsewhere, to resist strongly the notion that Snape could possibly have retained any affection or regard for his old DE colleagues after his defection to Dumbledore's camp. In fact, many people seem to prefer to believe that he never really liked them all that much to begin with. (This is particularly evident in fanfiction, where Snape's relations with his old classmates, when depicted, run a very small emotional gamut indeed, ranging all the way from contemptuous disdain to virulent hatred.) The general attitude seems to be: "Oh, well, Sevvie never really could stand any of those guys in the first place, you know. And even if maybe he did once, he sure loathes them now." Why do we believe this? Snape did join the DEs of his own free will, after all. He went to school with these people; he worked with them; we can probably safely assume that he risked his life alongside them. He did eventually choose to betray them, yes. But that doesn't mean that he never really *liked* them. Why is it so important to us to believe otherwise? Is it perhaps because the Snape we see in canon strikes us as so profoundly anti-social that we simply find it impossible to imagine him ever having had any friends? Or is it, perhaps, because we as readers find the DEs so utterly and completely loathsome -- they are the *Baddies,* after all -- that we are unwilling to humanize them even to the extent of conceding that they might ever do anything so sympathetic as form friendships? Do we think them incapable of it? And if so, then why? Because they're Dark Wizards? Because they're Slytherins? Because they're bigots? Because they're the sort of people who dehumanize their enemies? Or is it, perhaps, that when push comes to shove, we just don't really believe it possible to continue to care for people personally once one has broken with them politically, ethically, and spiritually? Do we reject out of hand the possibility that one might hate the sin while loving the sinner? Or, alternatively, might the unwillingness to concede the possibility that Snape might have truly cared for his old friends and colleagues be really nothing more than a ploy we as readers have devised to ensure our *own* psychological comfort with the character? Perhaps in order to redeem Snape _to ourselves_ we must first place him in an emotional context from which he was *not,* in fact, betraying his friends when he defected to Dumbledore's camp? Because, really, there's just no getting around it, is there? It's an ugly thing to do, to betray ones friends. No matter what the justification, no matter how sound the principles or the motivations underlying the betrayal, no matter how much we may approve of it as a political act, it remains undeniably *ugly*. So is that it, perhaps? Do we tell ourselves that Snape never really liked the DEs in the first place because we are unwilling to acknowledge the extent to which Severus Snape is just Peter Pettigrew, seen through the looking glass? Heh. Well. Whatever the reasoning behind the assertion, I'm afraid that I just can't buy it. I see nothing in canon to suggest that Snape never cared for his DE colleagues, and plenty to suggest that he did and does. His favoritism of the DE's children, his advocacy of House Slytherin, his reactions to Crouch/Moody, the very depths of his bitterness... there are other ways to explain all of these things, certainly. Many, many people have. But I prefer not to. Until Rowling proves me wrong, I will continue to operate under the assumption that even while conspiring to betray them, Snape retained a strong personal affection for many of the DEs, and that when they got themselves slaughtered by Aurors or shipped off to Azkaban, it really *hurt* -- even (or, rather, *especially*) when it happened due to the information he was secretly passing along to Dumbledore. It is terribly common for real-world spies to engage in just this brand of cognitive dissonance. One might argue, in fact, that the ability to maintain such a schismed perspective is the hallmark of a successful agent. But returning to the Longbottoms... Judyserenity wrote: > I have to admit, anger at the Longbottoms in particular > would not be especially fair, since two of Snape's > friends were jailed specifically for torturing the > Longbottoms, but since when are emotions rational? Indeed. Emotions are not rational, and anger is very rarely "fair," and blaming the victim, while it may be horrendously unjust, is also an all-too-human tendency. I can easily imagine Snape feeling particularly resentful towards the Longbottoms. They are, after all, the reason that the Lestranges (who should have been *safe,* dammit -- the war was over, the arrests had come to an end, they would have been home free if only they hadn't had to go messing with the Longbottoms like that) are now serving life in Azkaban. (Note to nitpickers: for purposes of this discussion, yes, I *am* assuming that the Pensieve couple and the Lestranges are the same people. And yes, I *know* that this Remains To Be Proved. But I think it strongly enough implied by the text to operate under the assumption for the nonce.) But even if we assume that Snape bears no particular animosity toward the Longbottoms themselves, the fact still remains that Neville must serve as a highly unpleasant reminder to him that two of his oldest friends are to this very day gibbering their sanity away in wizard prison hell -- something that I feel certain he'd much rather avoid thinking about. And there are likely guilt issues as well. From what Sirius tells Harry et al in GoF about Severus Snape's School Days (famous for his fascination with the Dark Arts, entered school knowing more curses than half the 7th years, and so forth), it seems more than likely to me that Snape was the one who led the rest of his old Slytherin gang down the road to damnation in the first place. If such is the case, then he's doubly culpable, bearing responsibility not only for what eventually happened to Rosier and Wilkes and the Lestranges, but also for the fates of all of their victims -- the Longbottoms included. That can't be a nice feeling, and once you factor in Neville's propensity for melting cauldrons and generally making a mess of things in Potions class, I think it gives us more than sufficient explanation for Snape's treatment of the poor lad. Really, while it is a great deal of fun to contemplate the possibility that Snape might harbor some old grudge against Frank Longbottom, I hardly consider it necessary. His behavior seems perfectly comprehensible to me without adding a personal grudge on top of all of it. Pigwidgeon37 asked: > ... does anybody have an idea as to why the Lestranges > got it into their fanatical heads that the Longbottoms > might eventually know his [Voldemort's] whereabouts? To which Judy replied: > I assume the Lestranges and their accomplices (Crouch > Jr. and the other guy) started with the Longbottoms > because the Longbottoms were the easiest to catch, and > then got caught themselves before they could torture > anyone else. Well, of course that's always possible. But I tend to assume that the Lestranges started with Longbottom because they had reason to believe that if anyone knew anything about Voldemort's current whereabouts, he would. I doubt he was targetted simply because he looked like easy pickings. On the contrary, I suspect that Longbottom was quite a high-ranked Auror, privy to the details of the MoM's search for Voldemort: a Person In the Know, and no easy prey. Had he been such a lightweight, then surely his protestations of ignorance would have been believed long before both he and his wife were tortured to the point of irrevocable insanity? (Of course, I suppose Crouch, Lestranges, et al *could* have just been entertaining themselves. But I've got a feeling that they were in a rather goal-oriented frame of mind at the time: had they not believed that Longbottom was holding out on them, I suspect that they would have moved on to the next victim, rather than hanging around increasing their chances of getting caught just for the sake of getting a few sadistic kicks.) We do tend, I think, to envision the Longbottoms as hapless innocents -- at least, I know that *I* do. It's hard to avoid the temptation to read them as young and inexperienced, as profoundly vulnerable, as defenseless. And of course, there are a number of reasons we read them this way. There's the identification with Neville, for starters. There's also an identification with James and Lily Potter, who if they were not hapless, were at least very young at the time of their deaths. Then there's Dumbledore's evident outrage over what was done to them. And, of course, there's also the fact that suffering of the magnitude that we can imagine the Longbottoms must have experienced grants the status of "innocent" as a matter of humanitarian default: in the face of such suffering, all men are innocent. But all that said, I think that we might want to bear in mind that Frank Longbottom was not precisely an innocent in the full meaning of that term. His wife may have been, but he himself was not. He was not a hapless bystander, caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. He wasn't even a civilian. He was an _Auror_, invested with the authority to investigate, interrogate, arrest, and -- in the last year before Voldemort's defeat -- also to torture, to magically coerce, or even to kill those he suspected of malfeasance. Not to say that he abused his power, of course -- Dumbledore seems to have liked him, so we may perhaps safely assume that he did not -- but the fact nonetheless remains that we are not talking about a defenseless bystander here. What happened to the man was horrible beyond imagining, yes. But he wasn't exactly a *lamb.* Nor was he even necessarily all that young. We are told that the Longbottoms were "very popular," which does rather encourage us to think of them as popular in the same way that the Potters were popular -- which is to say, as young and handsome and overflowing with potential -- but given the mood of wizarding society at the time, "very popular" could equally well refer to a hardened, tough-as-nails war-hero, well out of his twenties. Not everyone chooses to have their first child at the tender age of twenty-one, as the Potters did. Certainly the impression I get of Neville's grandmother is one of old age, rather than late middle-age, which to my mind rather implies that the Longbottoms weren't all that young when Neville was born. My own feeling on the question of "why the Longbottoms?" is that Longbottom was probably an experienced Auror of high rank and no small repute, deeply involved in the MoM's search for Voldemort, and that while the Lestranges and their accomplices may very well have been sadistic, fanatical, and more than half-mad, they were nonetheless not being _entirely_ unreasonable in their choice of target. Then, of course, I could be wrong. -- Elkins From alohomora at execulink.com Mon Jan 21 03:08:27 2002 From: alohomora at execulink.com (Barb) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 22:08:27 -0500 Subject: Harry's mission and magical powers Message-ID: <3c4b862b.7f26.0@execulink.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33805 Hello Kristin and thank you for clearing up my understanding (or lack of...) regarding heir, descendent and ancestor. Your examples made it very clear to me. If I might add one more "suppose"... lets suppose that since time travel is possible in the wizarding world, that Harry is actually re-visiting the past during the entire series of books, using a time-turner for some yet undisclosed purpose. I also wonder about Harry knowing Parseltongue. I've not got a firm thought on how he came to know the language but your letter made me think that perhaps it was a "mistake" of V's spell. What I mean is, that in trying to kill Harry by magic, that when 'the something' that went wrong, occurred, perhaps the energy that was lost from V, went INTO Harry along with specific knowledge of certain things. We know that V lost his power and became a shell of his former self and that energy had to go somewhere. I suspect a great deal of it acted as an atomic bomb-type blast and blew the house to bits but other parts of that energy may well have entered Harry in the form of repressed knowledge. The Parseltongue could be part of that knowledge passed on unwittingly in the disaster. It seems a little too obvious that the only injury to Harry is on his head (forehead) which houses a brain full of electrical activity. As we know the book was originally intended for the enjoyment of children who may need a more concrete view of things, perhaps the scar is a concrete symbol of the transfer of energy and power. It would have seemed rather silly if Harry had the scar on his bum or hand or something ;o) Obviously not his bum because nobody would be able to it, but it could have been elsewhere on him that 'is' exposed. Barb ---------- Powered by Execulink WebMail - WeConnect! http://www.execulink.com From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Mon Jan 21 03:18:42 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 03:18:42 -0000 Subject: Snape and those Troublemakers (was Snape (still!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33806 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "kiricat2001" wrote: > Snape: Sirius Black showed he was capable of murder at the age of > sixteen...You haven't forgotten that, Headmaster? > > Dumbledore: My memory is as good as it ever was, Severus. > > That exchange has always struck me as a case where two people viewed > a past incident differently. Snape is still convinced that Sirius > truly intended to murder him, using Lupin as a weapon. Dumbledore, > it seems to me, sees a different, and perhaps a more encompassing > view of the whole picture. > I wonder if Snape was projecting his own mindset on Sirius here? (Most people do have a tendency to do that, after all.) Snape is a calculating, intellectual kind of guy. *He* would never set somebody up for an encounter with a werewolf unless he meant to kill them. So he assumes everyone else must think that way too. He wouldn't understand the mindset of an impulsive, emotional guy like Sirius, who could pull a stunt like this on the spur of the moment without thinking through the consequences. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From jklb66 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 21 02:47:44 2002 From: jklb66 at yahoo.com (jklb66) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 02:47:44 -0000 Subject: Ron & Lily both have willow wands Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33807 I was just reading the essay on wands in the HP Lexicon, and the author (sorry, forgot her name) pointed out that each wand is revealing of the character or abilities of the owners. (Unless of course, the wand is a hand-me-down like Ron's 1st wand!) So, it struck me as ominous that Ron's new wand is "willow with a unicorn hair" when we already knew that Lily's wand was willow. I'm just hoping this doesn't foreshadow that self-sacrifice won't be necessary to save Harry again. Perhaps it simply reveals that Ron is noble enough to sacrifice himself for another. After all, he does "sacrifice" himself in the Wizard's chess game so Harry can continue on to the sorceror's stone; and, he doesn't hesitate to go into the Chamber of Secrets in order to try and rescue Ginny. From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com Mon Jan 21 03:59:08 2002 From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 21:59:08 -0600 Subject: Harry's magical powers/Ron/Ron's wand References: <3c4b862b.7f26.0@execulink.com> Message-ID: <3C4B920C.64F33789@kingwoodcable.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33808 Barb wrote: > > Hello Kristin and thank you for clearing up my understanding (or lack of...) > regarding heir, descendent and ancestor. Your examples made it very clear to > me. Glad I could help! > If I might add one more "suppose"... lets suppose that since time travel is > possible in the wizarding world, that Harry is actually re-visiting the past > during the entire series of books, using a time-turner for some yet undisclosed > purpose. This might be interesting. Perhaps in one of the books we find out that Harry could have gotten rid of V at a certain point, but failed to do so, and now he's come back in time to fix the problem (I could only imagine what kind of menace V would become in the future). Or...what if we are getting glimpses of Harry's pensieve? > I also wonder about Harry knowing Parseltongue. I've not got a > firm thought on how he came to know the language but your letter made me think > that perhaps it was a "mistake" of V's spell. What I mean is, that in trying > to kill Harry by magic, that when 'the something' that went wrong, occurred, > perhaps the energy that was lost from V, went INTO Harry along with > specific knowledge of certain things. We know that V lost his power and became > a shell of his former self and that energy had to go somewhere. I suspect a > great deal of it acted as an atomic bomb-type blast and blew the house to bits > but other parts of that energy may well have entered Harry in the form of repressed > knowledge. The Parseltongue could be part of that knowledge passed on unwittingly > in the disaster. It seems a little too obvious that the only injury to Harry > is on his head (forehead) which houses a brain full of electrical activity. > As we know the book was originally intended for the enjoyment of children who > may need a more concrete view of things, perhaps the scar is a concrete symbol > of the transfer of energy and power. It would have seemed rather silly if Harry > had the scar on his bum or hand or something ;o) Obviously not his bum because > nobody would be able to it, but it could have been elsewhere on him that 'is' > exposed. Dumbledore thinks that Harry gained his parselmouth from V during the attack. Harry also has traits that Slytherin admired (resourcefulness, determination, and a certain disregard for rules). I think that these traits belong to Harry naturally, since his father had them as well. I'm not sure about the parselmouth. I'm beginning to wonder if that is just what Dumbledore thinks, and perhaps he's not sure (is it possible for D to make a mistake?). Harry was so young when he was first attacked, that we really have no idea if he could talk to snakes. I'm also beginning to wonder if Harry is related to Slytherin, because of Ron's statement in CoS. There's been discussion regarding Ron's psychic ability, and a lot of the stuff he says off-hand turns out to be true. When Hermione and Ron discover that Harry can talk to snakes, Ron says, "And now that whole school's going to think you're his great-great-great-great-grandson or something." I'm wondering if this means more than we think. Hrmmm...I'm really tempted to go re-read the books to follow Ron and his "messages". jklb66 wrote: > > I was just reading the essay on wands in the HP Lexicon, and the > author (sorry, forgot her name) pointed out that each wand is > revealing of the character or abilities of the owners. (Unless of > course, the wand is a hand-me-down like Ron's 1st wand!) So, it > struck me as ominous that Ron's new wand is "willow with a unicorn > hair" when we already knew that Lily's wand was willow. I'm just > hoping this doesn't foreshadow that self-sacrifice won't be necessary > to save Harry again. Perhaps it simply reveals that Ron is noble > enough to sacrifice himself for another. After all, he > does "sacrifice" himself in the Wizard's chess game so Harry can > continue on to the sorceror's stone; and, he doesn't hesitate to go > into the Chamber of Secrets in order to try and rescue Ginny. I've thought about this too. The innocent are the first to die, and the unicorn is the most innocent of all creatures. Does this tag Ron? I'm not so sure. I think the unicorn hair identifies the Weasley, and not particular Ron. His first wand was a hand-me down, so apparently unicorn hair worked for the previous owners. But who was the previous owner? What is Bill? Charlie? Percy? I would think that Ron got one of their wands, so I think the "innocent" part actually tags the previous owner. Now...Ron's new wand is also unicorn, so we still aren't sure if he's tagged as well. The part that I found more interesting was the willow part of his wand. Willow is good for "charm work" as Mr. Ollivander says. So I would think that Lily had great strength in charms (especially to cast a spells to save Harry), which causes me to believe that Ron has some latent powers (divination? charms?) that haven't been introduced yet (or have and we haven't noticed yet). I hope in future books he'll be making good use of his 'willow' wand. Ron might try to sacrifice himself in future books, but he's already done it once. I'm not sure if Rowling is the type of person to use the same trick twice. -Katze From boggles at earthlink.net Mon Jan 21 04:03:51 2002 From: boggles at earthlink.net (Jennifer Boggess Ramon) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 22:03:51 -0600 Subject: The Chamber Entrance, the Wolvesbane Potion, Hogwarts Tuition, and Blame In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33809 At 3:31 PM +0000 1/15/02, lucky_kari wrote: > >I feel pretty sure that Salazar >Slytherin built the Chamber of Secrets, Apolgies for replying to old posts - I spent ten days offline and am only starting to catch up - but: Salazar _can't_ have built the current entrance to the Chamber of Secrets, as indoor plumbing didn't exist in his day. (I don't doubt that he built the chamber itself.) So: either someone, at some point along the way, knew about the passage when Hogwarts was being refitted for indoor plumbing, or the castle refit the passage itself when it went through a "revision" in the sanitary system. (I prefer the second theory - originally the entrance was a stone slide under a heavy stone basin in one of the chamber pot rooms, and the castle shifted it to its current ignominious position under a sink . . .) Either way, the pipes must be a new way for the basilisk to travel - presumably Riddle taught it to do that the first time around? At 7:01 PM +0000 1/16/02, cindysphynx wrote: >How interesting! Boy, this is a tough one. I can't imagine Snape >setting out to discover a werewolf potion given his apparent dislike >of werewolves. Perhaps he discovered it accidently? If so, how >would he test it? Would he ask Lupin to volunteer? I can't imagine >one could make a great deal of money off of such a potion, as the >target market consists of werewolves who can't find paid work. Well, if I were the Potions Master at Hogwarts, and I'd once almost been killed by a werewolf, I might well have a motive to research a cure for lycanthropy - not for the werewolves' sake, but for my own future safety. At 8:27 PM +0000 1/16/02, Hollydaze wrote: >This is an edited copy of two posts I sent to another HP site about >why I feel that Hogwarts does not require tuition and is a public >school: > >(During this post I refer to Public and Private schools as Americans >would -even though I'm British- to avoid confusion) I think it's actually roughly equivalent to the Governor's Academies here in the US - funded by the government, but at a higher level than the local school districts, you pay for supplies and some of your board but not tuition or rooming, you live at the school except for holidays. I suspect that most of its funding comes from an initial endowment by the Founders, well-managed by the Board of Directors. At 1:03 PM +0000 1/17/02, sing2wine wrote: >It is possible that we are too philosophical in our desire to >assign blame. I also didn't understand why McGonagall could not act - >even 3rd year Harry was able to temporarily hold off a dementor. >One would have thought - listening to McGonagall shout at Fudge about >bringing "that thing in here" - that she had no magical powers at >all! The only people other than Harry we see casting the Patronum spell are Lupin and Dumbledore. Lupin explicitly tells Harry that the spell is "ridiculously advanced," which suggests to me that it might not be in every wizard's repertoire. If the dementor moved fast enough, and Minerva and Snape were rusty enough (how often would you use it if there weren't dementors around?), they might not have had a happy enough memory in mind fast enough to stop it. (Heck, Snape might not have a sufficiently happy memory at all.) -- - 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 vmadams at att.net Mon Jan 21 04:58:31 2002 From: vmadams at att.net (torimarie_1216) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 04:58:31 -0000 Subject: Another werewolf question Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33810 I was reading some of the posts about the treatment of werewolves by the MoM and the agencies that deal with them. Besides Wolfsbane Potion, there is another possible cure and I am wondering how it can be brought to light in order to save Sirius. In CoS, Lockheart has Harry act out a scenario in which he supposedly performed a charm that turned a werewolf back into a normal human again. Of course, we later learn that Lockheart didn't do any of the things he wrote about himself, but that someone else did. He just made it impossible for those people to go on fighting the Dark Arts when he altered their memories. (IMO, that makes him an even worse, selfish baddy--to deprive wizardkind of people who can keep the world safer just so he can sell books and take credit for himself! Harumph!) ;-) I'm pretty confident that someone will realize this--I'm betting on Hermione!--and cure Lupin so that he can be more effective in the fight against Voldy. Can anyone venture a guess as to who can break the memory charms and how? Also, who might be powerful enough to do the charm on Lupin? It seems natural for the task to fall to Sirius, but is that just too obvious? looking forward to hearing anyone's comments on this! Regards, Tori From theennead at attbi.com Mon Jan 21 04:36:15 2002 From: theennead at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 04:36:15 -0000 Subject: Wizarding justice (was use of unforgivable curses) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33811 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "christi0469" wrote: > I'm guessing that there is no > death penalty in the british wizarding community. The wizarding community would seem to be strongly opposed to the death penalty. We've never heard of anyone being sentenced to death for *any* crime, and given the ugly mood of the crowd in the Penseive scene of GoF, I imagine that the subject would at least have been raised, had the death penalty been an available option. For that matter, the fact the Aurors were only authorized to kill as an emergency measure during a time of war (were they allowed to kill in self-defense before then, I wonder?), and that this was generally perceived as a Desperate Measure, would seem to indicate that the wizarding world really is remarkably pacifistic, in its own twisted sort of way. > And being kissed by a dementor would be worse than death, > so even wizards who wanted revenge for the reign of terror > might be reluctant to call for it. I get the impression that the Dementor's Kiss is authorized *only* for those who have managed to escape from Azkaban. The only time we've ever heard of it being officially sanctioned was for Sirius, and the only time we've ever seen it performed was on Crouch Jr -- both of them Azkaban escapees. There's actually a nasty sort of logic at work there, if you think about it. If Azkaban can't hold a wizard, then chances are that nothing short of death will suffice to control him. But the wizarding world doesn't *believe* in the death penalty. So what on earth are we to do about this dilemma? Hey, I know! How about the Dementor's Kiss? It's just *like* death really...except it leaves them alive, so it doesn't violate our objection to capital punishment! Best of all possible worlds. Problem solved. Ugh. Nasty. -- Elkins, who thinks that wizard justice leaves much to be desired From andrew_macian at yahoo.com Mon Jan 21 05:40:42 2002 From: andrew_macian at yahoo.com (Andrew MacIan) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 21:40:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore's an idiot... In-Reply-To: <000301c1a1e3$9c0361c0$96bdfea9@c8b5v1> Message-ID: <20020121054042.27586.qmail@web9501.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33812 Greetings from Andrew! And no...it's not simply one academic sticking up for another. Honestly, it's not.... --- Terri Lyn Layman wrote: > Ok, not really, but he does lack in administrative > skill. > Interesting thesis. Let's presume that Prof D. is, say, the President of the 'Harvard of the West Coast' wherein I teach. That sounds about right for the level of responsibility, yes? > Things seem to go on at Hogwarts that he has no > knowlege of. Ok. And....? I utterly have no doubt that the Pres has NO CLUE what it is that I do with my classes, nor has he any desire to get one. There's no reason for him to have such information. His *delegated* person, the Chair (my direct boss), *is* required to have that knowledge; that's part of *his* job. > There's also > nearly unabashed favortisim on some levels towards > various instructors. > Yet, some of the instructors that I would classify > as needing to be "in the > loop" the most, don't seem to be. Erm. Could you have another go at that? I see that as being an argument in favor of Prof D. *not needing* to be in the loop. > > He has a non-graduate teaching a seemingly > importaint course. Now, unless > I'm mistaken, there seems to be no framework whereby > Hagrid could get > equivelent owls/newts. But, if there is, why hasn't > Dumbledore had him take > them? I'm sure that an intensive summer with McG, > Snape, et. al, and he > could be in top form to take these equivalency > exams. Ever dealt with people who are world-class specialists in some abstruse field (I have ballistics directly in mind here, due to personal experience), but who don't have a B.Sc.? If not, you're condemning an awfully big sample of people who can teach, and who do, without thinking beyond the academic degree mill. Or so I read what you've written. > > I guess this isn't overly cohereant, but I'm just > looking at D'dore and > comparing him to the president of my university. I > know that if the head of > Purdue acted like D'dore, that he would be asked to > reevaluate his desire to > continue in his position. And yet...my university's President is, in most of the ways you've delineated above, *exactly* like Prof D. Horses for courses, eh? Cheers, Drieux PS Wanna swap grad students? ===== 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 video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Mon Jan 21 05:49:37 2002 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 21 Jan 2002 05:49:37 -0000 Subject: File - netiquette2.txt Message-ID: <1011592177.77677024.90154.m12@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33813 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 Jan 21 05:49:37 2002 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 21 Jan 2002 05:49:37 -0000 Subject: File - VFAQ.htm Message-ID: <1011592177.77676784.90154.m12@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33814 An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From catlady at wicca.net Mon Jan 21 07:38:19 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 07:38:19 -0000 Subject: Parselmouth / willow wands / indoor plumbing / werewolf Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33815 Katze wrote: > I'm not sure about the parselmouth. I'm beginning to wonder if > [Harry having got it from V] is just what Dumbledore thinks, and > perhaps he's not sure (is it possible for D to make a mistake?). Dumbledore has made at least one big mistake quite recently: he was fooled by fake Moody for an entire school year. Previously, he testified to the best of his knowledge that Sirius had been the Potters' Secret Keeper. Katze wrote: > His first wand was a hand-me down, so apparently unicorn hair > worked for the previous owners. But who was the previous owner? > What is Bill? Charlie? Percy? I would think that Ron got one of > their wands, so I think the "innocent" part actually tags the > previous owner. In the first book, Ron introduces himself (on Platform 9 3/4 IIRC) as having Bill's old robes, Charlie's old wand, and Percy's old rat. However, I think Charlie was not the *original* owner of the wand either; I think it had belonged to some elderly, probably deceased, Weasley before it was Charlie's. Btw, I suppose the reason that Ron had Bill's old robes instead of Charlie's is that Bill and Ron are both tall and perhaps Charlie's old robes were already too short for him. > Willow is good for "charm work" as Mr. Ollivander says. It always seemed to me that being good for charm work, or for Ron Weasley, was a characteristic of the individual *wand*, not of the materials of which it is made. So that one willow/unicorn suits Ron but IMHO another willow/unicorn might not suit him and a certain maple/phoenix might suit him well enough. The meanings of the wood, as listed in that essay, seem to me to be messages from the writer to the reader, rather than meaningful In The Potterverse. Boggles wrote: > Salazar _can't_ have built the current entrance to the Chamber of > Secrets, as indoor plumbing didn't exist in his day. Someone suggested (and convinced me) that the wizards have had indoor plumbing with flush toilets and hot and cold running water since Atlantis -- theirs works by magic not by hydraulics. And all the times Muggles have invented indoor plumbing (there was indoor running water at Knossos and hot and cold indoor running water in Imperial Rome), the inventor was some Muggle who had been a guest in a wizarding home and seen the wizarding facilities and was trying to figure out how to have the same conveniences in a Muggle home. Tori Marie wrote: > [Lockhart] supposedly performed a charm that turned a werewolf back > into a normal human again. There was a discussion of why that Homorphus Charm was not a cure for Lupin. I suggested that its side-effects include damaging the recipient's brain to the point where he does not remember and can never again learn how to speak, nor even toilet-training. Someone else suggested that it only worked within a year or two after the werewolf was first infected, and it had been discovered too late for Lupin. I was finally persauded by another suggestion: that it only turns the werewolf human for one minute. That is long enough to identify him, especially in a village where everyone knows everyone. Once he has been identified, his neighbors can tie him up before nightfall of each Full Moon, or more likely they will kill him in daylight of New Moon when he has no special powers to defend himself with. From lipglossusa at yahoo.com Mon Jan 21 08:18:12 2002 From: lipglossusa at yahoo.com (lipglossusa) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 08:18:12 -0000 Subject: Another werewolf question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33816 Tori wrote: > Besides Wolfsbane Potion, there is another possible cure and I am > wondering how it can be brought to light in order to save Sirius. In CoS, Lockheart has Harry act out a scenario in which he > supposedly performed a charm that turned a werewolf back into a > normal human again. --snip-- I'm pretty confident that someone will realize this--I'm betting on > Hermione!--and cure Lupin so that he can be more effective in the > fight against Voldy. Can anyone venture a guess as to who can break the memory charms and > how? Also, who might be powerful enough to do the charm on Lupin? > It seems natural for the task to fall to Sirius, but is that just > too obvious? Geez... I can't believe I'd forgotten all about that werewolf cure in CoS until now! Why on earth hasn't someone charmed Lupin in all this time??? Well, I'm all for Sirius showing off his magical muscles in any and all opportunities, but why not Hermione herself? In CoS, Lockhart says he performed the "immensely complex Homorphus Charm" to cure the werewolf, but as we find out later, it was actually an "ugly old Armenian warlock." I definitely think Hermione is more than capable of researching and learning a Homorphus Charm-- after all, she was the one who researched and did most of the preparation for the Polyjuice Potion, a real accomplishment for a second year student. And, she learned Lockhart's books by heart, though perhaps not for scholastic reasons. I wonder if the Homorphus Charm has to be performed while the person is in the werewolf state? If so, Snape's wolfsbane potion would come in handy. Also, I wonder who exactly was the "ugly old Armenian" .... maybe a Durmstrang graduate? -Marina J. (who would like to note that there is now another poster by the same name-- I'll use a different initial from now on-- apologies if anyone gets confused over conflicting posts.) From oppen at cnsinternet.com Mon Jan 21 09:27:45 2002 From: oppen at cnsinternet.com (Eric Oppen) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 03:27:45 -0600 Subject: Wand question Message-ID: <00ef01c1a25d$e36b41c0$f2c71bce@hppav> No: HPFGUIDX 33817 One thing I want to know is this: If a wizard or witch has their wand broken (as happened to Hagrid) what's preventing him from getting a replacement somewhere? Even if Ollivander's been warned not to sell to this person, does this prevent trying Gregorivech (the guy who sold Krum his wand) or whoever supplies the students at Beauxbatons? Or, for that matter, making one him/herself? How difficult are wands to make, anyway? From the description, the most difficult part would be getting hold of the "heart" of the wand---the magical substance at its core, be that dragon heartstrings, veela hairs, phoenix feathers, unicorn tail hairs, or whatever, but I would bet that a good alchemical supplier might have any or all of these things on hand. ISTR a place on Diagon Alley that would probably carry the whole lot...it was where Hagrid and Harry bought potion supplies for him when he first went there. Another source for a wand might be a hand-me-down, a la Ron in the first two books. Would Hagrid have been able to use his father's wand? What _does_ happen to a wizard's wand when he dies? Hagrid's "old dad" died before Hagrid was expelled from Hogwarts, and since Fridwulfa was no longer on the scene, wouldn't that have made Hagrid his heir? Or does Hagrid have siblings or half-siblings we haven't met yet? _That_ would make things very interesting indeed...having Hagrid dealing with half-siblings that don't even want him in the family. Maybe that's why he stayed on at Hogwarts? From pigwidgeon37 at yahoo.it Mon Jan 21 10:31:33 2002 From: pigwidgeon37 at yahoo.it (=?iso-8859-1?q?pigwidgeonthirtyseven?=) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 10:31:33 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Some more thoughts about Lily and the Marauders (LONG) Message-ID: <20020121103133.33219.qmail@web14704.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33818 Hi all, first of all, my apologies to Lily- fans, but I have to get this off my mind. In a post I wrote last week, I made the assumption that Lily *might* have been everything but a nice character, just because that's some feeling I'd got and not because I had some canonical evidence to corroborate it. Well, I don't have that much canonical evidence now, but I think there are some points worth considering: 1) We know ( and this is pure canon) that the Marauders were a very tight group of friends. It seems that maybe the bond between James and Sirius was stronger than, say, between Sirius and Peter, but I think we may see them as very close altogether. 2) What we don't know for sure is whether all four of them were in the same house, namely Gryffindor, but to form a gang like theirs, they probably had to be. 3) There is even more incertainty about Lily's house, it is not less possible that she was a Gryffindor than a Slytherin etc. Anyway, unless we doubt what JKR said about the Marauders' and Snape's age, which we don't have any reason to do, and if the assumption of Harry' first year at Hogwarts being 1991 is correct, Lily and James necessarily had to get together while still at school. (I know we have been through this already, but it's better to make clear which point I'm departing from) So, we have four boys or rather young men, one of them drop-dead sexy (Sirius, according to JKR), two of them at least nice-looking (James and Remus) and the fourth (Peter) eventually rather cute in a clumsy way. Four musketeers, one for all and all for one, a large part of whose school life seems to be dedicated to pulling pranks and proving to everybody that they're the uncrowned kings of Hogwarts. The problem, and this might also be the weak point in my musings- for I won't call it a theory- is that we don't have the faintest idea about the four boys' sentimental attachments while still at Hogwarts. If each of them had a girlfriend, James and Lily's relationship probably wasn't much of a problem. But I seriously doubt that Remus had the courage to get close with a girl because of all the inevitable consequences of telling her about his lycanthropy, a possible refusal etc. Peter and Sirius are the x in the equation- if fanfiction may be considered as a valid means of interpretation (and I think that, if based on canon, it is as valid as any other form of speculation), then Sirius could be considered as god's very own gift to female Hogwarts students and Peter as being overshadowed by his three friends. OK, so according to these assumptions, we have four young men none of whom is in a stable realationship, there might be the occasional flirt but nothing serious, and then there comes LILY. Lily who takes up a lot of James's time, who wants to see him without his friends being around, making smooching noises and comments like "Get a room" when they kiss, Lily who doesn't appreciate their "boys' talk"... Interesting to think of the reactions of the other 3, isn't it? At first, maybe they dismiss her as a mere flirt among many others. Then things become obviously more serious and Sirius, Peter and Remus start getting worried. Perhaps there's some teasing ("Hey, prongs, we'll call you Bambi from now on, you've gone all soft!"), and when teasing doesn't have any effect, there's some talking reason into James ("James, for God's sake, we're only 16 years old, this is not the time to form a lasting relationship, it's the time for having fun! Give it a try and get out of Lily's clutches!"). This doesn't work either and all of a sudden, James finds himself in a big dilemma: Either he gives in to his friends and loosens the ties with Lily a bit, or he has to tell them once and for all that his relationship with Lily is now on top of his priority list. Whichever alternative he chooses, there is great potential for conflict. And whether James momentarily backpedals or not, in the end he marries Lily, which creates the impression that she was a *very* strong woman indeed: Either strong enough to wait for him or strong enough to get the better of his three friends. But anyway, the conflict remains: If James really followed his friends' advice not to get into too deep a relationship at his age, he will, at a certain point, surely regret it and blame them for it. If he didn't, he will inevitably have to sacrifice a bit of the closeness he had with Sirius, Peter and Remus to his love for Lily. Apart from the fact that Lily certainly *was* a strong person, I'm wondering about the other Marauders' attitude towards her: Jealousy seems to be a good guess, unless she had the ability to charm each and every of them in just the right way that they accepted her, but didn't fall in love head over heels- if she mastered this impossible task, I'd say she was a Slytherin. Maybe it was even more or less open hostility for being a disturbing factor and creating problems that previously hadn't existed among them. One of them *might* have developed a crush, which means even more possible conflict. Anyway, isn't it at least a little strange that neither Sirius nor Remus ever talk about her to Harry? Certainly, Sirius is Harry's godfather and was Best Man at the wedding, but then we don't know whose choice that was or whether Lily was happy with it or not. All in all, more I think about the dynamics between MWPP on the one and Lily on the other side, more this topic seems interesting and I'd like to see your opinions! Susanna/pigwidgeon37 "And how come those portraits seem to be alive?" "What'ya mean? All paintings move." "No, they don't. We have lots of paintings in our villa, among them a real Chagall, and none of them..." "And d'ya expect that something painted by a jackal will move? Now really..." --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Get personalised at My Yahoo!. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Edblanning at aol.com Mon Jan 21 11:08:51 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 06:08:51 EST Subject: Snape (still): a reply to just criticism Message-ID: <8c.12ca8cc0.297d50c3@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33819 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote:> >> However, I'd like to expand a theory I mentioned once before. What >>if Snape >> never was really a 'bad guy'? What if he's always been battling the >>two sides >> of his nature? I agree with jchutney that Snape may see Dumbledore >.as a >> surrogate father. I think he probably wanted to do so whilst at school. If >> so, he must have been constantly disappointed by Dumbledore's apparent >.favouritism for those troublemakers, Potter and Black. >Can you give some examples of Dumbledore's constant favoritism >towards Potter and Black? Does you mean that Snape went through >seven years at Hogwarts trying to find a way to make a connection >with Dumbledore as a father figure, only to be pushed away because >Dumbledore preferred James and Sirius? Or are you saying that >Snape's perception while at school was that Dumbledore as Headmaster >let Potter, etal. get away with things, even if that was not the case? >Potter/Black certainly caused trouble, according to McGonagall, at >least. And, in order to be recognized as troublemakers, obviously, >they had to get caught a fair amount of the time. (If their pranks >remained anonymous, they would not have had the reputation they >seemed to have developed over the years they were at Hogwarts.) >I don't know of any evidence that Dumbledore constantly let them get >away with things. I think it more likely that Snape felt that they >never got enough punishment or a severe enough punishment and that >may have colored his vision of whether or not they were Dumbledore's >Pets. His view may have been reinforced by the fact that James >became a prefect and then Head Boy. Snape could perceive this as >favoritism, but, IIRC, Dumbledore doesn't unilaterally choose who >will fill those posts. And, if a misbehaving student is caught, it is >up to the Professors, as well as the Headmaster to mete out >punishment. That was not Snape's business. I felt this thread had run its course, but since you ask me a direct question, it is only courteous to reply. At the end of my theory, (not quoted) I point out that this is only a hypothesis and therefore, by its nature it is not proven. I simply find it a working model that makes some sense, although there may be others which make just as much sense. For instance, Elkins takes quite a different stance on Snape, which I, from my pro-Snape stand point, dislike but accept as just as likely as my own. No,I cannot give examples of *Dumbledore's constant favouritism*. (I actually said, *apparent*). First, I was speculating about Snape's perceptions, not Dumbledore's. Secondly, I do think that the fact that James the known troublemaker became prefect and Head Boy could be construed as favouritism. I'm afraid I didn't follow the *Head Boy* thread posted recently, but I am unaware of how these appointments are made and have always assumed that Dumbledore's opinion would be the deciding factor. I can imagine a deal of opposition to the appointment of James in the staffroom. Thirdly, I am going by analogy. Yes, there are perhaps special reasons why Harry has such license from Dumbledore, but he is given license to the point of being encouraged, if only tacitly, to break rules. Enough messages are given by various characters, including, of course Snape, about the similarities between Harry and James and their behaviour, that, to me at least, it suggests there may be some parallel in the their relationships with Dumbledore. If James et al were caught and punished for everything they did, I'd be very surprised. If Dumbledore didn't know a lot of what they got away with, I'd be equally surprised. As I've said, I was just tryng to find an explanation for how someone could make such a radical change of allegiance, without resorting to some kind of 'conversion experience', which to me would weaken the character and diminish the 'choice of action' theme. In my scenario, which I know I haven't explained very well, the character remains the same, whilst making and living with the consequences of different conscious choices, rather converting from 'bad' to 'good' and thus having a course of action presented to him as the only right path. Respectfully, Eloise. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From serayaluv at yahoo.com Mon Jan 21 04:48:08 2002 From: serayaluv at yahoo.com (Robin B) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 20:48:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Is Ginny a Parsiltongue?/Ginny&Harry Bond? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020121044808.67688.qmail@web20403.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33820 catorman wrote: --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "tex23236" wrote: > I realize she was underTR's control at the time, but ASFAIK, the diary > was mute, communicating outside itself only by TR's writing. So how > was the sink opened for Ginny to get into the tunnel? It seems she > would have to have spoken to the sink in Parsiltongue. TR might have > told ter what to hiss, but could that have given her the ability for > life, as V seems to have given Harry certain of his powers? > > Tex IIRC, Ginny didn't know what she was doing when she was under the control of Tom Riddle. If she can paint walls, kill roosters etc. without knowing what she is doing then I'm pretty sure that Tom Riddle would be able to speak parseltongue through her as well. She was, in a sense, "hypnotised" - total mind control, and we know that people do all kinds of things they aren't really normally able to do when they are hypnotised. Catherine Hi! This is my first post here, so I apologize if I'm restating anything. I've been rather interested in Ginny's role in the whole storyline. It seems to me that JKR is setting her up to be a more important player. The clues, though, are very subtle. I know that it has been brought up in other posts about the train platform scene in Book 1. Someone (and I apologize for not knowing exactly who) mentioned that Ginny and Harry might be paired together because she's the first girl of the wizarding world that he has noticable contact with. What I found to be intriguing is that Ginny is actually the first Weasley to be named . . . therefore, becoming the first peer to be known by name for Harry. Yet, she is then left behind in the story for the time being. She is not brought up again until the very end of this book. I realize that I seem to be drifting away from the original topic of whether Ginny is a parsilmouth or not, but please put up with my chatter a bit more while I try to get to my views on that subject. The way I see it, JKR was placing a few things in her readers' minds. First, that the character of Ginny existed at all. Secondly, that Ginny has an interest in Harry before she ever gets to meet him. Granted, it's an infatuation. Just as many young girls feel now-a-days about Daniel Radcliff. Over the course of the books 2, 3, and 4, this infatuation appears to be changing into a typical schoolgirl crush. JKR used Ginny's obvious liking of Harry to cover up many of the signs that would have given her away as the person responsible for opening the chamber. The most noticable example of this is the singing Valentine. I'm still not totally convinced that she sent it. But it works great to make the readers believe that she is embarrassed by the results of the Valentine and not from having seen Harry with TR's diary. This is something that JKR seems to do alot of. She presents things in a way that you are led to think the obvious when another possibility is present. Following this pattern of writing, it seems quite possible that Ginny would now be a parsilmouth. We, the readers, know that TR used her to kill the roosters and write the messages. It makes it then possible that he used her voice to open the chamber and control the Basilisk. Ofcourse, just because of this, why would it mean that she now still has the ability? Well, TR tells Harry at one point in the chamber that not only did Ginny pour her soul into him, but he poured some of his back into her. If that's the case, then could there not be some residue of TR's soul still in her. And as speaking parsilmouth was the thing she would have done the most with his soul part of her, it would be the part that might have stayed with her. Although, do we even really know that TR's memory is gone? Where'd it go? Is it not a bit odd that right after TR disappears, Ginny immediately awakens? I keep having this sneaky suspicion that the fact that TR's soul had been within Ginny is going to bring her character to the forefront of the story. Harry seems to have gained a part of Voldemort's powers -- LV would probably like to destroy Harry because of that alone. If Ginny had part of his soul within her, how would LV react? Would a combining of Harry's powers somehow with Ginny's lead to LV's defeat? Or even be a small element in the dark lord's destruction? We know that Snape was bonded to James because James saved Snape's life; and Pettigrew is bonded to Harry for the same reason. So, does that not mean that Ginny is bonded to Harry for having saved her life in the Chamber of Secrets? Wouldn't such a bond combined with Harry's LVish powers and Ginny's TR soul-sharing be something of value in the fight against LV? Yikes -- I best stop there. The above are just my opinions and thoughts. I would like to know what anyone here on the list thinks about any of what I've written. Just, please be gentle -- I'm already a nervous wreck about posting my thoughts :) RobinB --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kjbaldwin at adelphia.net Mon Jan 21 07:23:46 2002 From: kjbaldwin at adelphia.net (Kim) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 02:23:46 -0500 Subject: Introduction., Weasly Clock, and Fudge... Message-ID: <003801c1a24c$90816d60$6501a8c0@kim1.bur.adelphia.net.> No: HPFGUIDX 33821 Let me start by saying I'm a newbie so please be kind. I have been working my way through the 23 digests (I'm up to 1590 out of 1603)...so if this has been replied to 1000 times forgive my slowness. I only entered the Harry Potter world a month or so ago. I haven't "read" the books but I have all 4 audiobooks. I was drawn in and now like my neighbor...I've become a Potterhead. I can't wait for the next book. ~*~*~* Gabriel wrote: ">>I also suspect that Ron may have so many brothers to set him up as a seventh son (Molly and Arthur would have only have had to lose one child, and it would explain the "mortal peril" clock).<< Anyone remember whether Bill and Charlie are still listed on the clock, even though they don't live at home any more? Didn't it mention "all" the Weasleys being on it?" The Weasly clock does have all of them on it...7 kids...2 adults. It makes sense to me to have 'mortal peril' listed for all kids including those not living at home. Those that don't live at home would have a sort of guardian looking out for them and could get help if needed. I wonder if Ron's name had 'mortal peril' when he was under water in GoF (probably not since he was just charmed by dumbledore) or when he went with Harry and Hermione to look for the Sorcerers Stone. Hmm, if Harry's name was on the clock...he would always have 'mortal peril' pointing at him. ~*~*~* I've seen talk about Professor Snape, Professor McGonagall, and who to blame for Crouch Jr.'s death. I don't thik either of them really had a chance to act before Fudge's Dementor "kissed" Crouch. Fudge is a high ranking official and they have to follow his orders. They might not like it or agree with what he does but to defy him would mean going against MoM. Fudge said he wanted to be "safe" going to see Crouch...isn't he a Wizard too...sheesh, unless he is sorely out of practice I bet if Crouch had started something Snape, McGonagall, and Fudge could have handled it. Instead Fudge in his "Wisdom"...effectively eliminated a key witness in the fight against Voldemort. ~*~*~* One more thing...I think one possilbe reason to send Harry to the Dursley's each summer instead of having him go to The Weasly's is to have him with family. Even though it is a known fact that Petunia didn't like her sister's magical ways...she IS Harry's aunt by blood. Since Lily and Petunia are sisters, share the same bloodline...Harry would be safe in her care because of his blood. Make sense? Harry might not have been treated well or given the best things...he was safe from harm (for the most part). I think Dumbledore did the right thing...he knew that Harry would be safe (although the Dursley's made it more difficult by denying Harry knowledge of who he is and who his parents were). ~*~*~* These are my thoughts and opinions based on what I've heard/read so far and I will add more thoughts as I finish the other digests. Hmm...I have a feeling I'm going to need a notebook to keep all the facts straight. ;o) Kim From Edblanning at aol.com Mon Jan 21 12:29:39 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 07:29:39 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Wizarding justice/Fidelius/Lily/qualifications/underwear Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33822 In a message dated 20/01/02 18:43:52 GMT Standard Time, christi0469 at hotmail.com writes: > Sorry, but I have to correect you on that point. "Oh, I know Crouch > all right" [Sirius] said quietly. "He was the one who gave the order > fir me to be sent to Azkaban-without a trail." Thank you, Christi. I had a vague memory that he had no trial, but was confused by Dumbledore saying that the had testified to the MoM about Sirius being the secret keeper. Mjollner writes, >One more element to consider when pondering the whole Fidelius Charm >morass: according to the Shrieking Shack scene toward the end of PoA, >Sirius thought Remus was spying for Voldemort (and vice versa), which >was why Sirius wanted to change the Secret-Keeper in the first >place. Good point. I had thought they only suspected each other *after* James and Lily were killed. On the other hand why did Sirius suspect Remus and yet have confidence in Pettigrew? I've just been reading Susanna's latest piece on Lily. I was just wondering, do we know that James and Lily actually had a relationship whilst still at school ( I did look up the Lexicon) or could the romance have started later? Terrilyn is concerned, as some of the rest of us are, at the lack of certain subjects (English/Maths) on the curriculum. Could I combine this with the recent speculation on wizards having jobs in the muggle world? The lack of certain skills which are necessary in the muggle world would make things very difficult. I wonder how they are to get muggle jobs at all as for all but the most menial of jobs, employers are likely to want evidence of educational qualifications. I don't see OWLs and NEWTs counting for much. ('No, sorry, I don't have any GCSEs, but I got top grades in Transfiguration and Charms.') I'm also very glad I haven't been the only person to speculate on what goes on under those robes. In PoA, Harry seems to put on a T-shirt between taking off his school robes and putting on his Quidditch robes and in the Final the Wood orders the Gryffindor team into their changing rooms (plural), so they definitely don't seem to be simply replacing one top layer with another. Snape's garb in the film was IMO dictated by the repeated descriptions of his robes billowing: a gown type robe won't do that, nor could he stride around in such a manner as to cause it. Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lav at tut.by Mon Jan 21 12:47:58 2002 From: lav at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 14:47:58 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Some more thoughts about Lily and the Marauders In-Reply-To: <20020121103133.33219.qmail@web14704.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20020121103133.33219.qmail@web14704.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8415383604.20020121144758@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 33823 Greetings! > Susanna wrote to us: p> Hi all, p> first of all, my apologies to Lily- fans, but I have to p> get this off my mind. p> (... a lot of introductory text skipped ...) p> OK, so according to these assumptions, we have four young p> men none of whom is in a stable realationship, there p> might be the occasional flirt but nothing serious, and p> then there comes LILY. Lily who takes up a lot of James's p> time, who wants to see him without his friends being p> around, making smooching noises and comments like "Get a p> room" when they kiss, Lily who doesn't appreciate their p> "boys' talk"... IMHO it's strange that you demonstrate such prejudice to Lily. There could easily be nothing of that. The scenario you paint is only possible if it's more important for Lily to "own" James than anything else. But are your assumptions based on *anything*? Lily in your description looks like a woman who doesn't know what a friendship is. But even more, James looks like he doesn't understand what is happening and is simply led away from his friends by "that woman". Unlikely scenario. Unless there was indeed a romantic interest involved from other members of their gang, I would say that it's more likely for Lily to be accepted within their gang as fifth member. p> Interesting to think of the reactions of the other 3, p> isn't it? At first, maybe they dismiss her as a mere p> flirt among many others. Then things become obviously p> more serious and Sirius, Peter and Remus start getting p> worried. Perhaps there's some teasing ("Hey, prongs, p> we'll call you Bambi from now on, you've gone all p> soft!"), and when teasing doesn't have any effect, p> there's some talking reason into James ("James, for God's p> sake, we're only 16 years old, this is not the time to p> form a lasting relationship, it's the time for having p> fun! Give it a try and get out of Lily's clutches!"). Or they just understand their friend feelings. Personally I would expect _this_ from Sirius and Remus at least. p> (... a lot of text skipped ...) p> Susanna/pigwidgeon37 My question is: why to suggest the worse? Lily proved to be a woman capable to sacrifice her life out of love. I simply cannot imagine her to act the way you have described. And anyway we simply lack the facts to make such quick assumptions. I have always preferred the "presumed innocent" approach... Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, (Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed), always happy to throw weird ideas into the community. From vmadams at att.net Mon Jan 21 09:23:46 2002 From: vmadams at att.net (torimarie_1216) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 09:23:46 -0000 Subject: Another werewolf question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33824 ---Marina J. wrote: > Why on earth hasn't someone charmed Lupin in all this > time??? Well, I'm all for Sirius showing off his magical muscles in > any and all opportunities, but why not Hermione herself? Good questions! I really wish I had an answer for the first one, but I don't. Maybe it just hasn't occured to anyone yet that this is a possibility for Lupin? But then, I could hardly believe that of Dumbledore. Very little seems to ever escape his notice. Or maybe it's one or both of these other factors: A) In order to learn the charm and how to do it correctly, they have to actually find that old Armenian warlock, which must be like trying to find a needle in a haystack B) It takes Dark Magic to break the memory charm and Dumbledore and the others opposing Voldy haven't had enough reason to justify this until now. I still don't particularly like that idea, because it gets into alot of moral and ethical priority setting that makes my head spin. ;-) For instance, they might think it's wrong to use the Dark Magic to break a memory charm in order to cure a werewolf just to give the werewolf a better life and protect the people around him. But if that werewolf had the ability and the willingness to defeat Voldy and protect the world from *him*, using the Dark Forces for *this* greater good is perfectly acceptable. Does that make any sense? I'm not necessarily saying that is my opinion, but am just tossing it out there as a possibility. About Hermione being the one to do it, I agree that she is perfectly capable of learning and doing such advanced magic. The biggest reason I would have for thinking it might not happen that way has to do with her own safety. It would be pretty dangerous for her to be that close to a werewolf during the full moon. The Wolfsbane potion makes him safer, but it still seems to be pretty risky. >I definitely think Hermione is more than > capable of researching and learning a Homorphus Charm-- after all, > she was the one who researched and did most of the preparation for > the Polyjuice Potion I agree. I just wonder if Sirius would be called upon to perform it, as he is an adult and Lupin's old friend, thus wouldn't be in as great danger as Hermione > And, she learned Lockhart's books by heart, though perhaps > not for scholastic reasons. *Grin*! Yes indeed! I only wonder that she hasn't thought of it yet. Perhaps she was too busy drawing little hearts around his name in her schedule! ;-) > I wonder if the Homorphus Charm has to be performed while the person > is in the werewolf state? If so, Snape's wolfsbane potion would come > in handy. It probably does, in which case I would call Wolfsbane Potion a necessary ingredient to the plan. >Also, I wonder who exactly was the "ugly old Armenian" > .... maybe a Durmstrang graduate? Well spotted! I hadn't even thought of that. And you know, that could tie in with Hermione too. I don't know if she is going to go to Krum's house over holiday, but even if he just writes to her, there might be some reference of his that starts those wheels in her brain turning--and I do believe that once those wheels get going, there's just no stopping them! --Tori, who is tickled pink to be talking about this with others who "get it"! From feycat at feycat.net Mon Jan 21 14:31:38 2002 From: feycat at feycat.net (Gabriel Edson) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 09:31:38 -0500 Subject: Sirius/Peter Secret-Keeper Workings References: Message-ID: <00a401c1a288$56267f20$0b01a8c0@enet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33825 From: cindysphynx >>(2) was the Potters' location only a secret from Voldemort and DEs or was it secret from everyone except Pettigrew, and if so, what caused Sirius and Dumbledore to find the Potters' bodies? << >>On the second question (how did Dumbledore and Sirus know that the Potters had been killed and where they were), how about this? << My theory is that the Fideleus Charm becomes null and void once it is broken - or alternately, once the Secrets are dead. Ergo, when Sirius and Dumbledore suddenly remembered where the Potters were... they knew the jig was up. 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 blpurdom at yahoo.com Mon Jan 21 14:55:18 2002 From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 14:55:18 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Tuition In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33826 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Jennifer Boggess Ramon wrote: > At 8:27 PM +0000 1/16/02, Hollydaze wrote: > >This is an edited copy of two posts I sent to another HP site > >about why I feel that Hogwarts does not require tuition and is a > >public school: > > > >(During this post I refer to Public and Private schools as > >Americans would -even though I'm British- to avoid confusion) > > I think it's actually roughly equivalent to the Governor's > Academies here in the US - funded by the government, but at a > higher level than the local school districts, you pay for supplies > and some of your board but not tuition or rooming, you live at the > school except for holidays. I suspect that most of its funding > comes from an initial endowment by the Founders, well-managed by > the Board of Directors. I think the tuition situation is slightly different than everybody pays or no one pays. Hagrid clearly refers to removing enough money from Harry's vault to pay for a few terms. And the Weasleys certainly had a lot of children to put through school; the year Ginny started, they had five. And let's not forget that Tom Riddle lived in an orphanage. I think that it's most likely that there's a sliding scale for tuition, based upon what each family can afford. And if the person in question has no money (Riddle) then they are on full scholarship. (And Riddle must have needed help purchasing his supplies and robes, as well.) A sliding scale would certainly explain how the Weasleys afforded school for their five younger children. (They obviously made use of the hand-me-down system to save money on supplies.) Harry isn't in the position of needing financial assistance for his tuition or supplies because he has that vault of gold. I don't believe the Board of Governors offers assistance to students who can afford to pay. --Barb Chapter 14 of the Last Temptation is up...Are you tempted? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HP_Psych http://schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb From lee_hillman at urmc.rochester.edu Mon Jan 21 16:12:46 2002 From: lee_hillman at urmc.rochester.edu (Hillman, Lee) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 11:12:46 -0500 Subject: Werewolves and related topics Message-ID: <95774A6A6036D411AFEA00D0B73C864303B0577D@exmc3.urmc.rochester.edu> No: HPFGUIDX 33827 Hello. Eloise addressed whether Remus could have been suffering from the aftereffects of a transformation on the train. The moon calendars I have consulted showed a full moon on 1st September, 1993, the same day they were supposedly on the train. I believe that Rowling has admitted to "adjusting" the date of the full moon in PoA to account for this problem; she moved it back one night to 31 August. Thus he was supposedly tired and sleeping it off in the compartment. However, there is also credence to the theory that he was specifically guarding Harry against potential danger on the train and was really not asleep the whole time. The kids put their luggage on board and then left the train again, giving Lupin a window during which he could have climbed aboard, found the compartment, and taken his place there. It's not clear whether it was coincidence that they returned to the same compartment, whether he chose it because he recognized Harry earlier, or whether their luggage was labelled, but for whatever reason, he happened to be there when they returned, and I think it's more by design than happenstance. I believe that he was asleep for parts of the time, but that he was not "deeply" asleep. That is, he was dozing and resting, but listening as well. Cindy said about the Government regulation of werewolves: > > I'd be very surprised if these government agencies are actually > supportive of werewolves. We have the Werewolf Capture Unit, the > Werewolf Registry, Werewolf Support Services, and the Werewolf Code > of Conduct. Canon is unclear, but I always assumed that these lovely > agency names were cover for what is really going on: state-sponsored > harrassment of and discrimination against werewolves. > First of all, I'd like to point out that the Werewolf Code of Conduct dates back to 1637, whereas the Werewolf Registry (in Britain) was not adopted until 1947. There is nothing to suggest that the Ministry didn't have offices to deal with werewolves prior to 1947, in fact, I'd say they must have had for their existence, but it's unlikely that the current offices have remained unchanged for that whole time. OTOH, this is the Ministry, but bureaucracy being what it is, I think these things developed over time. It's also not clear whether these offices are unique to Britain; personally, I think the Code of Conduct is more universal, but that the ways Ministries deal with werewolves is decentralised. Catlady de Los Angeles wrote: > Scamander wrote that the Capture Unit and the Registry were in the > Division of Beasts while the office of Support Services was in the > Division of Beings. I expect Support Services DOES provide some > support, perhaps paid prescriptions for Wolfsbane Potion. Perhaps > instead of prescriptions, the poor werewolves have to go to the > Support Services offices to take each dose under "direct observation" > (how humiliating). Then if someone did FORGET to take hiser Potion, > the Capture Unit could be immediately sent after himer. (In > that case, Dumbledore got Lupin a pass to be at Hogwarts instead.) > Wolfsbane is such a relatively new invention, I don't think the Support Services Office would take responsibility for supplying it to werewolves, either free of charge or for a fee. I've been working on what I think the Ministry regulations about werewolves look like. Essentially, I believe that they are designed to protect the werewolf's basic rights while in human form, while at the same time providing safety measures and keeping tabs on the werewolves. For example, a werewolf must come up with some safe place to undergo transformations--note that I think it is the werewolf's responsibility, not the Ministry's, to find a place for this purpose. The Support Services Office sends a caseworker to inspect that transformation area a minimum of once per year. Similarly, I believe that the werewolf must update the registry office on things like change of address or other status changes, like employer or marital status. I think the offices have a near-zero tolerance policy for lack of compliance with any regulations, simply because of the safety factor. However, I do NOT believe that the Ministry takes any official hardline approach except as it affects the safety of "innocent" wizards and witches. For example, let me summarize the policies I drafted to cover family situations. First of all, if the werewolf is married and/or a parent at the time he is bitten, he will not be forcibly removed from the family without due cause. However, if a werewolf is bitten and subsequently wishes to marry or have children, there are administrative procedures to which he must submit. For a start, his proposed fiancee must sign a statement on file with the offices to the effect that she knows he is a werewolf and also attesting to the purpose for the match. This isn't necessarily to interfere in their union (although it could easily be used to harrass them), but merely to ensure that the werewolf cannot legally marry without his spouse-to-be understanding or even knowing what he is. As far as children, according to my regulations, werewolves by law are considered unfit parents. That is, they cannot retain sole custody of children--there must be some other designated primary caretaker. By extension, they cannot adopt or be used as legal guardians (which explains why Remus could not have been Harry's godfather, even had he been clear of suspicion from James and Sirius). Two werewolves may marry, but may not be the primary caretakers of their own offspring (I'm also assuming that werewolves are bitten, never born). The way I've viewed these regulations is to conclude that a. the Ministry will do the minimum necessary to support werewolves; b. the Ministry acknowledges that most of the time, werewolves are perfectly reasonable people, but understands that there are risks involved that could become public safety factors; c. the Ministry has no wish to disrupt or otherwise take any active part in the daily lives of werewolves except where necessary; d. the Ministry will act quickly and definitively to suppress any werewolf who appears to be in danger of going "rogue" and thus creating more of his kind. Advances like Wolfsbane may be adapted into the current system, but as catlady suggests, I believe the werewolf must apply for a waiver or otherwise prove that he has a reliable source of the potion. Again, the onus is on the afflicted person, not proactive from the government. I don't think there's any kind of dole system for werewolves, any more than there seems to be welfare for regular wizards, witches, or Squibs who are down on their luck. As for the Homorphus Charm, I think that anything Lockhart says must be regarded with extreme suspicion. If it exists at all, I think it's likely true that it only lasts momentarily. Of course, I'm not at all certain his account can be believed at all, since even the ugly Armenian would have been putting himself at great risk to wrestle with the creature while it was in beast form. One nip and he'd be in the same boat. I think this is one of the most bogus and unbelievable claims of Lockhart's many bogus and unbelievable claims. Gwen From lee_hillman at urmc.rochester.edu Mon Jan 21 16:57:28 2002 From: lee_hillman at urmc.rochester.edu (Hillman, Lee) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 11:57:28 -0500 Subject: Which Beasts did Hagrid Crossbreed? Message-ID: <95774A6A6036D411AFEA00D0B73C864303B05783@exmc3.urmc.rochester.edu> No: HPFGUIDX 33828 I was talking to a young friend of mine yesterday, and he asked me two questions about information in Fantastic Beasts. One is a theory we've heard before: that Lethifolds who consume humans turn into Dementors. The second was a very good question (with a very good answer!) that amazed me because we've never asked it on this list before. Trust inquisitive ten-year-olds! His question was, "Which two beasts did Hagrid crossbreed to make Blast-Ended Skrewts?" And his answer was, Mackled Malaclaws and Fire Crabs. I think he's definitely right about the Firecrabs, but I'm not sure what it was about the Malaclaws that made him think they were the other creature. Are there other creatures either mentioned in the books or from conventional mythology that, if combined with a Fire Crab, could produce a Skrewt? Gwen From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Mon Jan 21 16:53:38 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 16:53:38 -0000 Subject: Snape, Draco, Slytherins, and choosing sides Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33829 Okay, I'm new here, so please bear with me. I've been reading the current threads about Snape, and how evil he was or wasn't in his DE days, and I thought I'd share my own thoughts about what might've happened (and what might still happen). First of all, given the timeline, it's pretty clear that Snape and his friends had to be very young when they sided with Voldemort -- in their early twenties at most, but more likely still teenagers. At the time, the wizarding world was dividing into two sides: the "Light Side," represented by Dumbledore and his crowd; and the "Dark Side," represented by Voldemort and his crew. Dumbledore's side would've been vocally and enthusiastically supported by James, Sirius and most other Gryffindors -- in other words, by all the people Snape and the Slytherins hated. So it would've seemed perfectly reasonable for the Slytherins to join up on the other sides. Most of them probably had no idea what real evil was, or what it's like to kill or torture somebody. To young people, evil often seems glamorous until they actually try it. Snape probably thought that because he was intelligent and ruthless and knew a lot of hexes, he had what it takes to be a DE. But it takes real evil to be a DE, and he doesn't have that in him. Now some of the Slytherins -- Like Lucius and the Lestranges -- turned out to be genuinely evil; some were probably brainwashed; and some regretted their choice but were too terrified to do anything about it. The thing that makes Snape such a strong characer to me is that he apparently regretted his choice and then had the guts to actually do something about it. What worries me about my past scenario is that I think it's about to repeat itself with Draco and the current crop of Slytherins. We don't know yet if there's any real evil in Draco, or if he's just parroting what Daddy taught him, but I'm willing to bet that if he had to choose sides right now, he'd choose whatever side Harry Potter wasn't on. The house culture at Hogwarts is practically designed to guarantee that most of the Slytherins will end up on the Dark Side, especially with the added push of their parents' encouragement, and nobody seems particularly interesting in changing that. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jan 21 17:01:06 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 17:01:06 -0000 Subject: Wand question In-Reply-To: <00ef01c1a25d$e36b41c0$f2c71bce@hppav> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33830 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Eric Oppen" wrote: > One thing I want to know is this: If a wizard or witch has their wand broken (as happened to Hagrid) what's preventing him from getting a replacement somewhere? << Perhaps the wand itself has something to do with it. Perhaps some rather complex magic has to be done to sever the bond between the user and the old wand before it is broken or discarded. Maybe a new wand won't choose you if there is still a bond with your old one. I wonder about Narcissa going to look at wands in SS/PS. Does she care more about the appearance of her wand than its magical properties? If she is a sort of trophy witch she might regard it as beneath her to do her own magic. Maybe her House Elves and servants do it all. I imagine it is the spellwork more than the raw ingredients which make wands difficult to manufacture, though all the animals are noted in FB as difficult to catch. It could be that when Hagrid says, "only place for wands, Ollivander's" he is telling the literal truth: Ollivander's really is the only place in the British Isles to get a wand. Would Hagrid have been able to use his father's wand? What _does_ > happen to a wizard's wand when he dies? I assume that stage magicians adopted from wizards the custom of snapping the wand in two at the funeral and placing it in the coffin to be buried. If this was done when Hagrid's father died, of course the wand wouldn't be available. Pippin From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com Mon Jan 21 17:06:42 2002 From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 11:06:42 -0600 Subject: Some more thoughts about Lily, Remus, Sirius References: <20020121103133.33219.qmail@web14704.mail.yahoo.com> <8415383604.20020121144758@tut.by> Message-ID: <3C4C4AA2.CE35D7F0@kingwoodcable.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33831 pigwidgeonthirtyseven wrote: > >>3) There is even more incertainty about Lily's house, it is not less possible that she was a Gryffindor than a Slytherin etc. Anyway, unless we doubt what JKR said about the Marauders' and Snape's age, which we don't have any reason to do, and if the assumption of Harry' first year at Hogwarts being 1991 is correct, Lily and James necessarily had to get together while still at school. (I know we have been through this already, but it's better to make clear which point I'm departing from)<< First to clarify... Lily was in Gryffindor. Rowling says this in on of her Scholastic interviews, and it's referenced in the Lexicon. pigwidgeonthirtyseven wrote: > >> OK, so according to these assumptions, we have four young men none of whom is in a stable realationship, there might be the occasional flirt but nothing serious, and then there comes LILY. Lily who takes up a lot of James's time, who wants to see him without his friends being around, making smooching noises and comments like "Get a room" when they kiss, Lily who doesn't appreciate their "boys' talk"... Interesting to think of the reactions of the other 3, isn't it? At first, maybe they dismiss her as a mere flirt among many others. Then things become obviously more serious and Sirius, Peter and Remus start getting worried. Perhaps there's some teasing ("Hey, prongs, we'll call you Bambi from now on, you've gone all soft!"), and when teasing doesn't have any effect, there's some talking reason into James ("James, for God's sake, we're only 16 years old, this is not the time to form a lasting relationship, it's the time for having fun! Give it a try and get out of Lily's clutches!"). > This doesn't work either and all of a sudden, James finds himself in a big dilemma: Either he gives in to his friends and loosens the ties with Lily a bit, or he has to tell them once and for all that his relationship with Lily is now on top of his priority list.<< then Alexander responded: > IMHO it's strange that you demonstrate such prejudice to > Lily. There could easily be nothing of that. The scenario > you paint is only possible if it's more important for Lily > to "own" James than anything else. > But are your assumptions based on *anything*? Lily in your > description looks like a woman who doesn't know what a > friendship is. But even more, James looks like he doesn't > understand what is happening and is simply led away from his > friends by "that woman". > Unlikely scenario. Unless there was indeed a romantic > interest involved from other members of their gang, I would > say that it's more likely for Lily to be accepted within > their gang as fifth member. I have to admit that Susanna's analysis took me by surprise, and I'm in complete agreement with Alexander because of my experience groping up. Perhaps our own experience clouds our view of Lily (whom we really know nothing about)? When I was growing up, I wasn't considered "that woman". I was fully accepted into my bf's circle at the time, along with various other girls who came through. The guys didn't seem to have much of a problem, and were quite respectful for each other when a couple wanted to have a private night out. It's possible that my group of highschool/boyfriend friends had their guy talk, but if you peeked in, you'd find that the girl they picked as girlfriends had similar interests...car racing, watching football, and the occasional porta-potty tipping. If the girls didn't enjoy that kind of stuff, the couple just didn't join for that night. I guess I'm just taken aback by Lily being painted at the fifth wheel and trying to boss James around and tell him what he can and can't do with his friends. I just don't see anything in the canon that reflects this type of personality in Lily. My husband has a much closer groups of friends, and they are very much the same way. They accepted me with open arms (I moved out here...so I knew and didn't know anyone). So I find it unusual to pain Lily as the bad person who tried to steal James away. My impression is that Lily and James were both liked at Hogwarts, and Sirius and Remus (not sure about Peter...cause he just follows) accepted her as another friend. pigwidgeonthirtyseven wrote: > >>Anyway, isn't it at least a little strange that neither Sirius nor Remus ever talk about her to Harry? Certainly, Sirius is Harry's godfather and was Best Man at the wedding, but then we don't know whose choice that was or whether Lily was happy with it or not.<< First...it's the groom's choice of who his best man will be (at least in the US). And it is the bride's choice of who will be her maid/matron of honor (how do we know that James didn't like Lily's choice?). Second...Remus *never* mentioned James to Harry until Harry mentioned him first, and then Remus still doesn't give a whole lot of detail. No Remus, didn't acknowledge Lily, when he said "You heard James?" But his lack of talking about Lily might be because HArry didn't ask. Harry only asked "You know my father?" It's quite possible that Remus was *not* close to Lily, but that doesn't mean he wanted to cast her out because she was "that woman". Third...We need to either expand the analysis of S & R's lack of speaking about Lily to include James in that as well, or not use that analysis at all. Neither of them speak about Lily *or* James, so I don't think we can use this against Lily. They also only seem to speak bout James when asked...no questions have been asked about Lily, which seems to be the reason they don't speak about her. -Katze From cindysphynx at home.com Mon Jan 21 17:10:29 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 17:10:29 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and related topics In-Reply-To: <95774A6A6036D411AFEA00D0B73C864303B0577D@exmc3.urmc.rochester.edu> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33832 Gwen wrote: > However, there is also credence to the theory that he was specifically > guarding Harry against potential danger on the train and was really not > asleep the whole time. The kids put their luggage on board and then left the > train again, giving Lupin a window during which he could have climbed > aboard, found the compartment, and taken his place there. It's not clear > whether it was coincidence that they returned to the same compartment, > whether he chose it because he recognized Harry earlier, or whether their > luggage was labelled, but for whatever reason, he happened to be there when > they returned, and I think it's more by design than happenstance. > > I believe that he was asleep for parts of the time, but that he was not > "deeply" asleep. That is, he was dozing and resting, but listening as well. > I've read the arguments that Lupin's presence in the train compartment was not an accident, and I understand that many people believe he was sent there to protect Harry. I suppose that is possible, but there is one thing that still bothers me. Why would he pretend to be asleep? I mean, why not just be upfront about why he is there? He could walk up to Harry, introduce himself, say that he's going to keep an eye out for Sirius Black and dementors. Perhaps he was really asleep (or dozing and resting intermittently). If he was sent there to protect Harry, Lupin doesn't seem like the type to fall asleep on the job, even for a minute, no matter how tired he is. So can anyone explain why Lupin would participate in this ruse of pretending to sleep if he was really sent there to protect Harry? I should disclose up front that I have always been in the camp of people who believe Lupin was on the train because he was ill and exhausted and/or cannot afford more luxurious means of transport. He had chocolate on him because he is careful and always prepared and knew they might encounter dementors because dementors had been sent to Hogsmeade and would be guarding the school. He wound up in Harry's train cabin because he was looking for a place where he could relax in peace and the other cabins were full of noisy students. Any thoughts? Cindy From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Mon Jan 21 17:13:12 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 17:13:12 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Harry_Potter=96A_Worthwhile_series=3F=3F?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33833 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "kimballs6" wrote: > Much debate is swirling around the Harry Potter books versus > C.S. Lewis's and Tolkien's stories. Many argue that these > books are all similar--just fantasy, pure and simple. I disagree. > They are fantasies (Lewis going into allegory), but that is where > the similarity ends. After reading the first book in the Potter > series, reading The Hobbit, and brushing up on The Lion, the > Witch and the Wardrobe, I see a tremendous gulf between > Rowling and the other two writers. This paper discusses the > difference between their world views and the incredible gulf > between writing abilities. Thanks for your interesting paper. This is, actually, the real reason I spend so much time talking and writing about HP. In fact, I'm working on an article which I hope I can get published on the whole "world view" question, in relation to Tolkien primarily (but with reference to Lewis.) > MS. ROWLING'S WORLD VIEW: > > Rowling presents an arbitrary world in which good and evil are > simply two sides of the same sorcery--the "Dark Side" and the > other side, although no name is ever given for it. I think the Star Wars analogy is rather imprecice. In Star Wars, there is ONE "force", of which there is a dark side, and a light side. In HP, there is no comparable "force". Magic is not a "force, energy etc." (all the keywords used in Star Wars-like phenomenomen(sp?)) Magic is another one of the laws of nature, like gravity, conservation of energy etc. Therefore, good and evil are not, in Harry Potter, two sides of magic. Magic has no moral attributes in itself, just as gravity has none. It is tool with which bad and good things can be done. I can use gravity to push someone off a building or to drop food parcels into a starving country, but no-one would therefore say, "Eileen presents an arbitrary world in which good and evil are simply two sides of the same gravity." Harry's reference to the "dark side" was colloquial. That phrase is now part of the population's vocabulary. I hear people talking about "going over to the dark side" at least once a week in non-Star Wars related discussions. It means "becoming evil". Anyway, other people have all ready written excellent responses. I especially was interested in Kimberly's post, with her reference to Rahab, something I had missed, I must admit, in the Old Testament's attitude to lying. But being a major Tolkien fan, I'd like to adress your points in light of his work. I'm wondering if you've read much Tolkien, if you're basing your analysis on "The Hobbit". And, of course, you're only familiar with the first HP book. So, what I have to say may not strike you as particularily interesting...... But, bear with me. > First, breaking rules is glorified: "Hermione had become a bit > more relaxed about breaking rules since Harry and Ron had > saved her from the mountain troll, and she was much nicer for > it." But when Malfoy or other "Slytherins" break rules, they are > punished--to the cheers of Harry and his gang. At one point > Harry is told not to ride on his broom. When he does, instead of > any punishment, he is rewarded with a berth on the Quidditch > team. Somehow it is a terrible thing for Hagrid to break the rules > and raise a forbidden dragon, yet honorable for the students to > break the rules and explore the forbidden areas of the school. > (Actually, it is not honorable for Malfoy to break the rules, only > Hermione and Harry--if they feel the need.) Let's look at this in light of Tolkien. The success of the quest depends again and again (and this is heavily emphasized) on rule-breaking. Eomer breaks the law of his king, and almost pays for it with his life, to aid Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas. Then, the doorwarden breaks the law against carrying weapons into the Golden Hall, by letting Gandalf take his staff. I particularly like this passage, because it emphasizes that laws and rules must bend to discretion. The doorwarden pronounces that he does not think they mean evil, and lets them in, to the detriment of Wormtongue, but to the salvation of Theoden, Eomer, Eowyn, Rohan, and eventually, Gondor. Meanwhile, Frodo and Sam are detained by Faramir, and they discover there is a law demanding he either kill them, or take them as prisoners to Minas Tirith. He makes his own choice, however, and lets them go on to Mordor, to great personal cost in his relationship with his father. Eowyn and Merry disregard direct orders to ride to Minas Tirith, and though a case could be made that Eowyn shouldn't have (she was, after all, in command at Dunharrow, and she was technically deserting her post), there seems to be no reason for Merry not to sneak around, and neither are reproached for doing so. Instead, they become the great heroine and hero of the day! While the battle is going on, Pippin and Beregond defy the highest authority in the city, and Beregond kills innocent people who blindly follow Denethor's orders to bring fire for his pyre. In the Hobbit, Bilbo negotiates for peace by stealing Thorin's most prized heirloom, lying about it, and giving it to Thorin's enemies. No wonder Thorin wanted to throw him off the battlement, but we are obviously meant to agree with Bilbo. On the other hand, rule-breaking can be bad, as one look at Sauron will tell you......... Then, there is other rule-breaking which is not EVIL, but which is not really good. You haven't got far enough in the Prisoner of Azkaban to realize that Rowling is beginning to come down very hard on Harry's unnecessary lying and rule-breaking, just as Tolkien comes down on Bilbo's lies about the Ring to his friends (and, please, no-one say it wasn't Bilbo's fault. The whole question of how much Tolkien's characters are at fault for their actions is already tricky enough.... ) > Second, Rowling leaves the option of lying up to the individual, > and even glorifies it. If Harry needs to lie, he simply will: "When > facing a magic mirror, Harry thinks desperately, `I must lie,..I > must look and lie about what I see, that's all.'" This is an old classic, but it always clarifies thought. (We have a policy against Holocaust comparisons, right? But this isn't really a comparison, it's a standard out of young peoples' theology and philosophy textbooks.) "You are hiding Jews in your house. The Gestapo come in and say, "Are you hiding Jews here?" "Yes" or "No." Do you lie? "Yes" would be despicable. Keeping silence would be practically the same as, "Yes." and "No" would be lying. Which do you choose? > Rowling sometimes > glorifies lying, and other times doesn't consider it as an option. > Rowling appears confused on the issue of lying. But it's like that in Tolkien too. Deception and lying are sometimes honoured. Beren and Finrod Felagund disguise themselves as orcs, and pass themselves off as such to Sauron. They only drop the deception when Sauron asks for them to deny everything they love and believe in. This is a good example of where lying and can be "glorified" vs. "not considered as an option". It was praiseworthy of Tolkien's heroes to engage in the deception, but they would not "blaspheme". Other liars include Gandalf, who insists his staff is just a stick, when it's a dangerous weapon, and he's about to use it. Merry and Pippin, who save their own lives, by lying about having the Ring. > Finally, concerning the adult world, or those who would be in > authority, there is only derision. No. I think you would have to look hard to find any derision regarding McGonagall and Dumbledore. Later on, the series becomes more about the adult world (to the point now where the child's world almost seems to be crowded out) and we are seeing adults and authority from the points of respect, pity, and repulsion (for example, the slavery issue in Book IV). >All the teachers at Hogwarts are either dirty, deranged, deceitful, or all three. Dirty? As in "dirty jokes" or "with mud on their clothes"? Can't see much evidence for the first, and I'm not against people gardening either. What you use to wash your hair is your own business, even if the results aren't good. (/me thinks of Snape) Quirrel is definitely deranged and deceitful, being the bad guy, but I can't see any evidence for the other teachers being so. > "Honestly, Hermione, you > think all teachers are saints or something..." Are all teachers saints, from your experience? Are all figures of authority good? Do politicians come clothed in immaculate white? Tolkien understood this well, and his books include many figures of authority who are not "saints." Denethor, equivalent in his world to the President of the United States, has to be defied (even before he becomes completely unhinged), just as Harry is going to defy Fudge, the Minister of Magic. >and when referring > to late notices for library books, Rowling writes: "He [Harry] > didn't belong to the library, so he'd never even got rude notes > asking for books back." Is it really `rude' to remind a person of a > commitment he has made? You must have a nice library where you live. Ours is incredibly rude. They insinuate you are trying to steal the books if they're a day overdue, they install beepers which go off at your textbooks etc. The rudeness is a strategy employed to make sure people don't let their commitments lapse, so it is understandable (sort of) but imho, morally questionable. "Who gives libraries the right to treat people like dirt?" OTOH, our public library is very polite, probably b/c they've figured out that my fines are a valuable source of their income! >When presenting the adult human > world, Ms. Rowling presents it in such a ridiculously negative > light that it becomes completely unrealistic and even offensive. > All adults are foolish, bungling, stupid and boringly > unimaginative. Why would a child ever look up to them or need > them in any way? Not all adults in HP. But the portrayal of figures in a derisive fashion is not at odds with Tolkien, for one thing. What about Lotho "Pimple" Sackville-Baggins. And don't you think it hurt Grima's feelings to be referred to as "Wormtongue"? After all, he is Theoden's chief advisor. Shouldn't the people of Rohan respect him because of that? Instead, Eomer comes in and calls him "vile names" and, when we hear of it, we cheer him on. > In contrast, Lewis and Tolkien present a world where truth is > absolute and transcends the individual. Because the world has > absolute truth, it is also a world in which order is upheld as an > honorable characteristic for which to strive. Good and evil are > two distinct things, with the rewards and consequences for the > characters' choices reflecting absolute values. And finally, > adults can be good or evil, and the good are presented with > nobility of character. I don't see this differs from HP, actually. The difficulty in discerning truth does not mean truth is not absolute and transcendent. > First, C.S. Lewis presents truth as absolute and transcendent. > Even Aslan and the Witch are bound by the ancient laws. When > seeking what she claims is rightfully hers, the witch says to > Aslan: "You at least know the magic which the Emperor put into > Narnia at the very beginning. You know that every traitor belongs > to me as my lawful prey and that for every treachery I have a right > to a kill." When Susan begs Aslan to work against the `Deep > Magic,' C.S. Lewis writes: "`Work against the Emperor's magic?' > said Aslan turning to her with something like a frown on his face. > And nobody ever made that suggestion to him again." Even > Aslan and the Witch are bound by the laws of the Emperor. Which are the laws of human life. How are Harry Potter and the the others not bound by them, as well? In fact, as a human, you are intrinsically bound by them. The background behind this Narnia passage, is that Aslan is an allegorized Jesus, and it corresponds to the temptations of Christ. > Second, respect for order is a part of a Judeo-Christian world > view. Consider the general anarchy encouraged at Hogwarts, > when the students sing the school song: "`Everyone pick their > favorite tune,' said Dumbledore, `and off we go!'..... Everybody > finished the song at different times... and when they had > finished, he [Dumbledore] was one of those who clapped > loudest." Compare this to Aslan's words after Peter kills the > White Witch's Wolf: "`Hand it [Peter's sword] to me and kneel, > Son of Adam,' said Aslan. And when Peter had done so he > struck him with the flat of the blade and said, `Rise up, Sir Peter > Fenris-Bane. And, whatever happens, never forget to wipe your > sword.' Even in the midst of battle there is order. A battle to be compared to a party? Perhaps, you should pick up the Hobbit again for the general anarchy encouraged by Gandalf in Bilbo's house (against that hobbit's will). >Payment is always necessary for > disobedience, In Lewis, maybe, but not in Tolkien, witness Eowyn, Merry, and Pippin. It's one of the reasons why I prefer Tolkien. He's more nuanced and realistic. > In The Hobbit , Bilbo struggles against the pull of evil, sensing > the outcome of his decisions. When he slips the coveted > Arkenstone into his pocket, he knows that he is giving in to his > greedy desires: "All the same he had an uncomfortable feeling > that the picking and choosing had not really been meant to > included this marvellous gem, and that trouble would yet come > of it." Later Bilbo gives up the Arkenstone for the sake of peace, > but "not without a shudder, not without a glance of longing, [he] > handed the marvellous stone to Bard...." Gandalf cheers his > decision: "`Well done! Mr. Baggins!' he said, clapping Bilbo on > the back. `There is always more about you than anyone > expects!'" The internal struggle has been great, yet Bilbo > eventually chooses the good and right. Stealing something that belonged to Thorin, lying about it, betraying his friends, and handing it over to Bard? Bilbo's motives in first taking it were not very noble, but Tolkien's attitude towards all his other actions can be summed up with "Well done! Mr. Baggins!" Wouldn't a more moral ending have been for Bilbo to apologize to Thorin and hand back Thorin's property. I think that Bilbo eventually chooses the good and the right too, but you must admit that it looks more like evil, if you don't know the ins and outs of the situation. There is nothing in Harry Potter, imho, as dubious as this. > Finally, in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, the adults > either have integrity and nobleness, or they stoop to deceit and > treachery. There is no ambiguity in their integrity or lack thereof. In Narnia, what about Tumnus, Koriakin, Caspian (in the Dawn Treader), or Trumpkin? But I promised myself not to get sidetracked on Lewis. Some-one has already posted a delightful comparison of the "Silver Chair" (my favourite Narnia book, not as heavy on the allegory as some of them) and "Harry Potter". I've already shown that ambiguity is Tolkien's middle name, so I'll just throw in a few more names: Smeagol-Gollum, Boromir, even Wormtongue and Saruman. And then, Frodo ends the story by making the most EVIL choice available (though it wasn't his fault). I doubt we'll see Harry Potter in such an ambiguous situation. >And learning from > and submitting to those who have gone before is honored as a > right way to gain wisdom. Harry is learning both, btw. I really think you need to read past PS/SS. > At the beginning of Harry Potter, Harry hates his family, laughing > at their stupidity and dreaming of revenge - "...the largest snake > in the place. It could have wrapped its body twice around Uncle > Vernon's car and crushed it into a trash can...." Not much growth > in maturity has occurred between the first chapter and the last > paragraph. When the other `witchlings' feel sorry for Harry as he > goes back to his nasty family, Harry smiles and says, "They > don't know we're not allowed to use magic at home. I'm going > to have a lot of fun with Dudley this summer...." It's a joke. He doesn't. :-) > In The Hobbit, even Bilbo grows from a timid, somewhat > cowardly Hobbit to a humble yet wise warrior. "Already he was a > very different hobbit from the one that had run out without a > pocket-handkerchief from Bag-End long ago. He had not had a > pocket-handkerchief for ages. He loosened his dagger in its > sheath, tightened his belt, and went on." By Book IV, Harry is a very different person than in Book I. To criticize him for not having changed very much would be like criticizing Bilbo for not having changed very much by the end of the second chapter. And, it must be noted, that neither beginning state is "bad". Bilbo after the quest is better than Bilbo before, but he's the same likeable person. I think the same holds for Harry over the length of the series. > All the characters-- > Harry, Bilbo and the children--are presented as heroes, yet only > Lewis's and Tolkien's live in a world that has true > consequences for right and wrong, and thus only they can truly > grow in excellence. HP has true consequences for right and wrong. But they're not always the simple, easy consequences which Lewis offers up. That's one of the reasons why I don't like Lewis as much as Tolkien. In Book IV, Dumbledore makes a speech to the students urging them to stand up for what is right and good, and the motivation he offers them? Remember a certain character who was killed at the age of 17/18 because he was good, and pure, and innocent! There's no "Do right and you'll become a king or queen of Narnia" at the end. It's "Do right and you may die horribly sometime soon!" in Tolkien it's "Do right and you'll have destroyed everything that you love about life." At times, Lewis gets it, as when Aslan gives the marching orders to Jill about rescuing Prince Rillian, but, except in the Last Battle, the characters never lose anything by doing right. That's why I've never felt many of Lewis's characters were "growing in excellence". It's all way too easy for them, with the exception of Jill, Eustace, and Puddleglum in the "Silver Chair" and, the apocalyptic scenario of "The Last Battle." However, even when there is a threat that things aren't going to turn out well, they still turn out well. HP and Tolkien have moved past this simplistic view and I salute them for it! > Although there are many more avenues that can be explored-- > including witchcraft versus mythology--the preceding points are > enough to show that yes, there is quite a world view gulf > between Rowling and Lewis/Tolkien. They certainly aren't enough. So while I agree with you that monitoring your child's reading is extremely important, I'll continue introducing children to Rowling, along with Lewis and Tolkien. >Ms. Rowling's world view of no absolutes and the flaunting of all > authority and rules carries over into her writing. My mother has gone through our "Prisoner of Azkaban" book, and marked all grammatical errors. Unlike Lewis, whose hold on grammar continues to astonish me, Rowling's grammar is not that good, in fact, it can be down right bad, as you can tell from our "POA" copy. But language changes. One of the places it changes is the singular "they", "their". In fact, in Jane Austen's time, the singular "they", "their" was very common, but grammar purists destroyed it. Again, I salute Rowling for bringing it back again. It's much nicer than having to say "he or her" or "one" all the time. But as for the really bad grammar, is it fair to construct world views out the fact that most of us weren't educated well enough to not mess up the English language? It's not very poorly written. It just has more problems than Lewis. If you want to see "poorly written", check out R.L. Stine. > My copy of Harry Potter > is well marked and even dog-eared, but not because of > inspiring passages or quality writing. Mine is. I especially love Dumbledore's words before the Mirror of Erisd. >Rowling's world view is > not one to immerse a child in if you are seeking to raise him in a > Judeo-Christian ethic. Beyond that, encouraging a child to read > poorly written yet "sensational" literature may produce a child > who can read Harry Potter stories, but it will not produce a > reader. Harry Potter has made readers of quite a few people I know. After years of reading nothing but Star Wars books, a good friend read Harry Potter, and has now read "The Hobbit", "The Lord of the Rings" and is working on "The Silmarillion". The first two had been read to him when he was VERY young, but he had forgotten completely about them, and never took our hints to try them. I found an ethic in HP, similar to Tolkien. Although the second is more powerful than the first, imho, the same spirit drives both (quoting from memory): "Remember, Harry. It is our choices far more than our abilities that determine who we are." and "So do all who live in such times. But that is not their choice. All they can do is choose what to do with the times they are given." Eileen From lee_hillman at urmc.rochester.edu Mon Jan 21 17:50:11 2002 From: lee_hillman at urmc.rochester.edu (gwendolyngrace) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 17:50:11 -0000 Subject: Lupin on the train (WAS: Werewolves and related topics) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33834 Cindy asked: > So can anyone explain why Lupin would participate in this ruse of > pretending to sleep if he was really sent there to protect Harry? First of all, I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. I think he was ill and tired and spent at least some of the trip really resting. As for not introducing himself to Harry. Well, here's a few reasons: 1. He didn't know whether Harry was aware of Sirius Black's a. escape; b. proported targetting of Harry; c. relationship to Harry via James; d. relationship to the rest of the Marauders. Thus, he didn't want to alarm Harry unnecessarily. 2. Here is a rare opportunity to observe Harry without Harry knowing he's being watched. At one time, Remus and James were close friends. Perhaps Lupin wants to see how like James Harry is? Perhaps it amuses him to watch his friend's son without alerting Harry to his knowledge of him? Or 2a. He wants to observe Harry, but is afraid that if he reveals himself to Harry, Harry will begin asking questions he doesn't trust himself to answer (cf the scenes where they're working on Patronus). 3. It's also an opportunity to observe a few of his students without directly influencing them. Which leads to 4. He's respectful of their last hours of freedom and doesn't want to "cramp their style" by being saddled with a teacher's company. He's deliberately minimizing his impact on their behaviour by being there, but not actively participating in anything. Want more? Gwen From christi0469 at hotmail.com Mon Jan 21 17:55:17 2002 From: christi0469 at hotmail.com (christi0469) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 17:55:17 -0000 Subject: Another werewolf question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33835 > >I definitely think Hermione is more than > > capable of researching and learning a Homorphus Charm-- after all, > > she was the one who researched and did most of the preparation for > > the Polyjuice Potion Tori wrote: > I agree. I just wonder if Sirius would be called upon to perform > it, as he is an adult and Lupin's old friend, thus wouldn't be in as > great danger as Hermione > I think it would be more likely that Sirius would be present in dog form in case Lupin had to be controlled. It is unlikely that Sirius would be able to perform the spell as a dog. Hermione's research would be invaluable, but I doubt Lupin, Sirius, and any other adults around would let Hermione actually perform the spell. McGonagall, Flitwick, Dumbledore, Snape, or the new DADA prof would be more likely candidates. The choice of who performs the spell would probably be dependent upon the characteristics of the spell itself and who is more specialized in those characteristics. Christi From bonnie.abrams at cwine.com Mon Jan 21 17:51:12 2002 From: bonnie.abrams at cwine.com (sing2wine) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 17:51:12 -0000 Subject: Ethnicity / Lily & Snape / Hagrid's Competence Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33836 As a newbie, I'm still learning to combine my postings: "JKR has dropped hints about various secondary characters' ethnicity and now portrays them in the exact same way as all the other kids in Hogwarts." We know from descriptions of skin color and names that Hogwarts has ethnic/minority students. I'm still waiting for a student named Greenberg - but with that in mind, Jewish teenagers from different countries are often thrown together for educational experiences in Israel. They tend to break the national culture barriers that separate them because of the fact that they are all Jewish. Why wouldn't wizard teens from different backgrounds do the same? "if there was no love aspect to the whole Lily & Snape thing at all? If they were friends, maybe she was the one who convinced Snape to renounce Voldemort & come back to "the good fight"; wouldn't that compel Snape much more to take Harry's protection and best interests to heart?" Caralyn It's amusing how all of us try to make sense of the wizard world with our muggle frames of reference! But if Snape & Lily were friends, I don't think he would be as mean to her child...even if he was jealous of Harry's father.... I think having to "protect" Harry is part of the penance Snape must perform to be back in Dumbledore's good graces. That would actually give him motivation to find fault with Harry - for if he can prove to Dumbledore that Harry is nothing but a sneaky rule breaker, maybe he would no longer have the unpleasant task of having to protect him. I am no fan of Snape's and so I loved my fellow newbie's posting: "Severus Snape is just Peter Pettigrew, seen through the looking glass?" Lastly, re: Jenny's comment about Hagrid's incompetence - I disagree. Hagrid is certainly more competent than Gilderoy Lockhart - I don't care how much Lockhart has published! Teachers in many private schools are not certified and colleges hire adjuncts - often industry professionals - to teach. Hagrid would certainly qualify as an "industry professional". If that vicious little brat, Draco Malfoy, had approached Buckbeak as he was instructed to - Hagrid would not have lost his hard-earned confidence and would have emerged as a much more competent teacher. While we're on the subject, would you consider a teacher who bullies students (the way Snape bullies Neville & Harry) competent - I wouldn't. Bonnie / sing2wine Bonnie / sing2wine From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jan 21 18:08:46 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 18:08:46 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Harry_Potter=96A_Worthwhile_series=3F=3F?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33837 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lucky_kari" wrote: > My mother has gone through our "Prisoner of Azkaban" book, and marked all grammatical errors. Unlike Lewis, whose hold on grammar continues to astonish me, Rowling's grammar is not that good, in fact, it can be down right bad, as you can tell from our "POA" copy. << The publisher also has something to say about how many grammatical errors make it into print. Publishers have far fewer editors on the job these days and standards are notoriously lower. ( A Google search on "decline editing standards" returned over 19,000 hits) So while Lewis and Tolkien may have had a more grammatical style to begin with, I don't think its fair to draw conclusions based on their published work. Pippin From cindysphynx at home.com Mon Jan 21 18:12:58 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 18:12:58 -0000 Subject: Which Beasts did Hagrid Crossbreed? In-Reply-To: <95774A6A6036D411AFEA00D0B73C864303B05783@exmc3.urmc.rochester.edu> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33838 Gwen wrote: > His question was, "Which two beasts did Hagrid crossbreed to make > Blast-Ended Skrewts?" > > And his answer was, Mackled Malaclaws and Fire Crabs. > We may have to get a ruling here from Lexicon Steve. :-) The Lexicon says that Skrewts are a mix of Fire Crabs (tortoise-like with jeweled shell shooting fire out of one end) and Manticores (body of lion, head of man, tail of scorpion). I don't recall a reference in the books to this mixture. Can anyone help? Actually, there are other creatures that have some Skrewt-like characteristics. One is the Malaclaw, as Gwen notes, which is lobster-like. The other is the Flobberworm. No, really. Like Flobberworms, Skrewts have two ends, and it is difficult to tell one end from the other because they lack heads, and we know Hagrid has a supply of Flobberworms. Skrewts might also have a touch of Erumpent (huge grey beasts with hides that repel spells) in them. As for the origin of the Skrewt's sucker, I have no clue. Maybe the Giant Squid? Cindy From pigwidgeon37 at yahoo.it Mon Jan 21 18:13:24 2002 From: pigwidgeon37 at yahoo.it (=?iso-8859-1?q?pigwidgeonthirtyseven?=) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 18:13:24 +0000 (GMT) Subject: More Elaborate Musings on Lily and MWPP Message-ID: <20020121181324.22429.qmail@web14701.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33839 To my idle musings on Lily and the Marauders, Alexander answered: < Or they just understand their friend feelings. Personally I would expect _this_ from Sirius and Remus at least.>> And Katze wrote: <> Mmh, that?s what you get (and rightly so), if you try to rid yourself of something that?s on your mind, but do so at work where today the telephone just seemed more an invention straight from hell than a communication device. OK, now I?m at home and can elaborate. Firstly, I?d like to say that whatever I stated in my previous post was speculation, the canon parts were clearly marked. Nevertheless, my speculation is based on pieces of evidence from canon. About the Marauders? tight-knit group: Three of them went through the risky and difficult process of becoming clandestine animagi, reaching their goal in their fifth year (please correct me if this is wrong, but PoA is currently in my brother?s hands). This implies a lot of studying together (James and Sirius even had to help Peter), apart from everyday homework and studying for exams, it means absolute secrecy and a fierce sense of loyalty towards each other and Remus. Therefore, I daresay MWPP are not simply a group of High School buddies hanging out together and playing Quidditch, there?s much more to that friendship. Apparently, Sirius, James and Peter were the only ones except for Dumbledore (and, later on, Snape) to know about Remus?s lycanthropy. Once again, top secret information that had to be kept from everybody else, or otherwise Dumbledore would not have forbidden young Severus Snape to tell anybody else. To share this kind of secret not only strengthened the bond between the four friends, IMO it practically prevented other friendships or relationships with one or all of them from intensifying beyond a certain degree. That?s exactly where Lily comes in. (Sorry, I hadn?t known about that piece of information from JKR herself about Lily being a Gryffindor, I just remembered a thread of discussion in this group about which house she belonged to). And it?s also where the time line is important: According to JKR, Snape is 36/37 in GoF, which means he was born in 58. Give or take two years, MWPP are born somewhere between 58 and 60, same goes for Lily, who might even have been a bit younger. Harry is born on 31 July 1980, therefore conceived in 1979 when James was between 19 and 21 YO. This, still IMO, rather implies that James and Lily?s romance began already at Hogwarts. The HPverse is an author?s fictional world and a skilled author?s at that. Unless we suppose that the HRH pattern is more or less a repetition of MWPP plus Lily, she was not part of the gang, like Hermione is part of the Trio. If she had been, I suppose she?d have become an animagus too. Maybe she was even one or two years younger than James and not even in the same year, and we have seen throughout all four books that, because of classes that go from morning till evening and homework, students of different years don?t mix too much, except for those playing Quidditch. This scenario which I think is quite realistic and canon- based, might make appear Lily as an intruder from Sirius?s, Remus?s and Peter?s POV. I have to agree with Alexander that to accept your friend?s girlfriend would be a most desirable reaction. I would even concede that Remus might have shown acceptance, and I willingly admit that Peter is an x in the equation, but I have doubts about Sirius (apologies to all Sirius fans out there): A person who considers it to be good fun to ?scare? a fellow student, however slimy and Slytherin, with a werewolf, may not be a ?natural born killer?, but he is certainly irresponsible, which is a trait of character that doesn?t show on only one occasion and is otherwise inexistent, it?s a character trait, period. (Even if by now, he might have outgrown it- this to avoid howlers from his rabid fans) The irresponsible 17 YO average male doesn?t look at serious romantic relationships with a benign eye, which is my reason for thinking that at least he and maybe also Peter (?Siding with the biggest bully in the playground?) might have objected to James and Lily?s budding love story. Moreover, I was trying to think along the lines of canon and its characterisation: from the way JKR depicts Petunia, we can guess her- and thus also Lily?s- middle class background, we?re talking about the 70s, and Hogwarts seems to be quite immune to outside influence (no Muggle literature, films etc., for Muggle-borns only during holidays), so the idea of ?boys? talk? and ?girls? talk? is strongly suggested by the books themselves which are situated in the 90s. Therefore I suppose it?s legitimate to assume that gender roles and all that comes with them might have been even stronger back in the Marauders? times. OK, I hope to have made my point a little clearer. Susanna/pigwidgeon37 "And how come those portraits seem to be alive?" "What'ya mean? All paintings move." "No, they don't. We have lots of paintings in our villa, among them a real Chagall, and none of them..." "And d'ya expect that something painted by a jackal will move? Now really..." --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Get personalised at My Yahoo!. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lucy at luphen.co.uk Mon Jan 21 18:17:04 2002 From: lucy at luphen.co.uk (Lucy Austin) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 18:17:04 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Which Beasts did Hagrid Crossbreed? References: <95774A6A6036D411AFEA00D0B73C864303B05783@exmc3.urmc.rochester.edu> Message-ID: <012101c1a2a7$d441ba40$11ae1e3e@stephen> No: HPFGUIDX 33840 >Gwen said: >His question was, "Which two beasts did Hagrid crossbreed to make Blast-Ended Skrewts?" >And his answer was, Mackled Malaclaws and Fire Crabs. >I think he's definitely right about the Firecrabs, but I'm not sure what it was about the Malaclaws that made him think they were the other creature. Are there other creatures either mentioned in the books or from conventional mythology that, if combined with a Fire Crab, could produce a Skrewt? He crossed Manticores and Fire Crabs, as per GoF, chapter 24, Rita's Scoop. Lucy PS Sorry for the one line answer, but I'm very tired and it only needs a quick answer! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lucy at luphen.co.uk Mon Jan 21 18:20:43 2002 From: lucy at luphen.co.uk (Lucy Austin) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 18:20:43 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lack of traditional academics... References: <000201c1a1e1$db9875c0$96bdfea9@c8b5v1> Message-ID: <013301c1a2a8$56a76160$11ae1e3e@stephen> No: HPFGUIDX 33841 >Terri Lyn said: >We were discussing how JKR seems to have done a decent job of laying out the groundwork for the magical coursework. However, we noticed that there was a complete lack of traditional coursework at Hogwarts. This would be work in English (grammer, literature, etc.), Mathematics (where's the calc, algebra, and trig? There's arithromancy... but JKR neither explains the content nor is it a required class), more traditional science than is in potions/herbology/COMC. What about art classes? Music, painting, and the like? You can't tell me that Fat Lady just showed up like that... someone had to have painted her. We know there's insturments (the harp and flute by fluffy), where are they taught how to play them? Does Hogwarts have a pep band (either in general or per house) that plays during Q'ditch matches? And another course that seems to be lacking is psychology. Wouldn't it make sense to have a base way of evaluating the subject of your charm to see if they would actually mentally "buy" it? My fiance is also very bothered about this - we don't know what primary schooling wizards get, but at the very best, they apparently go through secondary schooling with no more knowledge of maths, english, science, music etc than an average 10 year old. I can only suggest that they do have these sorts of lessons, but that it isn't much fun to write about them compared to the Magic lessons! Lucy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From moongirlk at yahoo.com Mon Jan 21 19:06:56 2002 From: moongirlk at yahoo.com (moongirlk) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 19:06:56 -0000 Subject: Snape, the DEs and the Longbottoms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33842 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" wrote: > But I prefer not to. Until Rowling proves me wrong, I will > continue to operate under the assumption that even while > conspiring to betray them, Snape retained a strong personal > affection for many of the DEs, and that when they got > themselves slaughtered by Aurors or shipped off to Azkaban, > it really *hurt* -- even (or, rather, *especially*) when it > happened due to the information he was secretly passing along > to Dumbledore. It is terribly common for real-world spies > to engage in just this brand of cognitive dissonance. One > might argue, in fact, that the ability to maintain such a > schismed perspective is the hallmark of a successful agent. > I'm sure you're right, and it puts a new light on Snape's current anti-social behavior. Perhaps he holds everyone at ten-foot-pole length because he's afraid to form new bonds or get close to people, for fear that someday they too, for one reason or another, will be taken away or will betray him as he has betrayed his friends in the past. The bitterness he displays seems very much in keeping with this idea. His right (not easy) choice had dire results for people he cared about. He saw his friends die or be imprisoned in part because of his decision. He maybe knew he had to do it, but that doesn't mean he liked it or it's effects. No wonder he's so unpleasant, and why wouldn't he choose to go out of his way to put people off, especially those who are vulnerable and/or weak. Even more especially if, as you also suggested, he was the one to lead some of his friends into DE-ness to begin with. He doesn't consider himself someone to be trusted or admired, and perhaps feels that the farther such people stay away from him, the better off they are. It makes him quite the tragic figure of guilt, and all the more endearing, darnit. I'm really getting tired of people giving me reasons to *like* Snape, something I never intended to do. Still, thanks for the thought-inducing post! kimberly From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Mon Jan 21 19:37:03 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 19:37:03 -0000 Subject: Wizard-Muggle marriage, & further commentary on Kevin In-Reply-To: <002601c1a029$3e669ca0$cc0edccb@price> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33843 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Tabouli" wrote: > However, I prefer to be fair to Clive on the feminism and Islamophobia front on the same grounds that some have used to defend HP... they are a reflection of the prevailing values of the time in which he was writing, as upper-middle class Christian academic in a >very masculinised world. While I agree with you to some extent, I think we should be fair enough to him not to call him "Clive"! :-) After all, he struggled his whole life against the name, and wanted to be known as "Jack". I find that the Narnia Chronicles, btw, are not only Islamophobic but inconsistent in that respect. You cannot miss the parallel, but it doesn't even work in the books. For example, Aslan tells Rabadash that he will be transformed back into a person at a great temple feast honouring Tash. There's obviously the connotation that Aslan and Tash are the same, even if people believe different things about them, just as many Christians today believe that we (Christians, Jews, and Muslims) worship one God. Then, in "The Last Battle", we're told to throw that out, and realize that Tash really is a blood-thirsty devil to whom you make human sacrifices. Well then, why did Aslan endorse the worship of Tash in "The Horse and the Boy"? It's stuff like this that, after I had got old enough to perceive the extent of the allegory, gave me a bad taste about Lewis, while I was becoming more and more of a Tolkien fan. However, "The Horse and His Boy" is still, imho, a great book. Unlike you, I side with Aravis against Lazarleen, though I'm sticking up for Susan against Aslan, allegory of Christ or not! (I won't drift off into an explanation of why the Aslan allegory does NOT work.) But, putting aside the problems in portraying culture, (unless you want to correspond Lewis's apparent dislike of Arabic culture to J.K. Rowling's mocking of suburban middle class English life.....) you are quite correct in the parallel. Shasta doesn't seem to be expected by Lewis to have respect for the old fisherman, any more than Harry for the Dursleys. They were both child abusers, in their own ways, imho. > > catherine: > > In Lord of the Rings, with few exceptions those that were evil are so > because they were created that way. That makes it so easy and > safe. That person is an Orc, they are evil. It's comforting to > think that those who are evil are so because they were preordained to > be so. Makes your choice obvious doesn't it: `should I side > with `ugly orc' or the fair Galadrieal?'< > > And as for Tolkien, obviously a clear sign that someone fits into the Evil category of humanity is ugliness! A fine Judeo-Christian education for the children. Nothing like that unambiguous distinction between Good (where all people are fair and wise) and Evil (where all people are ugly and foolish and come to a bad end on Legolas' arrows), eh? Moral stuff. > You people haven't read the Silmarillion, eh? Tolkien was really annoyed by people who said such things about Galadriel and the elves, and when that book came out, you could see why. If you don't have time to read through it (a daunting task), just rexamine "The Temptation of Galadriel" in the LOTR, and imagine it as a final redemption scene of someone who went off the right track, has paid for it, and now has the chance to reject what she before coveted, and come to peace with her past. Neither Galadriel nor the elves have too nice a past. In fact, an HP parallel might be the astonishment we have at discovering the rot in the wizard world, which even impinges on our favourite characters. However, there is in Tolkien and Rowling, a disturbing correlation between evil/good and looks. It's not simplistic. Gilderoy Lockhart and Saruman are fair-looking and evil. So far we've had no HP character that's not fair-looking and is also good. (The real Mad-Eye Moody exists, for example, but he's not a character.) Snape has a shot at this, perhaps, but he's not, I think, meant to be out-and-out ugly, just not handsome. (Though Alan Rickman disturbs this line of thought.) In the Lord of the Rings, there's enough people who are plain, but down right ugly and good? And, when we make movies, draw pictures etc. we want plain people to be pretty. For example, how many Jane Eyre movies are there where she finally lets her hair down and you see she's a stunning beauty? A lot. >However, I wouldn't at all say that all listmembers are "fans" if this implies we are "blindly adoring readers of the HP series". Clearly the main point of having such a list is not to wallow in the unquestioning devotion of 3000 fellow fans, but to debate and analyse the series from different perspectives, many of which are quite critical. In the recent spate of posts on gender roles in HP, there were a large number of listmembers who expressed disapproval about JKR's writing in this area, for example. Our eyes >are open to HP's flaws, we just like the books anyway. Exactly. One of the things that I disliked about GOF was when Hermione was able to do up her hair for the ball. Totally irrational, since I have hair like Hermione's and sometimes do get a nice result, but did she really have to becoming stunning to get Ron's and Harry's attention. At least, Viktor Krum became interested in her as she was, which ALMOST makes me feel like liking him. > My impression was that he sincerely meant what he said, but, with the >limited vision that people with those sorts of views tend to have (due to limiting their social contact to people like themselves for fear of corruption), never imagined that the list would in fact be full of intelligent, educated, literature-savvy people (of whom some are >Christian) who are very familiar with all three of the series he mentions and are more than capable of understanding, rebutting and rejecting his arguments. > I hope this isn't the case, since I like nice arguments :-), but I'm afraid you're likely right....... Eileen From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Mon Jan 21 19:57:12 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 19:57:12 -0000 Subject: Harry that Heathen and Feeling Moody [Was Re: Wiz-Mug marriage/commentary] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33844 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ladjables" wrote: > This is what is really worrisome about posts like Kimball's, no > matter how well thought out. What bothers him about Harry Potter is > the book's portrayal of morality as complex; it's precisely because > it's not black-and-white that Kimball dislikes it. His need to > compartmentalize good and evil, to constantly categorize and make > divisions concerning morality, reflects the kind of logic that is > very dangerous, that can be (and has been) used to justify anything > from genocide to slavery. Oh for heaven's sakes, could we be a little more TOLERANT than that? GENOCIDE AND SLAVERY? So when do we start making the Nazi comparisons about people who disagree with us? Also, this "Kimball is intolerant b/c he believes his version of Christianity is right" is getting me down. He may or may not be intolerant. I'm not totally in sympathy with his version of Christianity. But it is not de facto intolerant to believe that you are right, as any proud L.O.L.L.I.P.O.P.S. member could explain. Eileen From Joanne0012 at aol.com Mon Jan 21 20:32:44 2002 From: Joanne0012 at aol.com (joanne0012) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 20:32:44 -0000 Subject: Lack of traditional academics... In-Reply-To: <013301c1a2a8$56a76160$11ae1e3e@stephen> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33845 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Lucy Austin" wrote: > >Terri Lyn said: > we noticed that there was a > complete lack of traditional coursework at Hogwarts. This would be work in > English (grammer, literature, etc.), Mathematics (where's the calc, algebra, > and trig? There's arithromancy... but JKR neither explains the content nor > is it a required class), more traditional science than is in > potions/herbology/COMC. What about art classes? Music, painting, and the > like? You can't tell me that Fat Lady just showed up like that... someone > had to have painted her. We know there's insturments (the harp and flute by > fluffy), where are they taught how to play them? Does Hogwarts have a pep > band (either in general or per house) that plays during Q'ditch matches? > > My fiance is also very bothered about this - we don't know what primary >schooling wizards get, but at the very best, they apparently go through >secondary schooling with no more knowledge of maths, english, science, music >etc than an average 10 year old. I can only suggest that they do have these >sorts of lessons, but that it isn't much fun to write about them compared to >the Magic lessons! Why would Hogwarts have a curriculum that mirrors the college-prep programs that Muggles have developed only during the past century? JKR has said there's no higher education in the wizarding world. Having sealed itself off as much as possible from the muggle world since the late 1600s, the wizarding world offers a curriculum typical of that time, offering mostly a trade orientation. Even royalty and elites of that era were educated mostly in foreign languages and philosophy. Just as alchemy offers an early version of our modern chemistry studies, the Hogwarts courses in herbology and magical creatures serve as ancestral biology courses, arithmancy and astrological charts teach maths (including trig) and so on. But I agree that music is strangely lacking at Hogwarts, coming up only in celebrations or magical contexts (Fluffy, etc.), whereas homemade music played a significant role in the lives of ordinary people in the millennia before the introduction of electronics. I'll bet you fifty cents that JKR herself doen't play an instrument. From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Mon Jan 21 20:37:21 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 20:37:21 -0000 Subject: Ethnicity in HP: A utopian depiction? In-Reply-To: <001f01c1a118$40b86d40$bb30c2cb@price> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33846 Very interesting post, Tabouli. I think you're correct that the depiction of "race" relations in HP is meant to be utopian, possibly because the series is already preoccupied with the muggle/wizard problem. But, as you mentioned, if it wasn't for occasional mentionings that so-and-so is black, or deductions from names, one wouldn't notice Hogwarts as multi-racial. It certainly isn't multi-cultural. FYI, I'm from Western Canada, Alberta to be precise, and from a very multi-cultural societal background. Inter-racial relationships are, I think, pretty well received here, but it's the cultures which are the problem for older people. Eileen PS I was struck by what you had to say about discrimination against "aborigines"? It sounds much like a not too uncommon attitude towards Indians here. (I am of mixed Indian, European descent, though I don't look it with my light hair and blue eyes.) From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com Mon Jan 21 20:47:45 2002 From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 14:47:45 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lack of traditional academics... References: <000201c1a1e1$db9875c0$96bdfea9@c8b5v1> <013301c1a2a8$56a76160$11ae1e3e@stephen> Message-ID: <3C4C7E71.12437FC5@kingwoodcable.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33847 Lucy Austin wrote: >>My fiance is also very bothered about this - we don't know what primary schooling wizards get, but at the very best, they apparently go through secondary schooling with no more knowledge of maths, english, science, music etc than an average 10 year old. I can only suggest that they do have these sorts of lessons, but that it isn't much fun to write about them compared to the Magic lessons!<<< I agree...these kids must get some sort of higher education, but reading about these types studies seem sort of mundane to the magic classes. There are classes in the books that require higher knowledge. I think Transfiguration requires some science. Doesn't it state somewhere that one needs to know the makeup of certain animals before transforming them? Potions would require math and science to get correct measurements and correct combinations of items. What category would DADA be? Physical Education? Logic? Reasoning? What about Magical Creatures? The just seems more like going to the zoo...minus the blast ended skrewts. Divination...not sure...that seems much like a sleeper class, since one can BS his/her way through the final. -Katze From ftah3 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 21 20:51:25 2002 From: ftah3 at yahoo.com (ftah3) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 20:51:25 -0000 Subject: More Elaborate Musings on Lily and MWPP In-Reply-To: <20020121181324.22429.qmail@web14701.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33848 (All quotes are of Susanna/pigwidgeon.) > About the Marauders' tight-knit group I completely agree that the Mauraders were close, and that aspects of their interaction ~ mainly secret knowledge, and risks taken together ~ makes them a somewhat specialized group. On the other hand: >Therefore, I daresay MWPP are not simply a group of High School buddies hanging out together and playing Quidditch, there's much more to that friendship. Er, not necessarily. I'm keying in, first, on the word "friendship," and I have to disagree. At least, I don't know what I think about Pettigrew's place in the friendship. He seems more of a hanger-on, a part by virtue of clinging, rather than by virtue of fast friendship. I've no firm basis for this; it's off-the-cuff, based on observations by others that Pettigrew was a tagalong; based on the fact that his death stunned, but didn't seem to cause quite the mourning that the Potter's did (even Lupin seems angry at Black firstly for seeming to have betrayed the Potters, and then as in afterthought for killing Peter. Peter was the Brave Little Toaster who got in mad Sirius's way, poor guy; James & Lily were Friends). It's also based on cliques of that sort I'm familiar with in reality. All of a clique aren't necessarily best of friends; while included, one of them may simply be tolerated. And it turned out that Pettigrew was handy in Operation Werewolf On The Loose, in his rat form, so yay for letting hangers-on stay. On another point, imho Lupin wasn't totally 'in' either. He was eventually number one on the list of suspected Voldy spies, at least in Sirius's mind, remember? They accepted Lupin as a friend, weren't repelled by his condition, and enjoyed his company; yet something, possibly prejudice, existed enough in the minds of Potter and Black that later on Black suspected Lupin straight out as spy, and Potter let Black convince him that danger was great enough that a change in secret keeper was necessary. So why would they go to such great risk to become animagi and to run with a werewolf? Well, why do *any* teenage boys engage in really dangerous and interesting adventures? Because it's cool and exciting, and not necessarily for any more noble reasons. My point is, you say that it seems obvious that there's more to the Mauraders' friendship than simply a bunch of friends hangin' out. In activities, I agree ~ the werewolf gig, the animagus stuff, etc. are all out of the ordinary. As far as depth, I disagree. I'd say that the friendship between Potter & Black may have been tight, but that Lupin and Pettigrew were less close to different degrees; and this is like any high school clique in depth. > To share this kind of secret not only strengthened the bond between the four friends, IMO it practically prevented other friendships or relationships with one or all of them from intensifying beyond a certain degree. Natch. In a romantic world this would be true, and while Rowling's world is romantic to an extent, certain dirty realities of friendship are given their due. Fights happen, loyalites shift, individuals are quite aware that others exist outside of their little clique. And as we're beginning to see with Ron, Harry & Hermione, kids growing up in a co-ed school won't forever disregard the existence and lure of the opposite sex throughout their school career, big secrets or no (though we've yet to see how significantly said regard will affect their friendship in particular). Also, based on the overall drawing of the characters, there is little to suggest that any of the Marauders but Pettigrew would be jealous with their friendship. They evince a disdain for uptight, nasty Nosey Parkers like Snape, but there's no indication that they were awful to everyone one. They were not the Dudley Dursley gang. They had their inner circle, but if they refused friendly interaction with anyone *not* in their inner circle, it's doubtful that James, at least, would have the apparently excellent reputation (as a good person) that existed while they lived (if the discussion about their deaths between Dumby and McGonnagall at the beginning of PS/SS is any indication) and after they died. As for Sirius, you say: >I have doubts about Sirius (apologies to all Sirius fans out there): A person who considers it to be good fun to "scare" a fellow student, however slimy and Slytherin, with a werewolf, may not be a "natural born killer", but he is certainly irresponsible, which is a trait of character that doesn't show on only one occasion and is otherwise inexistent, it's a character trait, period. (Even if by now, he might have outgrown it- this to avoid howlers from his rabid fans) The irresponsible 17 YO average male doesn't look at serious romantic relationships with a benign eye, which is my reason for thinking that at least he and maybe also Peter ("Siding with the biggest bully in the playground") might have objected to James and Lily's budding love story. Well, if James and Lily had, by the timeline, to be dating in school and to have possibly married right out of school, the fact that Sirius looks so comfortable and pleased in the picture of himself as best man at their wedding ~ he either had a conversion experience or is a very good actor. Anyway, being irresponsible when it comes to an overbearingly nosey slimeball does not an arrogant James Dean knock-off make. Hagrid, an outcast type, arrives on Privet Drive with Harry on the motorbike he borrowed from 'that nice young Sirius Black' [sic ~ not an exact quote and possibly not from that section, but Hagrid does, in the past, refer to Sirius that way]. So obviously Sirius isn't a completely crass kid with an historical penchant for picking on *every*body. He picked on Snape, who hates him; there is *no* text anywhere that tells of him picking on anybody else; there *is* text indicating that Hagrid liked him. So we've one black mark against, and one positive statement for, and a whole lotta nothing much else to describe how Sirius treated the populace in general. At any rate, I also don't think that James would have chosen him best man at his wedding if Sirius had spent a great deal of effort in putting down his [James's] relationship with Lily. And as far as Pettigrew being against allowing girlfriends into the group, I suspect he either would have been overridden, or he would have gone with the flow of the others' opinions, being the tagalong he seemed to have been. Now, as to Lily, I found these remarks interesting: > Moreover, I was trying to think along the lines of canon and its characterisation: from the way JKR depicts Petunia, we can guess her- and thus also Lily's- middle class background, we're talking about the 70s, and Hogwarts seems to be quite immune to outside influence (no Muggle literature, films etc., for Muggle-borns only during holidays), so the idea of "boys' talk" and "girls' talk" is strongly suggested by the books themselves which are situated in the 90s. Therefore I suppose it's legitimate to assume that gender roles and all that comes with them might have been even stronger back in the Marauders' times. Do you really suppose that the wizarding world, and Lily, were *completely* out of sync with the muggle world? The western world (including Britain) during the 60's and 70's saw a great wave of usurpation of all kinds of traditions ~ musical, sexual, gender- & race-related, to begin with. Lily herself came from a muggle family. She spent her formative, pre-Hogwarts years probably fawning on the Beatles, or falling in love with The Doors, or at least being exposed to the peace-love-and-understanding nuttiness going on. When she got the letter from Hogwarts she was heartily encouraged by her parents to exercise talents which fly in the face of good old fashioned sensible norms. Petunia loves the traditional kinds of roles, and lives them; but she hated Lily and her 'abnormalities' and disdained her parents' encouragement of such freakishness; and she seems to always have felt bitter toward her 'perfect' sister who was so favored by their parents. Now, if Lily and her parents had been deeply imbued with the social norms which were uprooted in the 60's and 70's, among them traditional gender roles, I somehow doubt the witch gig would have gone over so enthusiastically, and I especially doubt that Petunia would have loathed Lily so much. I somehow suspect that Lily would have brought her 'forward-thinking' mentality to Hogwarts with her, and that the influx of other muggle- borns and half-bloods would have imported aspects of the muggle's wild 60's & 70's as well. Lastly, is there any indication that Lily was *not* intelligent, outgoing, clever, good-humored? Meaning, is there any indication that she was *not* the kind of person, regardless of her being a girl, that the Marauders would have considered to be their kinda person? So, let's say that as times and hormones change so will the priorities of boys, and that the Marauders weren't obsessively exclusionist. And let's say that Lily could potentially have been a likeable person. While your scenario is likely, I think it's at least equally likely that Lily grew to be an important part of James's life without too incredibly much upheaval amongst the Marauders ~ no more than occurs with any group of people who mature from kids to adults, at least. Out of breath, Mahoney From NOTaMuggleFamily at aol.com Mon Jan 21 20:55:50 2002 From: NOTaMuggleFamily at aol.com (NOTaMuggleFamily at aol.com) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 15:55:50 EST Subject: Harry's parents really are dead Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33849 Sorry for the misunderstanding, but I meant do we KNOW that Voldemort was *THEE* killer...other than his 'downfall' I read no proof that Voldemort killed James and Lily, as no one really saw it, could someone else have done the deed? We have the wand spell in book 4, but someone else could have used Vs wand. (Probably not, but its a possiblity.) ~shahara < Subject: Harry's parents really are dead --- In HPforGrownups at y..., NOTaMuggleFamily at a... wrote: > I wonder how everyone *knows* Voldemort killed James and Lily...no >one really saw what happened...even little Harry only remembers >Lily crying out and a light. Is there actual proof, or is this >just an assumption? In PoA Sirius says he saw their bodies after Voldemort attacked. "...The night they died....I set out for your parents' house straight away. And when I saw their house, destroyed, and their bodies..." (PoA 365 US Version) I think this is pretty solid evidence that they did actually die. Even Peter says in POA that he told Voldy where they were hiding. It's a very long passage, so I won't write it all here, but you can read where Peter admits to telling on pages 374-375 of the US version of PoA. I think from this can be taken that it _was_ Voldy who did it. Besides, we _know_ he tried to kill Harry, but the spell bounced back, which caused him to lose his powers. This is stated several times in various books and even by Voldy himself IIRC in GoF. >> shahara lefay pagan priestess vegetarian homeschoolers radical momma of 5 --TerraSoLuna-- faery tribe ~*~ From catlady at wicca.net Mon Jan 21 21:29:35 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 21:29:35 -0000 Subject: Some more thoughts about Lily and the Marauders In-Reply-To: <8415383604.20020121144758@tut.by> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33850 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Alexander wrote: > say that it's more likely for Lily to be accepted within > their gang as fifth member. That is sort of, but not exactly, the way I imagine the relationship between Lily and Sirius, Remus, Peter. She is not *exactly* the fifth member of the gang because she doesn't transform into an animal, so I imagine that there are a LOT of nighttime escapades that she doesn't join, not just at Full Moon. I like to think that MWPP had already named their group the Marauders before Lily got involved, but she became so helpful with their plots and so trusted with all their secrets that they bought her a (too-tight) t-shirt with the slogan MARAUDER MASCOT. (I imagine the future Mrs. Lestrange having a similar role as only girl in Snape's little group of Slytherins. I wonder what Snape's gang might have called itself?) I imagine that this friendship was in place before James ever realised, or admitted at least, that he viewed Lily as more than the sister he'd never had. Btw, there is NO CANON EVIDENCE that MWPP called themselves "the Marauders". The map's name is Marauder's Map not Marauders' Map; its subtitle was something about Magical Mischief Makers, so it is even more likely that MWPP called themselves "the Magical Mischief Makers" than that they called themselves "the Marauders". HOWEVER, I like to imagine that they did call themselves the Marauders. Because I was a kid at the same time they were (altho' in a different country), and I remember how we loved to form secret clubs with that kind of names and passwords. My (all girls) secret club was a Star Trek spaceship crew, the USS New Dimension, and the Captain (club president) was a girl named Cindy. I was Ensign Felis. Some people on list, probably much younger than me, said they were repulsed at the idea that MWPP picked themselves a name that sounds like a gang. I couldn't figure out how to explain that in those days, the Bloods and the Crips had no guns and no money and no one cared more about them than about occasional incidents in which surfers versus car club members (people who soup up their cars themselves) hit each other with their fists and feet. In those days, everyone -- parents, teachers, kids themselves -- used the word 'gang' to mean 'group of friends', as you (Alexander) did in the quote above, and as in the song "Hail, Hail, the Gang's All Here". An alternate word for gang was clique, but 'clique' had a bad connotation of snobbery and meanness. From m.bockermann at t-online.de Mon Jan 21 21:44:57 2002 From: m.bockermann at t-online.de (m.bockermann at t-online.de) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 22:44:57 +0100 Subject: About Lily and the Marauders Message-ID: <004701c1a2c5$35c451c0$e6419fc1@oemcomputer> No: HPFGUIDX 33851 There was a time, when I was certain that Lily had been in Slytherin. However, somebody pointed out, that JKR said in an interview that she had been in Gryffindor, too. Still, I am convinced she *could* have been in Slytherin, like Harry. I know, DD said that Harry "could speak parselmouth because Voldemort" could. But I cannot accept (unless proven wrong by JKR) that Harrys "Slytherin traits" are simply the result of being rubbed off on Harry. That is a nice and easy explanation I would give a twelve year old, too. But I suspect that there is a lot that DD hasnt told Harry yet, because he is too young (see HP1). In HP2 DD tells Harry that it is "our choices as much as our abilities that make us who we are". That has a double meaning, this line. It means that Harry is a Gryffindor by choice, but, as the hat has emphazised several times, Harry "would have fared well in Slytherin". And saying that Harry got his Slytherin abilities because of Voldemorts attack explains neither why he survived (certainly other parents would have sacrificed themselves), nor why Voldemort attacked him in the first place (Voldemort intended to kill Harry but his mother would not have needed to die - says Voldemort). So what has this to do with Lily? I believe that if Lily was in Gryffindor, but she could have been Slytherin, too. We dont know much about her, but she was certainly bright enough for Slytherin. And then there is the eyes... . Everybody compares Harrys looks to those of his father - except for his eyes. They are green and green is a colour that - in JKRs world - is closely associated with both Slytherin and the dark arts: the colour of Slytherin is green, the flash that accompanies the "Avadra Kevadra" curse, the basilisk, probably Riddles eyes (we dont learn this, but Voldemort points out the similarities between Harry and himself), the eyes of the emblem at the entrance to the Chamber of Fears... . Somewhere here is a secret which we dont know yet. Still, I believe that Lily is a good person - she sacrificed herself for Harry and from everybodys recollections she must have been an impressive and strong woman. On the other hand there is some merit in what you are saying - in so far as her relationship with James probably disrupted the delicate balance of the Marauders friendship. I dont believe that was what she intended and I am sure she and James tried to stop it. But it happened anyway. When they were young, the Marauders were such close friends, that they became animagi to help Remus. Becoming an animagus is probably hard work, maybe painful, but in any case illegal (as far as we know they didnt register themselves or we would have learned about Peter). They were a close knit group. And when Lily came into the picture, they did not include her in their group. Looking at real life friendships, it is more likely than not, that this losened the ties of their friendship. Not severe them, but losen. And that is what, in the end, made it possible for Peter to create mistrust and betray the Potters. Before James joined a steady relationship, the friends seemed to trust each other so far that it is very unlikly that Sirius would have believed that Remus betrayed the Potters and vice versa. And before the friends drifted apart, they would have noticed a change in Peter, or maybe it would not even have occured. So in a way I agree with you: I think that Lily was the wedge that drove the Marauders apart and that made the later disaster possible. I dont believe that she did that intenionally. I am even sure that she tried to stop this drifting apart, but that in the end she failed with that. Which leads to the question what will happen if our present day Marauders start to feel the call of their hormones? No matter who is interested in whom or ends up with whom - it will take test the closeness of their friendship. I hope they will fare better than the first Marauders. Greetings Barbara Jebenstreit Susanna wrote: This doesn't work either and all of a sudden, James finds himself in a big dilemma: Either he gives in to his friends and loosens the ties with Lily a bit, or he has to tell them once and for all that his relationship with Lily is now on top of his priority list. Whichever alternative he chooses, there is great potential for conflict. And whether James momentarily backpedals or not, in the end he marries Lily, which creates the impression that she was a *very* strong woman indeed: Either strong enough to wait for him or strong enough to get the better of his three friends. But anyway, the conflict remains: If James really followed his friends' advice not to get into too deep a relationship at his age, he will, at a certain point, surely regret it and blame them for it. If he didn't, he will inevitably have to sacrifice a bit of the closeness he had with Sirius, Peter and Remus to his love for Lily. Apart from the fact that Lily certainly *was* a strong person, I'm wondering about the other Marauders' attitude towards her: Jealousy seems to be a good guess, unless she had the ability to charm each and every of them in just the right way that they accepted her, but didn't fall in love head over heels- if she mastered this impossible task, I'd say she was a Slytherin. From blpurdom at yahoo.com Mon Jan 21 22:14:53 2002 From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 22:14:53 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Harry_Potter=96A_Worthwhile_series=3F=3F?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33852 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lucky_kari" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "kimballs6" wrote: > > Much debate is swirling around the Harry Potter books versus > > C.S. Lewis's and Tolkien's stories. Many argue that these > > books are all similar--just fantasy, pure and simple. I > > disagree. They are fantasies (Lewis going into allegory), but > > that is where the similarity ends. After reading the first book > > in the Potter series, reading The Hobbit, and brushing up on The > > Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, I see a tremendous gulf > > between Rowling and the other two writers. This paper discusses > > the difference between their world views and the incredible gulf > > between writing abilities. I think you are referring to grammar more than anything else when you are speaking of "writing abilities," but I would propose that there are many elements in the writing of the above authors that must be considered. In addition to simple mechanics (vocabulary, grammar, syntax), one must also consider plotting, contemporary relevance of the plot/characters/dialogue, and enduring appeal of the writing. Because I believe the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, as well as the Harry Potter books, are written in a style and with cultural references that make them works very much of their own time, I think they are best enjoyed by people who are contemporaneous with the time in which they are written. I forced myself to read the Narnia books past the first one, which I liked fine (although it plodded). Reading these additional books felt like torture, frankly. The extent to which Lewis forced his plot to adhere to his allegory made it quite unexciting, and the writing style further bogged it down in anachronistic (to an American child in the 1970s) language and syntax (especially the stilted dialogue). The Harry Potter books are fresh and contemporary now, and I think they will continue to seem so for some time, but in a couple of hundred years, I suspect that it is the Hobbit that will still be read on a regular basis, while the books written for "contemporary" audiences of today and of fifty years ago languish unread on the shelves. However, I think the Narnia ship has already sailed, while it will take quite some time for JKR's work to seem dated. This is the trade-off, I suspect, in creating something that is appealing to young people at the time it is written. > > First, breaking rules is glorified: "Hermione had become a bit > > more relaxed about breaking rules since Harry and Ron had > > saved her from the mountain troll, and she was much nicer for > > it." But when Malfoy or other "Slytherins" break rules, they > > are punished--to the cheers of Harry and his gang. At one point > > Harry is told not to ride on his broom. When he does, instead > > of any punishment, he is rewarded with a berth on the Quidditch > > team. Somehow it is a terrible thing for Hagrid to break the > > rules and raise a forbidden dragon, yet honorable for the > > students to break the rules and explore the forbidden areas of > > the school. (Actually, it is not honorable for Malfoy to break > > the rules, only Hermione and Harry--if they feel the need.) Glorified? Malfoy puts a hex on Hermione that turns her teeth in virtual tusks and he is not punished. Ron has detention and must clean everything in the trophy room using Muggle methods. It is a cruel fact of life that sometimes when we break the rules, we are inordinately punished, and sometimes people whom we dislike break the rules and get away with it. You don't mention these things. JKR runs the gamut of depicting rule-breaking and punishment, and in the end, it is working for the good which is glorified, not rule- breaking. It is rigid adherence to rules which is criticized (not seeing forest for trees) and seeing the big picture which is lauded. Why do I feel the above analysis is suffering from the same thing? It doesn't help, I suppose, that it's based on the first book only, when there is so much more development in the subsequent books. > Let's look at this in light of Tolkien. The success of the quest > depends again and again (and this is heavily emphasized) on > rule-breaking. Eomer breaks the law of his king, and almost pays > for it with his life, to aid Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas. If you want to hark back to the Hobbit, the cardinal rule of being a Hobbit which Bilbo breaks is that a Hobbit DOES NOT HAVE ADVENTURES. There are obviously many rules which Harry unintentionally breaks when he lives with the Dursleys, but this is in part because the Dursleys have imposed ridiculous rules on Harry, the chief one being YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO BE YOURSELF. Rather hard to cope with that one, isn't it? The second rule for them seems to be YOU MUST MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO FORGET YOU EXIST AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. Of course, every time he breaks the first rule, he automatically breaks the second.... I can only imagine that this comparison was written without reading much (if any) Roald Dahl, wherein the children live almost exclusively with quite evil adults who impose ridiculous and impossible rules, which the children must endeavor to break at every opportunity. I'm not sure I'd want to know your opinion of Roald Dahl... [snipped comparison with LOTR, which, while good, is still about LOTR, not The Hobbit, which the original writer was using for comparison] > Then, there is other rule-breaking which is not EVIL, but which is > not really good. You haven't got far enough in the Prisoner of > Azkaban to realize that Rowling is beginning to come down very > hard on Harry's unnecessary lying and rule-breaking, just as > Tolkien comes down on Bilbo's lies about the Ring to his friends > (and, please, no-one say it wasn't Bilbo's fault. The whole > question of how much Tolkien's characters are at fault for their > actions is already tricky enough....) I believe PoA starts to set us up for Harry's guilt over Cedric at the end of GoF. Like Sirius, when Sirius switches the identity of the Secret Keeper to Pettigrew, Harry does something quite well- intentioned (sharing the cup with Cedric) which has disastrous results. The guilt felt by Sirius and by Harry has nothing to do with rule-breaking. Harry could have felt guilty over sharing the information with Cedric about the dragons; if Cedric had been out at the first task, he never would have been in a position to share the cup with Harry. In the end, Sirius and Harry are both feeling guilty because they simply weren't prescient enough to know what would ensue from their good intentions. This is something we have to cope with all the time, and something children should learn about. Even good deeds can have bad results, and we have to go on after that and not give up. This is far more complicated and close to real life than C.S. Lewis, IMO, in whose work good deeds have good results, and bad deeds have bad results. I cannot think of a single case of the opposite happening. Sadly, life doesn't always work that way, so to say categorically that JKR "glorifies" rule- breaking is simply to ignore the way the real world works. Good people often get screwed. Bad people often get elected to public office or become the millionaire CEOs of multinational corporations. > > Second, Rowling leaves the option of lying up to the individual, > > and even glorifies it. If Harry needs to lie, he simply will: > > "When facing a magic mirror, Harry thinks desperately, `I must > > lie,..I must look and lie about what I see, that's all.'" > > This is an old classic, but it always clarifies thought. (We have > a policy against Holocaust comparisons, right? But this isn't > really a comparison, it's a standard out of young peoples' > theology and philosophy textbooks.) It's not even necessary to get into Holocaust comparisons. I live in Philadelphia, which was a stop on the Underground Railroad. Many Quakers, who prided themselves on not lying, lied quite liberally to anyone trying to discern whether they were hiding runaway slaves in their houses. Criticizing JKR for depicting Harry considering whether to give information to an evil person which could have disastrous results is specious; there are too many possible scenarios I could cite to show that this is the preferred behavior in this circumstance. This just starts to sound like criticism for the sake of criticism. If you were hiding in a closet and someone who wanted to kill you asked me whether you were hiding in there, would you want me to adhere slavishly to the truth for its own sake? > > Rowling sometimes glorifies lying, and other times doesn't > > consider it as an option. Again, JKR is depicting quite believable characters (I'd love to know whether a person 11-15 years old could even begin to estimate how many times a day they lie ). Lying is something people do, like breathing. > > Rowling appears confused on the issue of lying. > > Other liars include Gandalf, who insists his staff is just a > stick, when it's a dangerous weapon, and he's about to use it. A very funny episode involving Gandalf is the Troll episode; did Gandalf do the wrong thing here, to impersonate the Trolls to save the lives of Bilbo and his companions? This is more properly labeled deception, rather than lying, but in the end, he did not strictly speak the truth, either, and by doing so, he saved the day. I don't see accusations of Tolkien "glorifying lying." > > Finally, concerning the adult world, or those who would be in > > authority, there is only derision. > No. I think you would have to look hard to find any derision > regarding McGonagall and Dumbledore. Later on, the series becomes > more about the adult world (to the point now where the child's > world almost seems to be crowded out) and we are seeing adults and > authority from the points of respect, pity, and repulsion (for > example, the slavery issue in Book IV). > > > All the teachers at Hogwarts are either dirty, deranged, > > deceitful, or all three. Sorry, you're just plain wrong about that. I'm not going to mince words when such a gross misstatement is being made. McGonagall, Dumbledore, Flitwick, Hooch, Pomfrey and Sprout are all excellent role models and adults whom Harry respects. Mr. and Mrs. Weasley are also positive adults. (Again, it helps to read beyond the first book.) In fact, I think JKR has given far more depth to the HP universe than Dahl has given to his. In books like "James and the Giant Peach" and "Matilda," the only "good" adults are parental figures whose heyday is past and will never return (James) or who are potentional parental figures once the protagonist tweaks reality a bit (Matilda). The "good" parental figures are helpless and weak, whereas we feel that Dumbledore is anything but, along with the others mentioned above. Again, JKR's adherence to a good bit of reality is the reason for this. Harry encounters both adults that are worthy of his respect and those who are not. We must deal with all kinds of people in life, and Harry is learning this. In finding out about Snape's spying and the truth of Sirius' "crimes," he is also learning not to judge people by appearances or reputation (which may or may not be earned or accurate). > >and when referring to late notices for library books, Rowling > >writes: "He [Harry] didn't belong to the library, so he'd never > >even got rude notes asking for books back." Is it really `rude' > >to remind a person of a commitment he has made? Here you are simply revealing ignorance of British idiom. In Britain, "rude" is not used solely as an antonym for "polite." Do your homework before raising criticisms of this sort. > >When presenting the adult human world, Ms. Rowling presents it in > >such a ridiculously negative light that it becomes completely > >unrealistic and even offensive. All adults are foolish, > >bungling, stupid and boringly unimaginative. Why would a child > >ever look up to them or need them in any way? See the above. And, it should go without saying, do not read Roald Dahl if you do not wish to encounter far more of this than with JKR. > > In contrast, Lewis and Tolkien present a world where truth is > > absolute and transcends the individual. Because the world has > > absolute truth, it is also a world in which order is upheld as > > an honorable characteristic for which to strive. Good and evil > > are two distinct things, with the rewards and consequences for > > the characters' choices reflecting absolute values. And > > finally, adults can be good or evil, and the good are presented > > with nobility of character. As noted above, Tolkien does in fact NOT present a world of this sort. Lewis does, and his stories suffer from the simplicity and the distorting of reality. I have already said why JKR's depiction of good deeds resulting in bad and bad deeds going unpunished is both preferable and more realistic. > > Second, respect for order is a part of a Judeo-Christian world > > view. Consider the general anarchy encouraged at Hogwarts, > > when the students sing the school song: "`Everyone pick their > > favorite tune,' said Dumbledore, `and off we go!'..... Everybody > > finished the song at different times... and when they had > > finished, he [Dumbledore] was one of those who clapped > > loudest." Respect for order is part of a Judeo-Christian world view? Apart from how patently offensive this is as a blanket statement that covers far too many creeds and belief systems, I beg you to look to various Hebrew prophets and Jesus of Nazareth as people who not only had no respect for order, but whose actions were usually designed to shake up the establishment. I will not go into detail or this will turn into a religious diatribe, but I am very, very baffled as to how anyone could make this statement. > >And learning from and submitting to those who have gone before is > >honored as a right way to gain wisdom. > > Harry is learning both, btw. I really think you need to read past > PS/SS. Amen. But I don't think Harry is learning this by "submitting to those who have gone before." He is blazing his own trail, but that is to be expected from someone who is the only known survivor of the killing curse. > > At the beginning of Harry Potter, Harry hates his family, > > laughing at their stupidity and dreaming of revenge - "...the > > largest snake in the place. It could have wrapped its body > > twice around Uncle Vernon's car and crushed it into a trash > > can...." Not much growth in maturity has occurred between the > > first chapter and the last paragraph. When the other > > `witchlings' feel sorry for Harry as he goes back to his nasty > > family, Harry smiles and says, "They don't know we're not > > allowed to use magic at home. I'm going to have a lot of fun > > with Dudley this summer...." > > It's a joke. He doesn't. :-) The joke, I believe, is that he can threaten Dudley with the use of magic and even mouth nonsense words that aren't really spells. For once he has some small power, the ability to really make the Dursleys nervous about what he might do. Of course, this evaporates the moment the letter from the MoM arrives, but for a little while, Harry feels like he isn't completely powerless. This reveling in a small bit of power is natural; remember, at the end of book one he's only about to turn twelve. To expect him to behave with the maturity of a thirty-year-old is unrealistic. > > All the characters--Harry, Bilbo and the children--are presented > > as heroes, yet only Lewis's and Tolkien's live in a world that > > has true consequences for right and wrong, and thus only they > > can truly grow in excellence. What is the basis for this statement? Harry lives in something a lot closer to the real world than Lewis' or Tolkien's characters. You still seem to want everything to be black and white ("true consequences"). In Lewis, I think it is unlikely that someone who was not guilty of betrayal and murder, only bad judgment, would have gone to prison for twelve years (Sirius). But it is Sirius' inherent feeling of guilt that prompts this, in part. He FEELS as though he is to blame. Nuances of this sort are missing from Lewis. In the real world, innocent people do go to jail. > In Book IV, Dumbledore makes a speech to the students urging them > to stand up for what is right and good, and the motivation he > offers them? Remember a certain character who was killed at the > age of 17/18 because he was good, and pure, and innocent! There's > no "Do right and you'll become a king or queen of Narnia" at the > end. It's "Do right and you may die horribly sometime soon!" in > Tolkien it's "Do right and you'll have destroyed everything that > you love about life." At times, Lewis gets it, as when Aslan gives > the marching orders to Jill about rescuing Prince Rillian, but, > except in the Last Battle, the characters never lose anything by > doing right. That's why I've never felt many of Lewis's characters > were "growing in excellence". It's all way too easy for them, with > the exception of Jill, Eustace, and Puddleglum in the "Silver > Chair" and, the apocalyptic scenario of "The Last Battle." > However, even when there is a threat that things aren't going to > turn out well, they still turn out well. HP and Tolkien have moved > past this simplistic view and I salute them for it! Amen again. > >Ms. Rowling's world view of no absolutes and the flaunting of all > >authority and rules carries over into her writing. > > My mother has gone through our "Prisoner of Azkaban" book, and > marked all grammatical errors. Unlike Lewis, whose hold on grammar > continues to astonish me, Rowling's grammar is not that good, in > fact, it can be down right bad, as you can tell from our "POA" > copy. But language changes. Most of JKR's "errors" occur in dialogue, which is contemporary. What's next, "correcting" Huckleberry Finn or other books written in dialect? > If you want to see "poorly written", check out R.L. Stine. Thanks for the warning. > >Rowling's world view is not one to immerse a child in if you are > > seeking to raise him in a Judeo-Christian ethic. See original complaint about "Judeo-Christian" as a blanket term. > > Beyond that, encouraging a child to read poorly written > > yet "sensational" literature may produce a child who can read > > Harry Potter stories, but it will not produce a reader. Disagreeing all over the place. I think my children are learning excellent values from reading HP. My own minister is a fan and brings up elements from the books at church. As for producing readers, my kids weren't much into reading until HP, and now my son is in fourth grade reading at a sixth grade level, and in addition to reading HP, he reads Roald Dahl, Scott O'Dell, The Indian in the Cupboard Books, Jean Craighead George....And my daughter! She's only in second grade and reading at an eighth grade level. She's gone through all four HP books five or six times, The Phantom Tollbooth, all of the Little House books, The Secret Garden and The Little Princess several times each, and is rereading Jane Langton's series about the Hall family for the umpteenth time. I have to keep building more bookshelves for her room. It's a good thing I have my own power tools. (One thing I'm still waiting for JKR to do more of is showing women in non-traditional roles, but you can't have everything, I guess.) --Barb (with thanks to Eileen for many of her wise insights) From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Jan 21 23:15:13 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 23:15:13 -0000 Subject: Some more thoughts about Lily, Remus, Sirius In-Reply-To: <3C4C4AA2.CE35D7F0@kingwoodcable.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33853 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Katze wrote: > > My husband has a much closer groups of friends, and they are very much > the same way. They accepted me with open arms (I moved out here...so I > knew and didn't know anyone). So I find it unusual to pain Lily as the > bad person who tried to steal James away. > > My impression is that Lily and James were both liked at Hogwarts, and > Sirius and Remus (not sure about Peter...cause he just follows) accepted > her as another friend. They accepted her, yes. But, she wasn't in doing the map... > They also only seem to speak bout > James when asked...no questions have been asked about Lily, which seems > to be the reason they don't speak about her. Pretty much so. At least when Harry's around. How do they know how much Harry's ready or willing to hear? They don't unless Harry asks. Sirius... well, it seems as if Sirius and James grew up together and met Remus and Peter at school. From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com Mon Jan 21 23:20:11 2002 From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 17:20:11 -0600 Subject: a character's character & house References: <004701c1a2c5$35c451c0$e6419fc1@oemcomputer> Message-ID: <3C4CA22B.FA933571@kingwoodcable.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33854 m.bockermann at t-online.de wrote: > Still, I am convinced she *could* have been in Slytherin, like Harry. I > know, DD said that Harry "could speak parselmouth because Voldemort" could. > But I cannot accept (unless proven wrong by JKR) that Harrys "Slytherin > traits" are simply the result of being rubbed off on Harry. That is a nice > and easy explanation I would give a twelve year old, too. But I suspect that > there is a lot that DD hasnt told Harry yet, because he is too young (see > HP1). In HP2 DD tells Harry that it is "our choices as much as our abilities > that make us who we are". That has a double meaning, this line. It means > that Harry is a Gryffindor by choice, but, as the hat has emphazised several > times, Harry "would have fared well in Slytherin". And saying that Harry got > his Slytherin abilities because of Voldemorts attack explains neither why he > survived (certainly other parents would have sacrificed themselves), nor why > Voldemort attacked him in the first place (Voldemort intended to kill Harry > but his mother would not have needed to die - says Voldemort). I've been pondering this. Yes, Harry does have qualities that Slytherin admired: Parseltongue, resourcefulness, determination, and a reckless disregard for rules. Hrmmm...doesn't this also sound like James, excluding the Parseltongue? So while, I think D tells Harry that he has Slytherin traits, I don't believe that they necessary come directly from Voldemort. I think the qualities of a person that causes them to be put into a house are the qualities that the person is choosing to emphasize. I think that if we look at all the characters, they will have some of the qualities of each house. Take for instance, our favorite person Snape. Why Snape? Because he's probably one of the most developed older characters that we know (right now D is just good...we have no idea what kind of wrath will come when he's angry). Snape is cunning, and conniving, and will do anything to achieve his means. He is also brave and has a lot of nerve (both Gryffindor qualities) to leave the DE's and go against Voldemort, knowing what Voldemort might do to him. He's got a ready mind, and has some wit, both Ravenclaw qualities. If Cleverness, as some believe, are Ravenclaw qualities, then he has that too. He appears to be loyal to Dumbledore, right now at least, which is a Hufflepuff trait. Another Hufflepuff trait is "just". He's very much interested in people being rewarded or punished for good or bad deeds (and will do almost anything to find the trouble makers - doing anything would be a Slytherin trait). Hermione has *strong* Ravenclaw qualities, but she was put in Gryffindor. I think this is because she's got to have to nerve to toodle around with H & R, as well as have bravery to follow Harry to the stone in SS/PS. She is also very loyal to D and Harry, and she too is much like Snape (though slightly tempered) in being just. She is also resourceful and determined which, according to D, are traits that Slytherin admired. Fred and George, I think, would also have done well in Slytherin. Ohmygawd! Did I just say that? Yes. They are resourceful, determined, and have an extreme disregard for Rules. I think they can be quite cunning too, but not willing to kill anyone to meet their means (they didn't have a problem blowing up Dudley's tongue with their toffee though). They are also very clever (developing all sorts of good for their shop), like Ravenclaw, and are very loyal to their family (Hufflepuff). Ron is probably the most Gryffindor type person that I see. He is very brave, and has lots of nerve. He is also loyal like Hufflepuff. He's got the celverness/strategy that I associate with Ravenclaw (the chess game). And he has also has a disregard for Rules (Something that Snape *hates* which is strange since Snape is a Slytherin). Anyway...my point is simply that if we look hard enough, all of our characters will have traits of each house. I think the sorting hat assesses the qualities of each house in the person, and then looks deep in their mind to see what kind of choices the person has made, and that's what causes a house to be chosen. -Katze From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Mon Jan 21 23:19:18 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 23:19:18 -0000 Subject: Some more thoughts about Lily and the Marauders (LONG) In-Reply-To: <20020121103133.33219.qmail@web14704.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33855 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., pigwidgeonthirtyseven >But I seriously doubt that Remus had the courage to get close with a girl because of all the inevitable consequences of telling her about his lycanthropy, a possible refusal >etc. Which is kind of funny given so many female list members' immediate propensity to take him home and look after him. Eileen From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Mon Jan 21 23:21:38 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 23:21:38 -0000 Subject: Snape, the DEs and the Longbottoms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33856 I agree with everything you have to say! --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" wrote: > While we're on the subject of Snape's old Slytherin gang, I've > noticed a curious tendency of fans, both here and elsewhere, > to resist strongly the notion that Snape could possibly have > retained any affection or regard for his old DE colleagues > after his defection to Dumbledore's camp. In fact, many > people seem to prefer to believe that he never really liked > them all that much to begin with. (This is particularly > evident in fanfiction, where Snape's relations with his old > classmates, when depicted, run a very small emotional gamut > indeed, ranging all the way from contemptuous disdain to > virulent hatred.) The general attitude seems to be: "Oh, > well, Sevvie never really could stand any of those guys in > the first place, you know. And even if maybe he did once, he > sure loathes them now." Yes, I've noticed this too! Could this be connected to people's unwillingness to believe that Snape really favours Draco or likes Lucius? 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. > Or, alternatively, might the unwillingness to concede the > possibility that Snape might have truly cared for his old > friends and colleagues be really nothing more than a ploy > we as readers have devised to ensure our *own* psychological > comfort with the character? Perhaps in order to redeem Snape > _to ourselves_ we must first place him in an emotional context > from which he was *not,* in fact, betraying his friends when he > defected to Dumbledore's camp? > > Because, really, there's just no getting around it, is there? > It's an ugly thing to do, to betray ones friends. No matter > what the justification, no matter how sound the principles or > the motivations underlying the betrayal, no matter how much we > may approve of it as a political act, it remains undeniably > *ugly*. I think that was it with me, at first. Though I've started getting past that defense, and the thing gets more ugly, and potentially more heartwrenching the more you look at it. Similarly, I was always extremely disturbed as a child by Bilbo's betrayal of the dwarves in "The Hobbit" (referenced much in the worthwhile literature discussion) He was right, and the rest were becoming greedy, hateful, and callous, but to deceive poor Bombur (wasn't it?) and climb over that wall with the Arkenstone to go and negotiate with their greatest enemies, including the Elvenking who had imprisoned them not so kindly? It really is disturbing. You feel just as much for Thorin when the truth dawns on him that he has been betrayed, as for Bilbo. But there, at least, there was a reconciliation. And the DEs don't even know Snape has betrayed them. It'd be more like the part in "The Hobbit" where they're all being so kind to Bilbo, while he's hiding the Arkenstone from him. (That always gets to me.) > So is that it, perhaps? Do we tell ourselves that Snape > never really liked the DEs in the first place because we > are unwilling to acknowledge the extent to which Severus > Snape is just Peter Pettigrew, seen through the looking glass? Very good point. > But I prefer not to. Until Rowling proves me wrong, I will > continue to operate under the assumption that even while > conspiring to betray them, Snape retained a strong personal > affection for many of the DEs, and that when they got > themselves slaughtered by Aurors or shipped off to Azkaban, > it really *hurt* -- even (or, rather, *especially*) when it > happened due to the information he was secretly passing along > to Dumbledore. It is terribly common for real-world spies > to engage in just this brand of cognitive dissonance. One > might argue, in fact, that the ability to maintain such a > schismed perspective is the hallmark of a successful agent. Exactly. And we don't know that everyone killed by Aurors or taken to Azkaban was equally guilty. There could have been people among them who were less guilty than he. Mrs. Lestrange looks like BIG trouble, but what about people who were implicated, like Bagman, in collecting info. for Voldemort (on Snape's information also) and didn't have Bagman's connections to save them? Poor Snape could really be suffering. >Emotions are not rational, and anger is very rarely > "fair," and blaming the victim, while it may be horrendously > unjust, is also an all-too-human tendency. I can easily > imagine Snape feeling particularly resentful towards the > Longbottoms. They are, after all, the reason that the > Lestranges (who should have been *safe,* dammit -- the > war was over, the arrests had come to an end, they would > have been home free if only they hadn't had to go messing > with the Longbottoms like that) are now serving life in > Azkaban. We don't really know how the whole situation came about, btw. Why would they suppose Frank Longbottom to know about where Voldemort was? Sound like "entrapment" gone wrong on the MoM's behalf? Snape could really resent this, especially if his greater affections in the situation were for Barty Crouch Jr. More on that idea later. > And there are likely guilt issues as well. From what Sirius > tells Harry et al in GoF about Severus Snape's School Days > (famous for his fascination with the Dark Arts, entered > school knowing more curses than half the 7th years, and so > forth), it seems more than likely to me that Snape was the > one who led the rest of his old Slytherin gang down the road > to damnation in the first place. If such is the case, then > he's doubly culpable, bearing responsibility not only for > what eventually happened to Rosier and Wilkes and the > Lestranges, but also for the fates of all of their victims > -- the Longbottoms included. Now, that I was sure of when I first read GoF, that Snape was the leader not a follower in the "gang". What's more, he could have influenced younger Slytherins to the bad. Barty Crouch was 18, no?, when the Longbottom/Lestrange incident occured? And we have no timeline for that, right, except that it was after V's downfall? But supposing that Crouch Jr. was in Slytherin (in a younger year) while Snape was still there, and like other Slytherins, had looked up to him. And, even to this day, Snape's influence on the House could have been a major factor in taking them to where they are. > But all that said, I think that we might want to bear in > mind that Frank Longbottom was not precisely an innocent > in the full meaning of that term. His wife may have been, > but he himself was not. He was not a hapless bystander, > caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. He wasn't > even a civilian. He was an _Auror_, invested with the > authority to investigate, interrogate, arrest, and -- in > the last year before Voldemort's defeat -- also to torture, > to magically coerce, or even to kill those he suspected of > malfeasance. Not to say that he abused his power, of course > -- Dumbledore seems to have liked him, so we may perhaps > safely assume that he did not -- but the fact nonetheless > remains that we are not talking about a defenseless bystander > here. What happened to the man was horrible beyond imagining, > yes. But he wasn't exactly a *lamb.* > > Nor was he even necessarily all that young. We are told that > the Longbottoms were "very popular," which does rather > encourage us to think of them as popular in the same way > that the Potters were popular -- which is to say, as young > and handsome and overflowing with potential -- but given > the mood of wizarding society at the time, "very popular" > could equally well refer to a hardened, tough-as-nails > war-hero, well out of his twenties. Not everyone chooses > to have their first child at the tender age of twenty-one, > as the Potters did. Certainly the impression I get of > Neville's grandmother is one of old age, rather than late > middle-age, which to my mind rather implies that the > Longbottoms weren't all that young when Neville was born. Well, I have this strange vision of Donald Rumsfeld as Frank Longbottom, that has come from nowhere (and that's definitely too old), so I'm not unbiased, but I do opt for an older, highly ranked Frank Longbottom. Eileen From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Mon Jan 21 23:51:56 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 23:51:56 -0000 Subject: New Theory about Why Sirius Played Trick on Snape Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33857 Not to scare him, as his defenders insist. Not to kill him, as Snape insists. But to have Lupin bite him, making Snape a werewolf. Maybe, Sirius thought that arrogant, bigoted Snape deserved to see the world from the point of the down and out like Lupin. This could especially work if Snape was close on Lupin's track, and had almost figured it out. Now, that's a way of silencing somebody. And to Sirius's mind, it's not as bad as we might think. After all, his best friend, Lupin, was a werewolf, and that didn't spoil HIS life. (Though, of course, we know that it did... later.) Think about it. Eileen P.S. Of course, an acronym is needed. Tabouli? From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Jan 21 23:53:49 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 23:53:49 -0000 Subject: Mottoes for Houses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33858 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "catlady_de_los_angeles" wrote: > Will people please (answer on OT: HPFGU-OTChatter at y... ) > help me think of funny mottoes and serious mottoes for the four > Houses? I can explain what I mean by examples: > HUFFLEPUFF With work and faithfulness can even the fastest be won. (The story about the rabbit and the turtle?) > RAVENCLAW Brains, Wit and Cleverness. > SLYTHERIN Law is as it's read. > GRYFFINDOR Fortune favours the brave. From finwitch at yahoo.com Tue Jan 22 00:31:02 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 00:31:02 -0000 Subject: New Theory about Why Sirius Played Trick on Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33859 Very good! - Snape as a werewolf... How would Sirius - anyone- make sure Snape doesn't tell Remus is werewolf? Make Snape a werewolf, too! And, yes... It would be just perfect! Can't beat 'em - join 'em. But even better: make 'em join you! What if Snape's a werewolf? He CAN brew Wolfsbane potion himself that no one notices, he knows about Whomping Willow... From liana_l_s at yahoo.com Mon Jan 21 21:26:17 2002 From: liana_l_s at yahoo.com (liana_l_s) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 21:26:17 -0000 Subject: Some more thoughts about Lily and the Marauders (LONG) In-Reply-To: <20020121103133.33219.qmail@web14704.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33860 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., pigwidgeonthirtyseven wrote: > OK, so according to these assumptions, we have four young men none of whom is in a stable realationship, there might be the occasional flirt but nothing serious, and then there comes LILY. Personally, I do hope it doesn't go that way, but that's mostly because I've lived through that -exact- same scenario myself as the girlfriend! ^_^ I agree with the idea of there being some conflict introduced by Lily, because the dynamics of that sort of relationship - the close group of four friends plus the intruding girl - are very, very hard to deal with, and I'm sure there -were- problems at various points. But we do see the end result - the apparently happy couple (of course we don't know much about them but they -did- get married, have a kid and look happy!) and the two friends who still have a lot of love and respect for their old buddy. (I don't think Peter counts at this point, as we have no idea about his motivations. Who knows - maybe he DID have big problems with Lily of some form or another.) Given that, I'm assuming that even though there might have been some hostilities and awkwardnesses, the friendships between the Marauders and James' relationship with Lily stayed intact, and the Marauders had some degree of respect (or at least tolerance!) for Lily. (They don't talk about her much in Book 3, which I've just reread, but they do talk about her in the same way as they talk about James. Lily and James, Lily and James, Lily and James...) I would imagine that Lily's relationship with the Marauders as a group went one of two ways: she either kept her distance from them, interacting mostly with James and being sweet and friendly with the others as she came in contact with them, or she became a sort of Marauders auxilliary, becoming friends with the other three. In either case, she would have to take care that such a situation as Suzanna describes did NOT come up - sacrificing some of what she might want to what James' friends might want. In that sort of situation you want the guys to be on your side enough to not resent you, and pushing your luck can result in angering or alienating someone you love. Or maybe their relationship came late in their time at Hogwarts, so that there wasn't a lot of time for anyone to have big problems with it, and it wasn't so much of a big deal, or the others were mature enough to understand it. And who knows - now I push merrily on into complete speculation - Lily might have been the best thing that ever happened to James! One of my boyfriend's friends who has known him much longer than I have pointed out to my boyfriend that he's been a much happier and balanced person since he and I became a couple, and it's basically true and applies to me as well. It'd be hard to resent someone if she made your friend's life so much happier. Then again, that's my situation and not hers. Anyways, I do hope we learn more about Lily, and I do hope she doesn't turn out to be a friend-wrecking Slytherin! Liana From meboriqua at aol.com Tue Jan 22 00:56:29 2002 From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 00:56:29 -0000 Subject: Hagrid's Competence In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33861 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "sing2wine" wrote: > Hagrid is certainly more competent than Gilderoy Lockhart - I don't > care how much Lockhart has published! Teachers in many private > schools are not certified and colleges hire adjuncts - often industry professionals - to teach. Hagrid would certainly qualify as an "industry professional". If that vicious little brat, Draco Malfoy, had approached Buckbeak as he was instructed to - Hagrid would not have lost his hard-earned confidence and would have emerged as a much more competent teacher. While we're on the subject, would you consider a teacher who bullies students (the way Snape bullies Neville & Harry) competent - I wouldn't.> Oh, I'd say Snape is extremely competent. He's just a nasty soul. His students actually *do* things in his classes, not stand around feeding flobberworms because their teacher doesn't have the chutzpah to continue teaching after he was spooked by a bad experience. Hagrid irks me in general. As much as I respect Dumbledore for giving Hagrid the chance to teach, I wouldn't have done so in Dumbledore's shoes. I don't like that Hagrid continues to use his wand disguised as an umbrella after he was explicity told not to. I don't like that he drinks, especially when he is with Harry. He runs to the bar after he takes Harry to Gringotts, and is found drunk by the Trio after his woes with Buckbeak overtake him. As a groundskeeper, I am assuming he is on duty all the time; getting drunk on the campus of a school is inexcusable. I also do not like that he uses his class as an experiment to see just what these Blast-Ended Skrewts are; he has no idea himself. Last, I didn't like that he leaned on the Trio for help with Norbert, something he wasn't supposed to have to begin with. Hagrid isn't a bad person; he is affectionate, caring and sincere. However, I don't see him handling the responsibility of teaching the way I think teachers (and I am one) should. I certainly wouldn't compare him to Lockhart who never *really* published anything and is a fraud through and through, but Hagrid needs help. Perhaps a teaching assistant (Charlie Weasley?) is what he needs, but his classes for the most part are too much based on what Hagrid likes, not what is best for the students, and what Hagrid likes are creatures that even he has trouble controlling and understanding. I'd rather be in Snape's class any day. --jenny from ravenclaw **************** From cindysphynx at home.com Tue Jan 22 01:12:05 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 01:12:05 -0000 Subject: Snape-As-Dementor Theory (WAS New Theory about Why Sirius Played) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33862 Finwitch wrote: > What if Snape's a werewolf? He CAN brew Wolfsbane potion himself that > no one notices, he knows about Whomping Willow... Eh, maybe it's time to toss out a theory about why Snape is the way he is. Canon gives us lots of clues that Snape is far from normal: greasy hair, a silky voice, sallow skin, mean-spirited, occupies a dungeon, severe personality, prowling the castle, doesn't spend a lot of time outside in the sun, and associated with evil DEs. He is described as gliding, gives Neville the shakes and is Neville's deepest fear. Others have said this adds up to Snape-As-Vampire. I have said before that it adds up to Snape-As-Half-Dementor. But how could a wizard have, um, relations with a dementor to produce Snape, The Half-Dementor? Well, how about this? Snape isn't a direct descendant of a dementor via marriage. Instead, Snape's mother was pregnant with him when she was attacked by a dementor. She was unable to ward off the dementor, and the dementor sucked out her soul, leaving her alive and still gestating our little Severus. She continued to exist and Severus was born. Because his mother was relieved of her soul while he was in utero, Severus is part-dementor and has many of the characteristics of a dementor, but not to the same degree as a real dementor (cold, gliding, draining happiness from the air around them, infesting the darkest places). So for instance (and this isn't in canon, so bear with me), perhaps Snape has greasy hair because he cannot tolerate water. (Note that there is a stone gargoyle fountain in Snape's classroom, but we never see him touch water.) He can tolerate enough water to wipe his skin clean, but taking a shower to wash his hair would finish him. Although Snape shares an affinity with dementors, he resents them for what they did to his poor mother. Severus may have lost a bit of his soul in the attack as well. Dumbledore knows that Snape is part- dementor, but this is consistent with Dumbledore's willingness to hire people others wouldn't. This backstory, in turn, explains why Snape did not hand Black to the dementors in PoA when Snape had the chance. Deep down, Snape could not be directly responsible for allowing dementors to do what they did to his mother and suck out Black's soul, despite how deeply he hates Black. OK, it's not L.O.L.L.I.P.O.P.S., but it's a start. :-) Cindy (hoping Lupin will teach Neville to conjure a Patronus to get even with Snape) From cindysphynx at home.com Tue Jan 22 01:19:57 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 01:19:57 -0000 Subject: Hagrid's Competence In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33863 Jenny wrote: Might I be permitted to pile on? :-) Hagrid leaked information to the trio about the Sorcerer's Stone. Hagrid blabbed the secret about how to subdue Fluffy. Hagrid gave Dudley (an innocent child) a pig's tail because he was angry at Vernon. Hagrid used magic to retrieve Harry when he was not permitted to do so and asked Harry to keep it a secret. Hagrid endangered the trio and Malfoy by having them look for a unicorn murderer in the forbidden forest. Hagrid endangered Ron and Harry by encouraging them to enter the forest in CoS, which almost got them eaten by large spiders. Really, what's not to like? :-) Cindy (officially rescinding her pledge to say nice things about Hagrid upon his demise on the tentacles of the Giant Squid) From alohomora at execulink.com Mon Jan 21 23:13:30 2002 From: alohomora at execulink.com (alohomora at execulink.com) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 18:13:30 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The books a Hogwarts Cover-up??? References: Message-ID: <3C4CA09A.8A64640E@execulink.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33864 > Has anyone ever heard of the > Philadelphia experiment? Might that not be man's first attempt at > apparating? > > Jo Ellen Jo Ellen...you make many excellent points about Hogwarts (real or imaginary). I've often fantasized (since childhood) about our planet having 'societies' if you will, that exist on different planes simultaneously with 'us'. I wonder if our vision and our brains are only capable of seeing (hearing, feeling, tasting, smelling) what our genetics and physical makeup, at this point in evolution, allow us to see (hear, feel, taste, smell). For instance, humans can only see certain portion of the light spectrum. Suppose our eyes (ears, skin, tongue, nose) and brain were to evolove to include a greater portion of the light spectrum, or increased perception of all of our senses. I'm sure humans have dormant senses that 'could' resurface or sensory perception that we've not even begun to imagine. Would we be able to see heat rising off of human bodies, see microwaves, see the energy of a dying person leaving the body, walk and talk with our deceased ancestors or even see, hear, touch and communicate with witches, wizards, goblins and all manner of other creatures roaming the earth among us? My earliest recollection of these fantiasies was around age 8 when I was sure that someone said my name and nobody else was in the room. Nothing more...just my name. I was raised with religion but I was sure it wasn't "God" speaking to me, nor did I think I was mad. I just imagined that someone was there trying to get my attention. It's only a fantasy made up by an 8 year old but every time I get that "ghost walked over my grave" shiver, I stop to re-think my childhood fantasy. Perhaps that is why the Potter books and their side by side Muggle/Wizarding communites are so attractive to me. The Wizards are not on another planet they are right there living among the Muggles. Alohomora (Barb) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From brewpub44 at earthlink.net Tue Jan 22 01:35:35 2002 From: brewpub44 at earthlink.net (brewpub44) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 01:35:35 -0000 Subject: Ethnicity in HP: A utopian depiction? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33865 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "christi0469" wrote:> > But why would JKR chose a utopian treatment of ethnic diversity > when she has chosen a "shades of grey" approach for most everything > else? My theory is that she is downplaying RL discrimination and > prejudice in order to highlight the forms of discrimination specific > to Potterverse. I primarily read sci-fi, fantasy fiction is a second favorite. But both have the ability to do highly allegorical, and that is one of my favorite parts of these genres. The beauty of these stories is that they take a common, yet controversial, real-world problem and talk about it in such a non-obvious way that it makes people think. There are people out there who can't have a reasonable discussion about racial prejudice, and any attempt would make them angry or cause them to recoil from the story. There are people who get upset at the first mention of any religion extant in the world. There are people who react in emotional ways to discusions of sexuality. But when you use allegory to describe these things, those same people aren't as offended and can actually understand what the author is talking about. People who would not watch a television show about racial infighting can watch the Star Trek episode with the half black-half white faced aliens fighting for silly reasons. People who would not read a story about religious prejudice can read one about werewolves being outcasts. I don't think that JKR is playing coward by avoiding sexism and racial tolerance. I think she is trying to make her points in more subtle ways. If kids can think mistreating Lupin is horrible, perhaps they will realize that mistreating anyone for illogical reasons is wrong, and carry that into adulthood. But if you directly talk about topics upsetting to some, you risk alienating them and they'll never come around. Directly confronting uncomfortable topics belongs in other genres, not fantasy or sci-fi (IMHO). A Barkeep in Diagon Alley From editor at texas.net Tue Jan 22 01:49:20 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 19:49:20 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Another werewolf question References: Message-ID: <013201c1a2e7$03d01c40$e27763d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 33866 This has to be quick, I'm real tired and much laundry and house-y things left to do tonight. Tori said: Besides Wolfsbane Potion, there is another possible cure and I am wondering how it can be brought to light in order to save Sirius. [This is me--you mean Lupin? What does a werewolf cure have to do with Sirius?] In CoS, Lockheart has Harry act out a scenario in which he supposedly performed a charm that turned a werewolf back into a normal human again. Of course, we later learn that Lockheart didn't do any of the things he wrote about himself, but that someone else did...I'm pretty confident that someone will realize this--I'm betting on Hermione!--and cure Lupin so that he can be more effective in the fight against Voldy. [This is me again; I'm caught in your format. The charm is the Homorphus Charm. It seems to make a changed person (it is not specified that it is only for werewolves, and the roots mean only "man shape") turn back into their human form. We do not hear anything about how long it lasts. Lockhart did steal the credit, as you say, but he stole the credit for things actually done, so we can probably believe that the use of the Charm *did* save a village. However, I think the village was saved when the Charm revealed the identity of the werewolf, who could then be dealt with. It need only last long enough for the human form to be recognized. The knowledge of who it was would save the village. So. This is not a cure. It is a temporary measure to force someone to reveal themselves. I imagine it would also force Sirius into human form, or Rita, or any other changed human. Or, less combatively, it could allow you to identify an animal as actually being human, so that you could later figure out how to restore them. If this Charm were a cure, Lupin would know. Lupin himself states there is no cure. Lycanthropy is a life-ending disease, in that it forever separates the sufferer from the mainstream of society. Most,I imagine, get into the "to H** with you too" mode and do become evil; it must take a great effort of will or force of personality to still strive as Lupin does to benefit others.] End me, back to you... Can anyone venture a guess as to who can break the memory charms and how? [what do the memory charms have to do with it? The charms on the people Lockhart victimized? Probably nothing, especially since he probably went to enormous lengths to hide who they were and now doesn't remember, himself.] Also, who might be powerful enough to do the charm on Lupin? [I don't think it would do any good, except if someone had known it the night of the Shrieking Shack incident. There is no cure, Lupin says so, and so by inference the Charm is not permanent.] [Sorry about the format thing; I don't know why it does this, but it plays havoc with inter-leaved answers....] --Amanda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Rebecca.Allen at turner.com Tue Jan 22 01:51:59 2002 From: Rebecca.Allen at turner.com (Allen, Rebecca) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 20:51:59 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape, the DEs and the Longbottoms Message-ID: <759A085B4DB9AF47AD5BB22098C91728075326@cnncex01.turner.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33867 Elkins wrote > Hello. Newbie here, bleary and dry-eyed and trembling from weeks > of staring at the computer screen reading old posts, and now > finally ready to de-lurk with a few comments on Snape, the DEs, > and the Longbottoms. Welcome to the list! You've presented some interesting arguments, and seeing as some people support you in this, I feel I can get away with making some arguments in the opposite direction. > The general attitude seems to be: "Oh, > well, Sevvie never really could stand any of those guys in > the first place, you know. And even if maybe he did once, he > sure loathes them now." > > Why do we believe this? Snape did join the DEs of his own > free will, after all. He went to school with these people; > he worked with them; we can probably safely assume that he > risked his life alongside them. He did eventually choose to > betray them, yes. But that doesn't mean that he never really > *liked* them. Why is it so important to us to believe > otherwise? > > Is it perhaps because the Snape we see in canon strikes us > as so profoundly anti-social that we simply find it > impossible to imagine him ever having had any friends? Well, yes. If he were really gregarious he'd probably have recovered a little by the end of several years and made new friends. I don't think it's irrational to assume that his moody, contemptuous personality hasn't been with him since he was really young. If he'd been having so much fun with his friends he might not have had such a (solitary) obsession with the Marauders. > Or > is it, perhaps, because we as readers find the DEs so > utterly and completely loathsome -- they are the *Baddies,* > after all -- that we are unwilling to humanize them even to > the extent of conceding that they might ever do anything so > sympathetic as form friendships? Do we think them incapable > of it? And if so, then why? Because they're Dark Wizards? > Because they're Slytherins? Because they're bigots? Maybe because JKR has yet to portray a sympathetic Slytherin other than Snape. If Mr. Crabbe or Goyle were shown coming to Hogwarts to have a chat with his beloved son and he seemed nice but misguided (instead of just as stupid as his progeny), if Mrs. Lestrange wasn't portrayed as Lady MacBeth or Maleficent(I'm assuming it's her in the pensieve too), if Lucius were something other than evil incarnate...maybe I'd imagine Snape missed his old buds too. But I don't. Let's face it -- JKR's Slytherin is the House of Bad Guys. Snape is the only exception so far. > Because they're the sort of people who dehumanize their > enemies? Well, there is that. Killing and torturing is hard to relate to. And they betray their friends too. Karkaroff turns in all his old friends; Crouch Jr. wants vengeance on everyone who escaped. See, if we are to imagine Snape really liking these people, we have to have some reason to imagine them as likable. > Or is it, perhaps, that when push comes to shove, we just > don't really believe it possible to continue to care for > people personally once one has broken with them politically, > ethically, and spiritually? Do we reject out of hand the > possibility that one might hate the sin while loving the > sinner? I agree that Snape might be messed up over the idea that he turned against all his old friends. But it might not be simply 'oh, I really loved those guys and then how could I have later betrayed them.' It might be instead, or also, 'oh how could all my old friends have turned out to be so bloodthirsty or cowardly that they insisted on staying with V.' I *totally* agree it must be an agonizing position to be in in any case. Also, as Marina pointed out today, they probably all joined when they were in their teens, so none of them might have known exactly what they were doing. I'd hold off judgment on who *led* them into it until we know more -- it could have been their own parents, the old head of Slytherin house, we just don't know. > Or, alternatively, might the unwillingness to concede the > possibility that Snape might have truly cared for his old > friends and colleagues be really nothing more than a ploy > we as readers have devised to ensure our *own* psychological > comfort with the character? Perhaps in order to redeem Snape > _to ourselves_ we must first place him in an emotional context > from which he was *not,* in fact, betraying his friends when he > defected to Dumbledore's camp? As a big fan of Snape, I'd say this isn't true. We like him angsty. Betraying old friends is ugly; no one should have to do it. I just don't see *why* we should imagine why they were such lovable types and that he misses them so much. I do agree that he might not trust his own judgment and that he might keep most people at bay because his relationships have been traumatic so far. But that defense mechanism might have started with his earliest upbringing, and was only reinforced by bad experiences later. > So is that it, perhaps? Do we tell ourselves that Snape > never really liked the DEs in the first place because we > are unwilling to acknowledge the extent to which Severus > Snape is just Peter Pettigrew, seen through the looking glass? Whether or not one likes Snape, I think this last statement is completely unsupported by the text. In order for them to be reflections of each other you have to overlook some barn-door sized issues like, oh say, good vs. evil, cowardice vs. courage, etc. I mean come on. The conflict between Voldemort and Dumbledore has clear moral boundaries. This isn't some real-world war where equally sleazy factions are battling over control of some throne, territory or sphere of economic influence -- in which case one spy might be as good as another on the other side. On the contrary, this is one guy who wants to kill off a whole category of people, torture others and generally take over the world, versus the humane, ecumenical forces trying to stop him. Yes, I know the Ministry has some moral issues, but Dumbledore really doesn't, and I'm assuming Snape was spying more or less on behalf of Dumbledore, seeing as D. had to remind the ministry officials at Karkaroff's hearing of this very fact. So my point here is that the choice of which side to work for is not incidental and meaningless, and Snape's final choice was one for good, Peter's was one for evil. Also, lets look at their motivations. When Sirius confronts Peter in the Shrieking shack, he accuses him of being inclined to follow the strongest person he can find out of cowardice. Peter's reply pretty much confirms this; he explains that he followed Voldemort because V. threatened to kill him, to which Sirius replies that he should have let him; the rest of the Marauders would have died for each other. Peter is a sniveling coward -- that's canon. He doesn't even really seem to have much remorse over betraying his friends. Now, granted we don't know a whole lot about Snape's motivation for switching sides. However, I find it hard to believe that one day Dumbledore turned invisible, headed over to a Death Eater's BBQ, dragged Snape out by they hair and commanded him 'spy for our side or I'll kill you.' Given Dumbledore's trust of Snape and the fact that he stresses that Snape risked life and limb to spy for their side, it would seem that what Snape did took enormous courage and conviction -- the opposite of Peter. So yeah, until more information surfaces, I'll continue to imagine that Snape's relationships with his 'old friends' were always at least a little ambivalent, and that he might regret that these friendships didn't develop differently more than he regrets that he's not still friends with them now. /Rebecca [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lipglossusa at yahoo.com Tue Jan 22 02:03:41 2002 From: lipglossusa at yahoo.com (lipglossusa) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 02:03:41 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and related topics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33868 Cindy wrote, > > > > I've read the arguments that Lupin's presence in the train > compartment was not an accident, and I understand that many people > believe he was sent there to protect Harry. I suppose that is > possible, but there is one thing that still bothers me. Why would he > pretend to be asleep? I mean, why not just be upfront about why he > is there? He could walk up to Harry, introduce himself, say that > he's going to keep an eye out for Sirius Black and dementors. > In support of the Lupin-as-protector-sent-by-Dumbledore theory, I think that one reason that Lupin wouldn't have come straight out and told HRH why he was there is that, at this point, Harry still isn't supposed to "know" that Sirius Black is after him. When they arrive at Hogwarts, McGonagall decides to tell him this, but Harry tells her that he heard Mr and Mrs Weasley's conversation already. But, ultimately I have to disagree with the theory that Lupin was put on the train to protect Harry, because (I wrote this in an earlier post) I don't see why Dumbledore would be concerned about Sirius getting on the train in the first place. It's not like he could waltz onto Platform 9 and 3/4 with wizards everywhere, and someone would definitely notice a random huge black dog wandering around. The Hogwarts Express is pretty safe-- everyone gets on in a conspicuous, open space and the train doesn't stop until it gets to Hogsmeade. Plus there must be all kinds of enchantments protecting it against vandalism, breaking down, crashing, etc. I also think that since Dumbledore knows Remus and Sirius's history, he wouldn't put Remus in the position of having to restrain, attack, or possibly kill his former best friend. Marina J. From lipglossusa at yahoo.com Tue Jan 22 02:28:13 2002 From: lipglossusa at yahoo.com (lipglossusa) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 02:28:13 -0000 Subject: Why doesn't Harry ever ask questions? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33869 Okay, with all this discussion of Lily and MWPP, I have to bring up something that continuously bugs me in every single book: why doesn't Harry ever ask any questions about his parents? He does ask in SS why Voldemort wanted to kill him, and Dumbledore tells him that he isn't ready to know yet. But other than that, he never seems to express any desire to know much else, unless it has relevance to the immediate situation. Okay, it's obvious why he doesn't ask the Dursleys, since Petunia and Vernon have an aneurysm every time time he dares to mention his "unnaturalness." But Hagrid, Sirius, Lupin, and practically everyone else who knew James, are always going on about what a great guy James was-- so why doesn't Harry ever ask WHAT it was that James did that was so great? It would be nice to hear some funny stories about all the pranks James was famous for. And why was the Marauders map confiscated in the first place? It could be argued that it's a painful subject for everyone, but it's been 15 years after all. Lupin and Harry never got to be that close, and Sirius is pretty busy as a fugitive on the run to be sitting down with Harry to have a chat about his dead best friends, but Hagrid claims to have been good friends with both Lily and James-- it's just a little hard for me to believe, that in all this time, Harry has never thought to ask him about his parents. I also realize that JKR intends to withhold info for as long as possible in the interest of dragging out the suspense, but if I was Harry, I would want to KNOW. Like, what really happened to the rest of James's and Lily's families? Where was Harry born, and how long were they living at Godric's Hollow? Where are they buried? ... and all the other questions we ask each other on this list. Harry should be the one to ask, and he doesn't. Any thoughts? From frodoyoda at aol.com Tue Jan 22 02:34:08 2002 From: frodoyoda at aol.com (frodoyoda_2000) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 02:34:08 -0000 Subject: A&E Biography of JKR Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33870 I just got through watching the A&E Biography of JK Rowling. It was really fun to watch, and she revealed a few(very few) details about the coming books. 1) The final chapter that she has already written, which we already knew about, is an epilogue!! It tells "what happens to the survivors after they leave school." (I don't know if this is news to anyone but me, but I knew there'd been recent speculation about whether or not there would be an epilogue)She had the chapter in a yellow folder, and said she was quite dubious about showing it to anyone, even concealed as it was. 2) Sean(from whom Ron borrows characteristics) was interviewed. JKR said that like Ron he's "always there when you need him." They also talked about Sean's turquoise Ford Anglia, and there exploits in it. 3) JKR said that she had written about seventeen(?) drafts of the first chapter of PS before she settled on the current one. She said that the others were discarded for revealing to much, and that if they were all put together most of the story would be revealed. 4) OoP was said(by an A&E person, not JKR) to be due out this spring...this I'll take lightly 5) JKR once again attempted to dispell the rumors about writing PS on napkins, about living in an unheated flat, etc. She also talked about the unscrupulous paparazzi who doorstepped her and her father. 6) JKR showed some of her drawings of HP characters and scenes. Some professors(Snape and Sprout, I think, maybe others), Harry, the Weasleys. 7) She spoke of the volumes off material she has written for her own reference and enjoyment which will, sadly, never be published. 8) She cleared up the question about the King's Cross in the books and the King's Cross in life not being identical. She said she was in Manchester when she wrote that chapter, and could not check the actual layout. She attempted it from memory, but mistakenly wrote about a different station(I can't think of which.) 9) She spoke about the possibility, or lack there of, of fans influencing her work. She actually seemed indignant that some fans think they could or should, and said that in the end no fan would ever influence a single word. 10) She said that death was probably the MOST important theme of the series. She talked about a lot of other things that we've heard about before...darkening tone of the books, character's deaths that would be hard to (re)write, etc. Wow, there was so much more, and I can't seem to get it all out right now. Sorry if this is all old news. I guess I'll retreat to lurkdom... Waaaayyyyy to excited, Molly From boggles at earthlink.net Tue Jan 22 03:42:28 2002 From: boggles at earthlink.net (Jennifer Boggess Ramon) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 21:42:28 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why couldn't Voldemort kill Harry? In-Reply-To: <13033637829.20020118231246@tut.by> References: <13033637829.20020118231246@tut.by> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33871 At 11:12 PM +0200 1/18/02, Alexander wrote: > > It's based entirely on the sequence of spells of Voldie >wand. There was no Avada Kedavra spell that hit Harry - >everyone knows that, and it's in HP Lexicon, so I think the >problem needs no introduction. I've never understood why this is a problem. In the Priori Incantatem scene in the graveyard at the end of GoF, we see the "shades" of several spells: Cruciatus spells: audible "echoing screams" but no visible effect Whatever spell it was that produced Wormtail's new hand: shade of the hand Avada Kedavra: the shade of the person killed Note that the spine-bending spell that Voldemort used to make Harry bow has no visible "shade". Neither does the failed Imperius curse V. tried to use on Harry. So: 1) Some spells don't have visible "shades," at least for the brother-wand Priori effect. 2) If Imperius does have a visible effect, the failure of the spell prevents the appearance of the shade in the Priori effect. We could conclude from that that a failed A.K. spell probably also doesn't have a visible effect. Moreover, the _only_ visible "shade" of the A.K. spell under the Priori effect is the shade of the person killed. Who would that be for that particular A.K. spell? The only two candidates are each alive and well and on one end or the other of the Priori effect - there's no possible shade to call, since they're both there already! So there can't be any visible effect for the A.K. spell that failed to kill Harry. -- - 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 theennead at attbi.com Tue Jan 22 02:55:49 2002 From: theennead at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 02:55:49 -0000 Subject: Hermione's ethnicity -- Other wizarding schools in Britain In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33872 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "catlady_de_los_angeles" wrote: > Until GoF, I had a vague impression that Hermione was a > light-skinned black, maybe of West Indian ancestry... (she then goes on to discuss the extent to which the brainy, middle-class, left-wing-leaning child of West Indian dentists might be attacked as an ethnic stereotype by critical readers) Hee! Funny, because when I first read the books, I immediately identified Hermione as *Jewish,* and for very much the same reasons. The bushy hair, the dentist parents, the academic drive, the somewhat precious newly-risen-to-the- middle-class speech mannerisms, the strong social conscience and left-leaning political tendencies... Where I come from (the New York metropolitan area), these are the signifiers of the stereotypical assimilated Jew. Then I remembered that these are *British* books, and realized that my reading was in all likelihood seriously culturally flawed. While I labored under this delusion, though, it never once occurred to me to be offended by the stereotype. I did wince once or twice -- but that was mainly because I am myself a brainy, left-leaning, somewhat pretentious child of nouveau-middle-class suburban assimilated Jewish dentists, and the depiction at times struck a little close to home. ;) Rowling paints with one hell of a broad brush, and I sincerely doubt that those easily offended by stereotypes would enjoy the books anyway. What must young aristocrats think of the Malfoys, one wonders? Or working class kids, of Stan Steerpike? Or, for that matter, French and Eastern European readers, of nearly all of Goblet of Fire? Like so many other enjoyable things in life, Rowling just isn't suited for the easily-offended. About Hogwarts, Catlady wrote: > I believe that JKR told one untruth in canon and another in > interviews. I have come to believe that even though she said that > Hogwarts is the only wizarding school in Britain and has 1000 > students, it actually is one of three or four schools in the > British Isles (Britain + Ireland + Man etc) and each has around > 250-300 students. Hogwarts is the BEST and OLDEST of the lot. I'd buy that. I don't think that Rowling's claim that Hogwarts is the only magical school in the British Isles meshes at all well with the *real* canon, truth be told. The books themselves strongly imply otherwise. In Chapter Six of PS, on the train, Hermione tells Harry and Ron: "...it was ever such a surprise when I got my letter, but I was ever so pleased, of course, I mean, it's the very best school of witchcraft there is, I've heard..." Why on earth would she say this, if Hogwarts were the only school of witchcraft in Britain? As a British citizen, where else *would* she go? Hogwarts would be rather the default, wouldn't it? So why would she bother to mention how pleased she is to have been accepted at Hogwarts _in particular,_ unless there were other, far less prestigious possibilities open to her? (Yes, all right. I know. Draco's parents _did_ consider sending him off to Durmstrang. But the Malfoys are a rather special case: Lucius can pull strings, and he has sway over the headmaster there. We don't really know whether English students normally have the option of attending foreign schools, or whether Draco's admission to Durmstrang would have been a special exception made as a personal favor from Karkaroff.) And then, in Chapter Seven, we get from Neville: "And you should have seen their faces when I got in here -- they thought I might not be magic enough to come, you see." Neville's already told the other kids about how pleased his family was when he first showed signs of magical ability. His admission to Hogwarts is described as an even further triumph: "_And_ you should have seen their faces when I got in _here._" When I got in here. As opposed to...where? If all magical children in Britain go to Hogwarts as a matter of due course, then this statement just doesn't make any sense to me. It only makes sense to me if there are other, less prestigious schools -- schools for the magical, but the not-particularly- magically-gifted, perhaps -- to which Neville could have been (and clearly expected to be) relegated. -- Elkins From jbryson at richmond.infi.net Tue Jan 22 03:02:40 2002 From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 03:02:40 -0000 Subject: Divination -- Cause or effect? In-Reply-To: <3C4C7E71.12437FC5@kingwoodcable.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33873 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Katze wrote: > Divination...not sure...that seems much like a sleeper class, since > one can BS his/her way through the final. I watched the Div class in PoA and began to wonder which way it was working. Trelewany tried to get Harry to "see" Beaky twitching headles on the ground, but Harry tells her he sees him flying off. JKR does not say he BS'ed it; nor that anybody in the class did. My question is, did Harry "seeing" Beaky fly away, somehow _cause_ or contribute to causing, Beaky's escape? Going out further on this limb, night this be how magic works, involving visualization of the desired effect? Running, dodging, and ducking, Tex From westmerd at health.qld.gov.au Tue Jan 22 04:23:00 2002 From: westmerd at health.qld.gov.au (debsw77) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 04:23:00 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and related topics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33874 > Cindy wrote, > > > > It's not like he (Surius) could > waltz onto Platform 9 and 3/4 with wizards everywhere, and someone > would definitely notice a random huge black dog wandering around. Just remember that nobody but the marauders knew that Sirius could become a dog at that point of time, everybody was looking for a man not a dog so nobody would have noticed if a great big black dog would have appeared unless they thought it was a Grim remember that IIRC, when a person sees a Grim they are supposed to die within 24 hours, I remember Ron telling Harry about it after Prof Trelawney saw a grim in Harry's teacup. Another thought did Prof Trelawney see a Grim in Harry's teacup or did she actually see Sirius in his dog form?? From andrew_macian at yahoo.com Tue Jan 22 04:45:44 2002 From: andrew_macian at yahoo.com (Andrew MacIan) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 20:45:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Divination -- Cause or effect? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020122044544.24271.qmail@web9504.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33875 Greetings from Andrew! Perhaps another loop in this quantum universe... And yes, it does potentially apply, as we'll see. --- tex23236 wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Katze > wrote: > > > Divination...not sure...that seems much like a > sleeper class, since > > one can BS his/her way through the final. > > I watched the Div class in PoA and began to wonder > which way it was > working. Trelewany tried to get Harry to "see" > Beaky twitching > headles on the ground, but Harry tells her he sees > him flying off. JKR > does not say he BS'ed it; nor that anybody in the > class did. My > question is, did Harry "seeing" Beaky fly away, > somehow _cause_ or > contribute to causing, Beaky's escape? Predictive causation on the atomic scale was one of the great problems in the early days of QM. Consider the famous photon experiment that illustrates that which way the probability function collapses determines which 'side' of the barrier the photon 'chooses'. Your hypothesis above might be a nice thought experiment in thaumaturgical theory. Rephrasing your notion slightly, if one predicts something and has enough belief to See it occur, does that Sight force the event? If so, does this imply that magic has both substance and force? Given your well-chosen example, I would support this as being true, at least within what we have been shown in Rowling's universe. > Going out > further on this limb, > night this be how magic works, involving > visualization of the desired > effect? You approach one of the major schools of Western magic(k) with this, as I am sure you're aware. One of the bases of what is called Ceremonial Magick (and this is the school that most closely resembles Rowling's version of magic) is that if the thaumaturge can visualize an object (or an effect; again the QM duality) precisely enough at a fine enough level, he/she will, in effect, create or transform the object into whatever it is that he/she wills it to be. (To do what thou will shall be the whole of the law.) > > Running, dodging, and ducking, > > Tex Stand and deliver, sir! {grin} Cheers, Drieux PS For those interested....yes, OTO. ===== 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 video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ From andrew_macian at yahoo.com Tue Jan 22 05:07:20 2002 From: andrew_macian at yahoo.com (Andrew MacIan) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 21:07:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lack of traditional academics... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020122050720.75243.qmail@web9501.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33876 Greetings from Andrew! A passing but obligatory maths note.... --- joanne0012 wrote: {snip} > > Having sealed itself off as much as possible from > the muggle world since the late > 1600s, the wizarding world offers a curriculum > typical of that time, offering > mostly a trade orientation. Even royalty and elites > of that era were educated > mostly in foreign languages and philosophy. Sidebar: Which is the Quadrivium,and which the Trivium? > Just as > alchemy offers an early > version of our modern chemistry studies, the > Hogwarts courses in herbology and > magical creatures serve as ancestral biology > courses, arithmancy and > astrological charts teach maths (including trig) and > so on. One of, if not THE reason calculus was developed was to assist in the study of planetary/Lunar motion. Similarly, physics got a start from the study of both engineering and weapons/armor design. That being true in period history, I would offer that the same evolution(s) would have had some impact on the 'wizarding' (what a solecism, IMO) world. That there is no form of university education in Rowling's universe makes no sense to me; I wonder if this a means of sealing off the series after Hogwarts. ===== 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 video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ From boggles at earthlink.net Tue Jan 22 05:14:36 2002 From: boggles at earthlink.net (Jennifer Boggess Ramon) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 23:14:36 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry's parents really are dead In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33877 At 3:55 PM -0500 1/21/02, NOTaMuggleFamily at aol.com wrote: >Sorry for the misunderstanding, but I meant do we KNOW that Voldemort was >*THEE* killer...other than his 'downfall' I read no proof that Voldemort >killed James and Lily, as no one really saw it, could someone else have done >the deed? We have the wand spell in book 4, but someone else could have used >Vs wand. (Probably not, but its a possiblity.) Voldemort confesses to Lily's murder in the graveyard scene in GoF. While he doesn't mention James, it would be odd for someone else to have killed James with Voldemort's wand and then Voldemort to have taken the wand back and killed Lily with it. Voldemort tells Harry that he killed James in the Mirror of Erised's chamber in PS/SS. So, unless Voldemort is lying (which is a possibility in PS/SS, as he lies about James and Lily begging for mercy, although I can't think why he'd do so in GoF in front of the Death Eaters), he is personally responsible for the deaths of both James and Lily Potter. -- - 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 lav at tut.by Tue Jan 22 04:56:57 2002 From: lav at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 06:56:57 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Homorphus (was: Another werewolf question) / Pettigrew House In-Reply-To: <013201c1a2e7$03d01c40$e27763d1@texas.net> References: <013201c1a2e7$03d01c40$e27763d1@texas.net> Message-ID: <643314395.20020122065657@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 33878 Greetings! > Amanda wrote to us about Homorphus Charm: A> (... lots of text information deleted ruthlessly ...) A> So. This is not a cure. It is a temporary measure to A> force someone to reveal themselves. I imagine it would A> also force Sirius into human form, or Rita, or any other A> changed human. Or, less combatively, it could allow you A> to identify an animal as actually being human, so that A> you could later figure out how to restore them. A> (... lots of text information deleted ruthlessly ...) A> --Amanda But then it's most likely that the spell cast by Sirius and Remus on Pettigrew in PoA is Homorphus! And if we agree with this assumption, then we get additional information about the spell. Even the spell composition ("homo" + "morphus") suggests that the spell does not deal with werewolves only - it has no "lupus" part, after all. Still a nice cast-n-flee spell against werewolves - cast it and you have some time to RUN! :) > Rebecca wrote to us about Peter Pettigrew: > When Sirius confronts Peter in the Shrieking shack, he > accuses him of being inclined to follow the strongest > person he can find out of cowardice. Peter's reply pretty > much confirms this; he explains that he followed Voldemort > because V. threatened to kill him, to which Sirius replies > that he should have let him; the rest of the Marauders > would have died for each other. Peter is a sniveling > coward -- that's canon. He doesn't even really seem to > have much remorse over betraying his friends. That's what has always bothered me - if Peter was a coward, how on Earth could he hit Gryffindor? So far I have seen no Peter's actions that would qualify Sorting Hat's decision. Or - was he in Gryffindor at all? But if not, then what House? Ravenclaw - unlikely. Hufflepuff - again doesn't qualify. Slytherin - how to explain his friendship with James/Sirius/Remus? Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, (Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed), always happy to cast spells without predictable results. From jmmears at prodigy.net Tue Jan 22 05:45:22 2002 From: jmmears at prodigy.net (serenadust) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 05:45:22 -0000 Subject: Hagrid's Competence In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33879 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > Jenny wrote: > > Hagrid leaked information to the trio about the Sorcerer's Stone. > Hagrid blabbed the secret about how to subdue Fluffy. I agree with the above two points with the caveat that it is clear from canon in PS/SS that Dumbledore fully intended for Harry to confront Voldemort and protect the stone. Of course Hagrid was almost certainly not aware of this at the time, it seems that Dumbledore was counting on Hagrid to provide Harry with the information above, exactly as he did. > Hagrid gave Dudley (an innocent child) a pig's tail because he was > angry at Vernon. Dudley an innocent child? He's a horrid, mean, bullying brat. I completely reject the notion that because someone is a child, that means they are not responsible for their choices no matter how awful they are. The pig's tail actually made me like Hagrid more . > Hagrid used magic to retrieve Harry when he was not permitted to do > so and asked Harry to keep it a secret. I was under the impression that Hagrid was authorised to use magic to retrieve Harry and that it was only the above "pig's tail" incident that Harry was asked to keep secret. > Hagrid endangered the trio and Malfoy by having them look for a > unicorn murderer in the forbidden forest. Again, this was IMO authorised by Dumbledore. > Hagrid endangered Ron and Harry by encouraging them to enter the > forest in CoS, which almost got them eaten by large spiders. Well, if they hadn't gone into the forest, how would they have found out that Hagrid wasn't the one who opened the chamber? They would have continued to believe Riddle's diary, and Ginny (and likely others) would have died. Remember, Dumbledore is gone by now and is in no position to help. > Really, what's not to like? :-) Hagrid certainly has his shortcomings, but they are IMO more than overcome by the good things he has brought to Harry's life. He was, after all, his first real friend and is possibly the most loyal defender Harry has ever had. That makes him ok, in my book. Jo (who unfortunately agrees that poor Hagrid is a goner eventually) From pigwidgeon37 at yahoo.it Tue Jan 22 06:44:36 2002 From: pigwidgeon37 at yahoo.it (=?iso-8859-1?q?pigwidgeonthirtyseven?=) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 06:44:36 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Old Fashioned Hogwarts vs. The Wild 70's (WAS: Lily and the Marauders) Message-ID: <20020122064436.80172.qmail@web14703.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33880 Mahoney wrote: <> Not only do I suppose that Hogwarts (and I said only Hogwarts, not the whole wizarding world) is rather out of sync with the Muggle world, I?d say it?s pretty evident from the books. The first thing you immediately notice is the language factor: Albeit English is not my first language, I think I recognize that at Hogwarts, the teachers and, to a somewhat lesser extent, also the students, speak a language completely devoid of four letter-words and of recently coined expressions, abbreviations etc. While you might argue that the teachers do so to set an example, which is certainly true, the student?s way of communicating with each other is a point in case: Obviously, students like Fred and George would have missed out completely on more recent developments of Muggle linguistics, given that they never enter into close contact with the Muggle world, but Seamus, Hermione, the Creeveys, Harry himself would be able to introduce their fair share of fresh wind into the Hogwarts student body. Nevertheless, I can?t think of one single phrase where they do so. And language certainly is a most important indicator of being in or out of sync. As far as the 60?s and 70?s are concerned: I don?t know your age, but I was born in 64 and therefore only a little younger than MWPP and for my generation, the revolution of the 60?s and 70?s (and here I?m speaking in a strictly European, not American context, of which I honestly don?t know much) was something we lived through while we were still rather little. Unless you had parents who were immediately enthusiastic about all those ?new ideas?, little or nothing of it permeated into your cosy, middle-class home. So, as far as I?m able to judge Lily?s (and Petunia?s) situation, they came from a middle-class and maybe not even urban environment and at age 11, Lily went to Hogwarts. Assuming that she was really born between 1958 and 1960 or even 1961, she got her admission letter between 1969 and 1972 which means that she had spent her formative years more probably in an environment hostile to ?new ideas? and then went straight into a universe where people wear clothes cut after medieval or renaissance patterns, pore over ancient books and are completely cut off from any outside influence for the best part of the year. So, yes, I think that Hogwarts and, to a certain extent, the wizarding world are totally out of sync with the Muggle world and only very few wizards, like e.g. Dumbledore who reads Muggle newspapers, bother to keep themselves informed about what?s going on. still Mahoney: <> First, it?s only Petunia?s rant of PS/SS to provide us with this certainly very biased bit of information, namely that their parents were so proud of having a witch in the family, that Lily was everything to them and Petunia nothing. There might be a grain of truth, but it?s mostly jealousy, I?d say. And then, accepting that one of your daughters is a witch doesn?t strike me as open-minded in the sense of the 60?s and 70?s ideology. It means that Lily?s parents were able to love and accept a daughter who was different, but not necessarily rebellious and jeopardizing her parents? life choices. On the contrary, having a daughter who occasionally made things explode or caused other strange phenomena, locked safely in a boarding school that promised to train these abilities and make them less dangerous but more useful, might have been a rather alluring thought for Lily?s parents. <> Nope, there isn?t. All I wanted to point out is that, at least on this list, I?ve mostly seen ideas about ?Nice Lily? and there isn?t any canonical indication for that, either. And so I imagined teenage Lily at Hogwarts and what kind of person she could have or rather, must have been (IMHO) to form a relationship with James and, at the same time, get along with the rest of his friends, or keep them at bay, whichever way you want to look at it. m.bockermann wrote: <> Hmm, I don?t know. But I suppose that Peter turned to Voldemort after they were all out of school and it is more than probable that, as it goes in real life, the nature of their friendship simply changed. It?s one thing to be friends when you?re confined within a boarding school, sharing dormitories, classes, taking your meals together, and another to be out there, having made different professional choices and following different paths in life. If Peter really was the tagalong we all seem to think he was, it seems only logical that after graduation, his contact with the former group became more and more loose. Susanna/pigwidgeon37 (exhausted, and that at 8 am) "And how come those portraits seem to be alive?" "What'ya mean? All paintings move." "No, they don't. We have lots of paintings in our villa, among them a real Chagall, and none of them..." "And d'ya expect that something painted by a jackal will move? Now really..." --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Get personalised at My Yahoo!. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Whirdy at aol.com Tue Jan 22 06:57:23 2002 From: Whirdy at aol.com (Whirdy at aol.com) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 01:57:23 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Wand question and Malfoy Message-ID: <99.20b3474c.297e6753@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33881 Let us add to the mix the fact that Mrs. Malfoy was off buying DM's wand while he was being fitted for his robes. Dare we ask about the physical ramifications or the implications to be drawn that his Mommy had to slect his wand? Freudians to the right and Jungians to the left. whirdy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From catlady at wicca.net Tue Jan 22 07:08:28 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 07:08:28 -0000 Subject: Mottoes / Werewolf Snape / Snape Guilt/ TV Bio / other wiz schools / wiz uni Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33882 Thank you Finwitch, I LOVE your suggestion for Slytherin and can't imaginen HOW I failed to think of your suggestion for Gryffindor, it's so perfect. Thank you, Drieux, for replying on OT, but I KNOW where I stole some of those mottoes from; I was just using them as examples of mottoes that could be related to the Houses. If I were ABLE to make up ORIGINAL mottoes, I wouldn't have asked the list to help me. Finwitch wrote: > What if Snape's a werewolf? Then he wouldn't have snarled "Don't ask me to fathom the way a werewolf's mind works," Alexander Lomsky wrote: > But then it's most likely that the spell cast by Sirius and Remus > on Pettigrew in PoA is Homorphus! Yes!!!! > That's what has always bothered me - if Peter was a coward, how on > Earth could he hit Gryffindor? I figure that Sirius's accusation that Peter had only hung out with the three so they could protect him was a false accusation made in anger. I figure that Peter had not been a coward as a child, but became a coward after leaving school as he saw more and more of the damage done by Voldemort, and that even then he didn't snivel until after spending years in rat form. Rebecca wrote: > See, if we are to imagine Snape really liking these people, we > have to have some reason to imagine them as likable. Excuse me, I don't imagine them as being likeable, and I have been assuming that Snape did like them, does feel awful about having betrayed them even tho' it was necessary to do for the HIGHEST reasons, and does explicitly compare himself to traitor Sirius Black (he didn't know until GoF that it was really Petter Pettigrew). I have not been assuming that antisocial Severus with the severe lack of social skills was a leader of Slytherin House or even of his own clique -- I have been thinking of him as liking them because they were first people to accept him as a friend, and them as accepting him at first for the sake of his help on homework and his knowledge of curses rather than from any real liking. I do give them of credit of coming to sincerely like him as they got to know him better. My fanfic's at www.schnoogle.com under Catlady. I forget how long ago I first posted the first chapter (at another archive where it no longer is), but that chapter contains a long flashback of Snape being recruited into the Death Eaters and shorter pieces of his internal thoughts about his past such as: "Slytherins stick together, stick up for each other. Snape's mouth twisted as he involuntarily reflected that that's what's wrong with having hearts: it led Slytherins to stick together all the way into Voldemort's circle, and the brain has to decide whom to betray: one's friends or the human species. He hated remembering that he had been the traitor against his friends. He hated noticing the parallel between his own situation, betraying his friends for the sake of the Light Side, and James Potter's situation, betrayed by his own friend to the Dark Side, being killed despite all Severus's efforts to save him. He hated himself for having been a traitor, and unsuccessful." Frodo Yoda wrote: >I just got through watching the A&E Biography of JK Rowling. I also just now watched the TV show, after having read about it on list. Some wonderful person watched it during the holidays on the BBC and videotaped it and made screenshots of freeze-frames of JKR's drawings and her list of students in Harry's year and posted them in the Photos section of this egroup: http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/lst in a folder called Harry Potter and Me. I am eternally grateful to that person. > Sean (from whom Ron borrows characteristics) was interviewed. JKR > said that like Ron he's "always there when you need him." Yes. I ABSOLUTELY do not understand how anyone who saw that scene can still think that Ron is going to turn evil. (Of course, I have NEVER believed that Ron will turn evil.) I mean, if Ron was going to turn evil, JKR would already know it, and politeness/kindness to her friend would prevent her from putting his name and face on TV with the statement that he is Ron, so that when Ron did turn evil in a book, her friend would be in a position like being on a Wanted poster: kids and fans would see him and shout: "How could you betray Harry like that, you git!" and that is a position that a friend does not put a friend into. And they showed the Mirror of Erised scene from the movie soon after showing Sean, with the Lily actress and James actor who don't look like Lily and James (nor even like Lily and Danny). Someone had already pointed out on list that the Lily actress looks a bit like JKR herself. I just now noticed that the James actor looks a bit like Sean. > 6) JKR showed some of her drawings of HP characters and scenes. Yes, and the pictures of Sprout and Weasleys show clearly what kind of robes JKR intended, not the ones in the movie. > 7) She spoke of the volumes of material she has written for her > own reference and enjoyment which will, sadly, never be published. She has hinted in the past that she might publish it as Harry Potter Encyclopedia (or Hogwarts: A History) as the eighth book. If she'd rather get on to something new, maybe Lexicon Steve can persuade her to let him sort it out to publish as 'by JKR edited by Steve'. Okay, I can dream. Elkins wrote: > I don't think that Rowling's claim that Hogwarts is the only > magical school in the British Isles meshes at all well with > the *real* canon, truth be told. The books themselves strongly > imply otherwise. YES!!! Thank you for the examples and support. Drieux wrote: > That there is no form of university education in Rowling's universe > makes no sense to me; I wonder if this a means of sealing off the > series after Hogwarts. I can understand her statement only by assuming that she meant that the wizards don't have universities like Muggles now do, as giant factories for turning young men and women into potential employees. That the wizards cling to a more old-fashioned system in which people persuade advanced study for love of the subject rather than because a BA or BS is required to get a job in a totally unrelated field. That such study is generally persued as an apprenticeship under one master plus going to occasional guest lectures by others, rather than as a curriculum in an institution with many teachers. That, in line with my mention of 'apprenticeship', each subject has its own Guild (Guild in Latin is Collegium) which takes care of awarding its own degrees and managing its own finances and can not *imagine* being subject to any University Administration. I have spun out this theory to much greater length than is supported by canon, such as figuring out all the sources of funding for pure research (personal wealth, patronage from a wealthy wizard, a grant from MoM's Committee on Experimental Charms, a grant from the Museum of Magic, which is an institution that is not mentioned in canon but must exist), and what the degrees are (apprentice is like undergrad, journeyman is like graduate, master is the advanced degree which is required to be allowed to take on apprentices and provides the honorable title Magister or Magistra) and the requirements for the degrees (apprentice becomes journeyman by recommendation of hiser own Master and passing a written exam given by the Guild, journeyman becomes Master on recommendation of hiser own Master, approval by a specific Guild committee of a written dissertation reporting original research, passing an oral exam given by that committee, and a public dissertation defense for 24 hours straight). The degree of Doctor is bestowed by the Board of Directors of the Guild upon highly respected Masters as a surprise (they didn't apply for it or take a test), and only Doctors are allowed to be on the committees for approving dissertations and giving oral exams for Mastery candidates and some other stuff that I forget right now. But I did put in some hard feelings among the Masters of the Potions Guild because the ones who own shops and run factories pay most of the dues but the ones doing pure research are awarded most of the Doctorates. I figure Madam Pomfrey was trained as a Healer by apprenticeship and advanced study in the Healers Guild. That being a practical rather than research guild, the 'masterpiece' presented by the candidate for Mastery is not a research dissertation but a case history (with witnesses) of a patient who was cured of something serious. From lipglossusa at yahoo.com Tue Jan 22 07:57:06 2002 From: lipglossusa at yahoo.com (lipglossusa) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 07:57:06 -0000 Subject: Wand question and Malfoy In-Reply-To: <99.20b3474c.297e6753@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33883 Whirdy wrote: > Let us add to the mix the fact that Mrs. Malfoy was off buying DM's wand > while he was being fitted for his robes. > > Dare we ask about the physical ramifications or the implications to be drawn > that his Mommy had to select his wand? Freudians to the right and Jungians to > the left. I don't necessarily think Narcissa Malfoy was "selecting" his wand for him-- after all, the wand chooses the wizard. Draco would have to have been there at some point to try them out. I imagine Draco picked out his wand and took off to get fitted, while his mother came in a little later and paid for it. Marina J. From oppen at cnsinternet.com Tue Jan 22 08:56:54 2002 From: oppen at cnsinternet.com (Eric Oppen) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 02:56:54 -0600 Subject: Wand Question References: <1011649907.167924.10548.m2@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <029201c1a322$be7d9000$99c71bce@hppav> No: HPFGUIDX 33884 > > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Eric Oppen" wrote: > > One thing I want to know is this: If a wizard or witch has their > wand broken (as happened to Hagrid) what's preventing him > from getting a replacement somewhere? << > > Perhaps the wand itself has something to do with it. Perhaps > some rather complex magic has to be done to sever the bond > between the user and the old wand before it is broken or > discarded. Maybe a new wand won't choose you if there is still a > bond with your old one. I wonder about Narcissa going to look at > wands in SS/PS. Especially since she's looking at them for her son, while when Harry goes to Ollivander's, Mr. Ollivander says that the individual _must_ be attuned to the wand. Of course, Harry doesn't have parents, and for all we know to the contrary, an experienced witch who's also a parent might be able to properly select a wand for her child. Does she care more about the appearance of > her wand than its magical properties? If she is a sort of trophy > witch she might regard it as beneath her to do her own magic. > Maybe her House Elves and servants do it all. I love this phrase, "Trophy witch!" *HEH* > > I imagine it is the spellwork more than the raw ingredients which > make wands difficult to manufacture, though all the animals are > noted in FB as difficult to catch. It could be that when Hagrid > says, "only place for wands, Ollivander's" he is telling the literal > truth: Ollivander's really is the only place in the British Isles to get > a wand. > > > > Would Hagrid have been able to use his father's wand? What > _does_ > > happen to a wizard's wand when he dies? > > I assume that stage magicians adopted from wizards the > custom of snapping the wand in two at the funeral and placing it > in the coffin to be buried. If this was done when Hagrid's father > died, of course the wand wouldn't be available. This also sounds like the (archaic?) ritual observed at the death of a reigning British monarch. Certain officials in very old offices used to break their rods of office upon the death (or official deposition) of a reigning king or queen, and in the case of a death, casting the broken pieces of their official staves into the grave on top of the coffin, to signify that their terms of office were over. I don't know if this is still done. If this is part of a wizard's funeral, then of course Hagrid couldn't use his daddy's wand. Unfortunately, there's a lot of stuff about wizard life we haven't seen yet---neither a wedding nor a funeral, so far. From oppen at cnsinternet.com Tue Jan 22 09:09:34 2002 From: oppen at cnsinternet.com (Eric Oppen) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 03:09:34 -0600 Subject: Snape and the Longbottoms Message-ID: <029c01c1a324$8320ce80$99c71bce@hppav> No: HPFGUIDX 33885 One thing to keep in mind about Snape's attitude toward the senior Longbottoms is that during the latter stages of the First Voldemort War, the Aurors were about as ruthless and hair-triggered as the DEs themselves. We don't _know_ how Mr. Longbottom, or both Longbottoms if they were both Aurors, approached their duties...were they like Mad-Eye Moody, and at least willing to _try_ not to kill, or were they more like Judge Dredd on acid? Considering what happened to quite a few people (being handed over to the Dementors without trial---which I, myself, considered to be one of the most shocking things so far in the series, particularly since _it was the good guys who did it;_ hey, I'm a lawyer's kid and I _believe in_ a fair trial _before_ punishment!) it would be far from impossible for the more zealous, or kill-happy, or careless Aurors to AK the wrong person or people, and get away with it because "I thought they were DEs! When we kicked in their door and roared in screaming, they went for a wand! We were in fear for our lives!" And yes, I am thinking of certain regrettable incidents in recent US history, not germane to this discussion. A certain "War" on certain substances, for example. *coughs behind hand* So-o-o...imagine this scenario. Here's Severus Snape, Agent For Good, on an honestly innocent, legitimate visit to someone. Maybe his sweetheart, maybe an old friend from Slytherin (and Slytherin does NOT equal Death Eater! If it did, explain Pettigrew!) or maybe a relative...and in come the Longbottoms, wands out and ablaze, AKing people first and asking questions later, if at all. Although Snape gets away (maybe the Longbottoms know he's a spy for their side and have strict instructions not to hurt him) the others, who are no more DEs than Harry Potter is now, do not...and nothing is done to the Longbottoms. After all, they're Aurors, and _thought_ that the people they killed were DEs. This would explain the Lestranges' choice of the Longbottoms for victims, as well as their methods...at least as much payback as an attempt to gather information. It would also go a long way to explain (if not excuse, _ever_...my mother was a teacher and I'm sure she'd have been all over Snape like ugly on an ape if they had been teaching together) Snape's riding poor Neville Longbottom *donning fireproof gloves in anticipation of a blizzard of Howlers* From tabouli at unite.com.au Tue Jan 22 09:50:10 2002 From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 20:50:10 +1100 Subject: Grammar, the Good & the Ugly, prejudice, STATICSAP, SLAPDASH Message-ID: <004501c1a32a$608271c0$7c50dccb@price> No: HPFGUIDX 33886 Eileen: > My mother has gone through our "Prisoner of Azkaban" book, and marked all grammatical errors. Unlike Lewis, whose hold on grammar continues to astonish me, Rowling's grammar is not that good, in fact, it can be down right bad, as you can tell from our "POA" copy. < When it comes to fiction and creative writing in general, I personally think that atmosphere, expression and storytelling are far more important than grammar. If I'm writing an academic essay, I switch on my inner grammar checker (though the pathetic built-in specimen that comes with Word deserves to be deleted for sheer incompetence), and try to avoid splitting infinitives, ending sentences on prepositions (something up with which one should not put?), starting sentences with "and" or "but", etc.etc. OTOH, if I'm writing a story or poem, I have no qualms about disregarding the rules if I think they're getting in the way of what I want to say, or the effect I want to achieve. Each to their own, I suppose! (=each to his or her own?) I have my limits (e.g. I'm rather anal about spelling), but JKR's grammar feels "colloquially correct", so I don't care if it's not "textbook correct". I don't at all get the impression that her "mistakes" reflect an ignorance of correct grammar: more an awareness of and appreciation for colloquial language use. I imagine that a woman with an education in Classics, languages and literature who spent much of her working life teaching a humanities subject (French) will be pretty well-versed in "correct" grammar... she just doesn't see this as appropriate for the books she is writing. And I, for one, found C.S. Lewis' self-conscious asides about grammar in the Narnia books ("It isn't HER!", he said, which is bad grammar but the way Beavers speak in Narnia when they get excited, or whatever it was) a bit annoying. Surely only the fustiest of Oxford academics would find the colloquially almost universal "It isn't HER!" offensive (or would seriously entertain substituting "It isn't SHE!", which is what I presume the Beaver would have said if he'd had a public school education in Grammar). I suppose, as Pippin said, it's also a reflection of the times in which the authors were/are writing and publishing. More Eileen: > You people haven't read the Silmarillion, eh? Nope! Last time I tried (during my teens), my eyes began to glaze over with exhaustion. I suppose I could have another go... Still More Eileen: > However, there is in Tolkien and Rowling, a disturbing correlation between evil/good and looks. It's not simplistic. Gilderoy Lockhart and Saruman are fair-looking and evil. So far we've had no HP character that's not fair-looking and is also good. (The real Mad-Eye Moody exists, for example, but he's not a character.)< JKR does have a few seemingly Good characters who are no oil paintings, so to speak (not to mention the actual oil painting of the Fat Lady, who seems Good but whose figure wouldn't cut it by 1990s standards!). Professors Sprout and McGonagall, Molly and Arthur Weasley, Hagrid, Neville, Krum, etc. Certainly an improvement on the standard Hollywood teen movie set in a high school full of models (for ugly nerd, just add glasses). Eileen (who really seems to have inspired me today!): >>His need to compartmentalize good and evil, to constantly categorize and make > divisions concerning morality, reflects the kind of logic that is > very dangerous, that can be (and has been) used to justify anything > from genocide to slavery.<< > >Oh for heaven's sakes, could we be a little more TOLERANT than that? GENOCIDE AND SLAVERY? So when do we start making the Nazi comparisons about people who disagree with us?< Actually, extremely black and white logic *is*, in fact, closely associated with prejudiced attitudes (which, combined with the right/wrong combination of power and circumstances, have led to the horrors mentioned). Studying the link between "black&white logic" and prejudice was the very topic of my thesis, and I could send you my entire reference list and the results of my own research as evidence! (nonono, comes the alarmed chorus of HPFGU listmembers, that's quite all right). All the same, I agree that comparing Kevin with Hitler would be going a mite far, though I don't think ladjables was really doing that... Eileen (can't have too much of a good thing, eh?): > Not to scare him, as his defenders insist. Not to kill him, as Snape insists. But to have Lupin bite him, making Snape a werewolf. Maybe, Sirius thought that arrogant, bigoted Snape deserved to see the world from the point of the down and out like Lupin (...) Of course, an acronym is needed. Tabouli?< S.T.A.T.I.C.S.A.P. (Sirius' Trick Aimed To Instruct Callous Snape About Prejudice)(Whomping Willow freezing reference?) Cindy (just for a change): > Because his mother was relieved of her soul while he was in utero, Severus is part-dementor and has many of the characteristics of a dementor, but not to the same degree as a real dementor (cold, gliding, draining happiness from the air around them, infesting the darkest places)(...) OK, it's not L.O.L.L.I.P.O.P.S., but it's a start. :-)< (Captain of L.O.L.L.I.P.O.P.S. though she is, Tabouli has to grin evilly at this theory, which gets points for sheer imagination). I think, as creative force behind this theory, Cindy should be comandeered to write the alternative Unauthorised Biography of Severus Snape... S.L.A.P.D.A.S.H.! (Snape's Life As Part-Dementor: A Sorrowful History). Tabouli (chuckling with glee) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From pigwidgeon37 at yahoo.it Tue Jan 22 11:21:13 2002 From: pigwidgeon37 at yahoo.it (=?iso-8859-1?q?pigwidgeonthirtyseven?=) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 11:21:13 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Sorting- Sirius's prank- Snape and the Longbottoms- Speechless Harry Message-ID: <20020122112114.32609.qmail@web14702.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33888 Katze wrote: <> But even if this is a very valid explanation, something still boggles my mind: After all, what we are talking about here are 11 YOs! What ?choices? can a child of this age make or have made that would truly justify him or her being put into a house with as doubtful a reputation as Slytherin? Come to think of it, what WAS Harry?s ?choice?? What had he heard about Slytherin so far? Hagrid?s ?There isn?t any wizard who turned bad who didn?t come from Slytherin? (Pettigrew- ha,ha!), and Malfoy?s appraisal of Slytherin being the best house which rather backfired because of Malfoy being such a snobbish slimeball. But I would hardly call Harry?s ?Not Slytherin!? a choice, because you can only choose if you have previously seen your alternatives. So, again, what are the Sorting Hat?s methods for categorizing 11 YOs? In the case of ?purebloods? and ?half-bloods? (much as I hate the term), it may be partly based on the parents? houses, though I would not hesitate to call that extremely unfair. But what about Muggle- borns? As far as family tradition is concerned, they are a blank sheet. And to speak of ?character? which in a child of that age is not yet fully formed but on the contrary might still be influenced in a most important way, would be an exaggeration. More I think about it, more the house system based on a student?s character seems questionable, particularly where the Slytherins are concerned. But maybe I?m overlooking something? If somebody cares to enlighten me, you?re welcome to do so. Eileen wrote (about Sirius?s prank): <> I did, but what does it change fundamentally? If not for the worse? To condemn a person to lead the life of an outcast would be even worse than the intention of ?just scaring? him. Assuming that by the time of his ?prank? Sirius already knew Remus?s whole story, he must also have been aware of how difficult it was to have one werewolf at Hogwarts; having two of them seems quite impossible (finding another hiding place, keeping everything secret). So I hope your theory wasn?t there to defend Sirius, for it makes him look even more irresponsible- not only towards Remus and Snape, but towards the whole school who would have been in potential danger, had Snape really been bitten. Rebecca wrote: <> I agree with you and just wanted to ask Elkins (was it you who wrote that in the first place?) about the somewhat enigmatic statement that ?Snape would be a flat character, in case he had turned away from Voldemort because of a conversional experience?. Did I get that right? And if I did, what did it mean? Or, to re-formulate: What could, in your opinion, have caused Snape to change sides, if not an event or a series of events that made him open his eyes? It might be a worn-out pattern, I agree on that, but I don?t see many other possibilities. To assume that one fine day Snape woke up and said to himself: ?Well, today is my 3rd DE anniversary and what?s enough is enough, so let?s change sides? doesn?t strike me as a particularly well- motivated decision, from the psychological POV. Eric Oppen wrote: <> That?s one of the many nagging questions: Just who and how were all these persons from the past, who now are dead or as good as, but cast long shadows over the present? What were the Longbottoms, the Marauders, Lily, the Lestranges like? In the case of Harry?s and Neville?s parents, the answer, even if highly speculative, is so difficult to find because we tend to be prejudiced to their favour: We know that they were on the Good Guys? side and that they suffered at the Dark Lord?s hands, which automatically makes them martyrs whose negative aspects we tend to consider less or not at all. Apart from the fact that the Longbottoms had their brains fried by fanatical Death Eaters which is deplorable, they might have been everything from ?Judge Dredd on acid? to near-saints. Same goes for Lily and James (seems to become my favourite topic, though I thought that was Snape). So, there?s the possibility that they were just the first ones in what was planned to be a long series of victims- imagining that the Lestranges had a list of Aurors they planned to visit to extort information about Voldemort?s hiding place. And it?s equally possible that Frank Longbottom was one of the most fervent supporters of ?Don?t ask them, AK them? and therefore the DE?s no. 1 target. lipglossusa wrote: <> Ahhh, you touched a nerve here: I already wanted to do a post about ?speechless Harry? some days ago, inspired by listening to GoF: What struck me was the phrase, referring to Harry?s third letter to Sirius, after having been picked as fourth champion: ?He would have liked to tell Sirius how much this whole situation was weighing him down, but somehow he didn?t know how to put it into words? (inexact quote, but that?s it, more or less). So, (rolling up my sleeves for major writing and thinking effort), it seems that the Dursleys? ?upbringing? of Harry has left traces after all: Otherwise, why should an intelligent 14 YO boy be unable to write: ?And Ron is convinced that it was I to put my name into the Goblet- he doesn?t speak to me and this makes the situation even more complicated and unbearable.? Is that so difficult? I don?t think so. It is difficult for Harry who, until the age of 11, evidently didn?t have anybody to confide in. Ron, who isn?t the most mature of teenagers, is able to communicate his feelings (?I hate being poor?), he is capable of apologizing- it?s Harry who doesn?t want him to continue. So, everybody, what do you think of Harry?s inability to talk about his own emotions? Interesting for the SHIPpers among us, isn?t it? Susanna/pigwidgeon37 (having once again dumped work for pleasure) "And how come those portraits seem to be alive?" "What'ya mean? All paintings move." "No, they don't. We have lots of paintings in our villa, among them a real Chagall, and none of them..." "And d'ya expect that something painted by a jackal will move? Now really..." --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Get personalised at My Yahoo!. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From heidit at netbox.com Tue Jan 22 11:21:50 2002 From: heidit at netbox.com (heidit at netbox.com) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 06:21:50 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Wand question and Malfoy In-Reply-To: 2d6bf1 Message-ID: <16600678.801048821@imcingular.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33889 Canon only says, "looking at wands" which could - and imho does- mean having Mr Ollivander hunt thru the boxes to find the wand made from the heartstring of the same dragon that supplied one for his father and his father and his father and... 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: Whirdy at aol.com Subject: Re: [HPforGrownups] Wand question and Malfoy Real-To: Whirdy at aol.com Let us add to the mix the fact that Mrs. Malfoy was off buying DM's wand while he was being fitted for his robes. Dare we ask about the physical ramifications or the implications to be drawn that his Mommy had to slect his wand? Freudians to the right and Jungians to the left. whirdy [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 theennead at attbi.com Tue Jan 22 08:13:37 2002 From: theennead at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 08:13:37 -0000 Subject: Some more thoughts about Lily and the Marauders In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33890 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "catlady_de_los_angeles" wrote: > She (Lily) is not *exactly* the fifth member of the gang > because she doesn't transform into an animal, so I > imagine that there are a LOT of nighttime escapades that > she doesn't join, not just at Full Moon. Lily doesn't seem to have been a member of the gang at all, IMO. She wasn't in on the animagus research, she wasn't one of the creators of the Map, and when Harry overhears McGonagall, Flitwick and Hagrid reminiscing about what trouble-makers Sirius and James were in their school days, Lily is not once mentioned. Neither is Lupin, true, but given that James and Lily later wed, it would seem likely that if she *had* been a member of the gang, someone would have brought her up in the conversation. It would have been "that Sirius Black, always making mischief with James and Lily," rather than "that Sirius Black, who was always making trouble with James." Once people become coupled in the public eye, as when they marry, people do have this weird tendency to start coupling them retroactively as well, even when they have to bend the historical facts a bit out of shape to do it. My guess is that Lily wasn't a member of James' clique not because she was excluded, and not because she was too mature or too girly to be interested in playing pranks, and *certainly* not because the other guys thought she was a "Yoko," but rather, because she and James just weren't all that close until quite late in their Hogwarts careers. After all, there's no real reason to believe that they were an item, or even particularly close friends, back when they were fifteen or sixteen, is there? Perhaps they only really got to know each other in their final year, when they had to work together as Head Girl and Head Boy. The majority of their courtship could have been conducted in the years directly following their leaving school, in which case the "Yoko Factor" would be greatly mitigated. > I like to think that MWPP had already named their group the > Marauders before Lily got involved, but she became so helpful > with their plots and so trusted with all their secrets that > they bought her a (too-tight) t-shirt with the slogan MARAUDER > MASCOT. (I imagine the future Mrs. Lestrange having a similar > role as only girl in Snape's little group of Slytherins. I like to think that if anyone ever handed Lily a too-tight MARAUDER MASCOT t-shirt, she would have rammed it down their throat, but that's just me. And if anyone ever dared to hand the future Mrs. Lestrange such an item, I suspect that she would have hexed them straight into the hospital wing...and then forced Avery to wear the t-shirt. -- Elkins From lav at tut.by Tue Jan 22 11:51:32 2002 From: lav at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 13:51:32 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Sorting- Snape and the Longbottoms- Speechless Harry In-Reply-To: <20020122112114.32609.qmail@web14702.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20020122112114.32609.qmail@web14702.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <16110703682.20020122135132@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 33891 Greetings! > Susanna/pigwidgeon wrote to us: p> But even if this is a very valid explanation, something p> still boggles my mind: After all, what we are talking p> about here are 11 YOs! What choices can a child of this p> age make or have made that would truly justify him or her p> being put into a house with as doubtful a reputation as p> Slytherin?Come to think of it, what WAS Harrys p> choice? What had he heard about Slytherin so far? Does it matter what he heard? Harry's "choices" are (in no particular order): 1) Despite bad treatment by Dursleys he has managed not to turn into an everyone-hating brat. It looks he had to make a lot of choices along the way... 2) Madam Malkin's shop - 1st meeting with Draco Malfoy. Harry instinctively rejects the prejudicious approach DM advocates. 3) Hogwarts Express - Ron&Harry vs Draco&C&G scene. Without even thinking Harry stands up to fight for his friend, even though chances are not in their favour. And mind it, these are only the choices that we see. How many other similar ones he made that we are unaware of? p> Hagrids There isnt any wizard who turned bad who p> didnt come from Slytherin (Pettigrew- ha,ha!), and p> Malfoys appraisal of Slytherin being the best house p> which rather backfired because of Malfoy being such a p> snobbish slimeball. But I would hardly call Harrys Not p> Slytherin! a choice, because you can only choose if you p> have previously seen your alternatives. For my part, I don't really know what House would I be sorted into (as I don't fully qualify for any of them), but Malfoy seems to hit the house he is really good at. Harry's "Not Slytherin" is a choice as well. He is refusing help to satisfy his own ambitions, which are very strong (as we happen to know from later books). p> Apart from the fact that the Longbottoms had their brains p> fried by fanatical Death Eaters which is deplorable, they p> might have been everything from Judge Dredd on acid to p> near-saints. Same goes for Lily and James (seems to p> become my favourite topic, though I thought that was p> Snape)... The only thing we can do is try to estimate their qualities via the prism of their friends and enemies that are alive now. Anyway, I have a strong suspicion that a person whom Lucius hates and does not respect is a Good Guy (GG) with a very high probability... p> (... some text skipped ...) p> ...And its equally possible that Frank Longbottom was p> one of the most fervent supporters of Dont ask them, AK p> them and therefore the DEs no. 1 target. AK sounds really weird for me - the acronym associates with "Avtomat Kalashnikova", rather than "Avada Kedavra". The resulting meaning is the same, though... :) p> So, everybody, what do you think of Harrys inability to p> talk about his own emotions? Interesting for the SHIPpers p> among us, isnt it? He can easily be unused to talk about his emotions freely. Psychological complications of this nature are a common thing - in fact not many people on Earth know when it's really good to talk away their emotions and have the courage to do so. For my part, I have no troubles understanding Harry here - I myself had similar troubles. Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, (Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed), polishing his favourite AK-74N... From theennead at attbi.com Tue Jan 22 12:12:21 2002 From: theennead at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 12:12:21 -0000 Subject: Snape, the DEs and the Longbottoms In-Reply-To: <759A085B4DB9AF47AD5BB22098C91728075326@cnncex01.turner.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33892 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Allen, Rebecca" wrote: > Welcome to the list! Thanks! It's good to be here. > You've presented some interesting arguments, and seeing as > some people support you in this, I feel I can get away with > making some arguments in the opposite direction. But of course. That's the name of the game, isn't it? Fire away. > Well, yes. If he were really gregarious he'd probably have > recovered a little by the end of several years and made new > friends. I don't think it's irrational to assume that his > moody, contemptuous personality hasn't been with him since > he was really young. Neither do I. But as it happens, I do think that Snape was probably moody and snappish and temperamental and prickly and unpleasant from a very early age. Less bitter, perhaps, but still hardly an easy personality. After all, what other sort of person arrives at school at the tender age of eleven with an unwholesome fascination for the Dark Arts and a wicked repertoire of curses under his belt? But he can't have been all *that* much of a loner. Sirius says that Snape "was part of a gang of Slytherins who nearly all turned out to be Death Eaters." 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. (BTW, that "nearly all" is interesting, isn't it? Not all of them, but "nearly" all of them. Who, one wonders, were the abstainers? And how do *they* feel about all of this?) > If he'd been having so much fun with his friends he might > not have had such a (solitary) obsession with the Marauders. True. And really, while being the guy in your circle who knows all of the really scary curses may be intensely *gratifying,* in a creepy Slytherinesque sort of way, it is unlikely to have been very much *fun.* But then, I was never trying to argue that the other members of Snape's gang provided him with a warm and loving environment that fulfilled of all of his emotional needs. I think it quite clear that they did not do that. He'd be a very different person if they had, and I daresay he wouldn't have been so creepily obsessive about the Marauders either. I just see no reason to believe that Snape hated or loathed or despised his classmates, or that he never enjoyed their company, or that there was never any bond of affection or loyalty or respect between them. We're talking about people who hung out, attended classes, ate meals, and slept in the same room together for seven years, from the age of eleven to the age of seventeen, in a school environment which actively encourages students to think of their housemates as their "family." Even if their relationship was deeply ambivalent -- and it probably was -- there's still got to be a strong bond there. > 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. It's very hard for me to imagine a Wizarding Britain in which a full quarter of the population is composed of murderous sadists with little or no redeeming qualities. Let's face it -- if the Slytherins really are all like that, then the entire society is *doomed*, no matter what Our Heroes might or might not accomplish. > Killing and torturing is hard to relate to. I'll go you one further and say flat-out that I consider killing and torturing people to be evil. My, how morally daring of me! But you know, in the real world, people who kill and torture others *do* generally have friends, and loved ones, and people they care very deeply about. Life is complicated that way. 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. > And they betray their friends too. Well, some of them do. But by no means all of them. Avery and Malfoy both managed to evade justice by claiming to have been under the Imperius Curse, yet as far as we know, neither of them ever named names. Nott, Goyle, Crabbe and MacNair would all seem to have managed to make it through their trials all the way to acquittal ("You are merely repeating the names of those who were acquitted of being Death Eaters thirteen years ago!")without succumbing to the temptation to cut a deal with the prosecutors by squealing out their comrades. The Lestranges certainly didn't tell any tales, and neither did poor little Barty Crouch (although perhaps he just didn't know enough about the organization to do so). >From the way that Sirius talks about the other prisoners crying out in their sleep about Karkaroff's betrayal, and from Moody's particular contempt for Karkaroff in the Pensieve scene, I got the impression that Karkaroff's plea bargain was unusually dastardly, even by Death Eater standards. And Harry's generation of Slytherin kids seem loyal enough to each other, don't they? Pansy exhibits genuine concern for Draco's well-being when he is attacked by the Hippogriff, and Crabbe rushes right over to pick up ferret-Draco during the Bouncing Ferret Incident, in spite of the fact that the entire situation must have been pretty terrifying -- Moody is *scary,* and his use of transfiguration as a punishment marks him as a loose cannon. For that matter, when Draco makes his nasty "Mudblood" comment on the Quiddich pitch in CoS, Marcus Flint shields him _with his own body_ -- and continues to stand in the path of fire even after wands have been drawn. They're not nice kids, no. But they do seem to have a strong sense of in-group loyalty. > See, if we are to imagine Snape really liking these people, > we have to have some reason to imagine them as likable. Well, the issue here isn't really what *we* find likable. It's what *Snape* finds likable, which may not be at all the same thing. But leaving that aside for the moment, I guess I just don't have a problem imagining this. People who do dreadful things usually do have friends and associates and colleagues who consider them perfectly likable, worthy of affection and respect. People are more than the sum of their rap sheets. > Also, as Marina pointed out today, they probably all joined > when they were in their teens, so none of them might have > known exactly what they were doing. They were very young, yes. Depressingly so. And I strongly suspect that none of them really understood completely what they were getting themselves into. Not at first, at any rate. > > Perhaps in order to redeem Snape > > _to ourselves_ we must first place him in an emotional context > > from which he was *not,* in fact, betraying his friends when he > > defected to Dumbledore's camp? > As a big fan of Snape, I'd say this isn't true. We like him > angsty. Heh. Indeed. The more he suffers, the more we like him. It's sick, really. > Betraying old friends is ugly; no one should have to do it. > I just don't see *why* we should imagine why they were such > lovable types and that he misses them so much. Good lord, no! Did I give the impression that I was imagining them as lovable types? That wasn't at all my intent. "Lovable" and "not altogether devoid of redeeming qualities, capable of forming normal human relationships" are not at *all* the same thing! Nor did I mean to imply that I think that he misses them, per se. I hardly imagine that he has fond memories of his schooldays, or that he looks longingly back on those fine old nights spent practicing Cruciatus on the lab rabbits up in the Slytherin dormitories after lights-out (or whatever other unsavory nastiness he and his cronies used to get up to), or that he's just dying to take Avery out to lunch so that they can reminisce about old times, or anything like that. I do think that he feels wretched about them getting themselves killed and imprisoned, and that he would have far rather they had all escaped unharmed, promptly abandoned their wicked ways, and then disappeared from his life altogether. (As, indeed, Avery would seem to have been quite obliging in doing.) But that's not really at all the same thing. > Whether or not one likes Snape, I think this last statement > is completely unsupported by the text. I adore Snape, and I don't think that it is at all unsupported by the text. Just look at how Snape reacts to Sirius, when he thinks that Sirius, rather than Peter, is the traitor. For that matter, look at how he reacts to Quirrel in PS, when he comes to suspect Quirrel of infidelity to Dumbledore. Or how he reacts when Crouch/Moody implies that Dumbledore doesn't really trust him. Issues of trust and betrayal are serious hot buttons for Snape. He's exceptionally sensitive there; they're sore spots. > In order for them to be reflections of each other you have to > overlook some barn-door sized issues like, oh say, good vs. evil, > cowardice vs. courage, etc. Er...no. The mirror reverses that which it reflects. In order for Snape and Pettigrew to be *reflections* of each other, what they need to do is to be the same in certain respects, while "reversing the image" in others. Which I think that they do quite nicely, myself. I don't really think that you're in disagreement with me here. -- Elkins From fiatincantatum at attbi.com Tue Jan 22 13:56:31 2002 From: fiatincantatum at attbi.com (Fiat Incantatum) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 08:56:31 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: New Theory about Why Sirius Played Trick on Snape In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3C4D293F.24509.96B0AD3@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 33893 On 22 Jan 2002 at 0:31, finwitch wrote: > Very good! - Snape as a werewolf... How would Sirius - anyone- make > sure Snape doesn't tell Remus is werewolf? Make Snape a werewolf, too! > And, yes... It would be just perfect! Can't beat 'em - join 'em. But > even better: make 'em join you! > > What if Snape's a werewolf? He CAN brew Wolfsbane potion himself that > no one notices, he knows about Whomping Willow... 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. -- 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 lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Tue Jan 22 15:11:39 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 15:11:39 -0000 Subject: Sirius's prank-Avery Nott in too tight t-shirt In-Reply-To: <20020122112114.32609.qmail@web14702.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33894 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., pigwidgeonthirtyseven wrote: > > Eileen wrote (about Sirius's prank): > > < insists. But to have Lupin bite him, making Snape a werewolf. Maybe, > Sirius thought that arrogant, bigoted Snape deserved to see the world > from the point of the down and out like Lupin. This could especially > work if Snape was close on Lupin's track, and had almost figured it > out. Now, that's a way of silencing somebody. And to Sirius's mind, > it's not as bad as we might think. After all, his best friend, Lupin, > was a werewolf, and that didn't spoil HIS life. (Though, of course, we > know that it did... later.) Think about it.>> > > > > I did, but what does it change fundamentally? If not for the worse? >To condemn a person to lead the life of an outcast would be even >worse than the intention of "just scaring" him. Assuming that by >the time of his "prank" Sirius already knew Remus's whole story, he >must also have been aware of how difficult it was to have one >werewolf at Hogwarts; having two of them seems quite impossible >(finding another hiding place, keeping everything secret). So I >hope your theory wasn't there to defend Sirius, for it makes him >look even more irresponsible- not only towards Remus and Snape, but >towards the whole school who would have been in potential danger, >had Snape really been bitten. Well, defending Sirius? It depends. I cannot believe that it was just a joke. What was the point of it? Exposing Lupin so that Snape could tell everyone? And it's strongly indicated that Sirius had no plan to stop things from going to their reasonable conclusion. So, what are we going to conclude? That Sirius wanted Snape dead? It's not an irrational hypothesis. This "schoolboy prank" thing is not going to cut it. He was 16, for heaven's sake. If at the age of 16, you tell someone to go into a room where you know there is a ferocious man- eating polar bear that hasn't eaten for 3 weaks, the judge isn't going to be listening to stories about "schoolboy pranks", and "I just wanted to scare him." "But Mr. Black," he would say, "Did you have any plan to stop the Polar Bear from eating Mr. Snape?" "Err... No. But it was just to scare him" As it stands, Sirius is charged with murder, the werewolf thing is a turn for the better. Of course, it's cruel, irresponsible, and ill-thought out. But to a sixteen year old, trying to protect one of his best friends from having his LIFE ruined, it could seem all too reasonable. That Snape was close on Lupin's track seems very likely from Lupin's and Black's description of the event. And, there's no doubt he would have told. When you see your whole world collapsing around you, you might grasp at any straw (mixed metaphors :-) And driving these feelings is the headiness of Nemesis. --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" wrote: >I like to think that if anyone ever handed Lily a too-tight >MARAUDER MASCOT t-shirt, she would have rammed it down their >throat, but that's just me. >And if anyone ever dared to hand the future Mrs. Lestrange >such an item, I suspect that she would have hexed them >straight into the hospital wing...and then forced Avery >to wear the t-shirt. Hear! Hear! Eileen From Edblanning at aol.com Tue Jan 22 15:15:49 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 10:15:49 EST Subject: The great personal sacrifice (was Snape (still): a reply to just criticism) Message-ID: <129.b34d439.297edc25@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33895 Elkins wrote > Until Rowling proves me wrong, I will > continue to operate under the assumption that even while > conspiring to betray them, Snape retained a strong personal > affection for many of the DEs, and that when they got > themselves slaughtered by Aurors or shipped off to Azkaban, > it really *hurt* -- even (or, rather, *especially*) when it > happened due to the information he was secretly passing along > to Dumbledore. It is terribly common for real-world spies > to engage in just this brand of cognitive dissonance. One > might argue, in fact, that the ability to maintain such a > schismed perspective is the hallmark of a successful agent. And I foolishly replied > > > For instance, Elkins takes quite a different stance on > > Snape, which I, from my pro-Snape stand point, dislike but accept > > as just as likely as my own. > Hi, Elkins You know, I realised before your reply that our takes are actually quite similar. ('which goes to show that the best of us must sometimes eat our words') Your view of his still liking (I wonder if it is in him really to like anyone?) his former DE companions is of course entirely consonant with my desire to see a consistent character throughout both DE and *reformed* stages of Snape's career. I have long speculated on the nature of Snape's great personal sacrifice. It couldn't have been anything that Voldy deprived him of directly,or the spying game would have been up. It makes much more sense if it is this, the necessary betrayal of an individual or individuals for whom he still feels... I don't know...?a sense of allegience ...perhaps something more? It is quite possible that someone (family even) was in a position to doubt his loyalty and had to be eliminated. I don't wish to speculate too much further, for fear of becoming melodramatic! (Although,could we have the patricide theme appearing again?) Regarding 'conversion', yes, I guess there's a sort of conversion of the mind, but inside, I think he's thoroughly conflicted, a kind of good/evil struggle going on that parallels what the series is about. Susanna wrote >.I ... just wanted to ask Elkins (was it you who wrote that in the first place?) about >the somewhat enigmatic statement that ?Snape would be a flat character, in case >he had turned away from Voldemort because of a conversional experience?. Did I >get that right? And if I did, what did it mean? Or, to re-formulate: What could, in >your opinion, have caused Snape to change sides, if not an event or a series of >events that made him open his eyes? It might be a worn-out pattern, I agree on >that, but I don?t see many other possibilities. To assume that one fine day Snape >woke up and said to himself: ?Well, today is my 3rd DE anniversary and what?s >enough is enough, so let?s change sides? doesn?t strike me as a particularly well- >motivated decision, from the psychological POV. My answer to this, if I may be permitted to butt in, is that it is all part of the then very young (from where I stand, anyhow) Snape trying to find his own path. Hypothesis: Young master Snape comes from Dark wizarding family, perhaps being already groomed to join DEs ( all those curses he knew), but is curious, intelligent and questioning by nature. At school, he questions his upbringing. Under Dumbledore's influence, he questions what the 'Light' side is all about. Perhaps he sees both sides and is conflicted about where he belongs, perhaps he has already intellectually decided for the light side, but Voldy makes him an offer he can't refuse (I have already speculated that this involves a degree of recognition that I feel canon suggests he craves but that in canon,at least, he doesn't get). Whatever, in those days you had to take sides and Snape, I feel, is a character who would regard sitting on the fence as cowardice. But he is young and how many of us at that age really know ourselves? So he gets involved with the DEs, but somehow it just isn't right, he knows it isn't for him. Now this is a pretty major mistake so what can he do? Integrity (I do think he has this) would demand that he changed sides, something that he has the courage to do. Lots of young adults do take time to find their own path. For many people, it takes the form of experimenting with different religions, life styles or political stances. One of my husband's college friends was a radical left-winger and is now a staunch Conservative. I myself experimented with radically different forms of Christianity, belief and unbelief before finding what felt right for me (and I'm still conflicted!). I don't think he needed his eyes opening, I think he went in to the DEs with his eyes fully open, but not yet knowing himself well enough to realise that was not where he belonged. His change of loyalty could be as well explained by a growing self-knowledge as by realisation of what he'd got into, something he surely knew from the start. Eloise, who is trying to stop talking about Snape, but finding it very difficult. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lee_hillman at urmc.rochester.edu Tue Jan 22 15:29:33 2002 From: lee_hillman at urmc.rochester.edu (gwendolyngrace) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 15:29:33 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and related topics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33896 Marina said: > But, ultimately I have to disagree with the theory that Lupin was put > on the train to protect Harry, because (I wrote this in an earlier > post) I don't see why Dumbledore would be concerned about Sirius > getting on the train in the first place. Ah, but remember that since Black escaped, Harry has been under near constant surveillance--the only exception being his trip on the Knight Bus, which if you'll recall, sent Fudge into a tizzy. Fudge secures a promise from him that he will stick to Diagon Alley, where he is unwittingly but nonetheless informally under the watchful eyes of Florian Fortescue, Tom at the Leaky Cauldron, and presumably any number of other upstanding witches and wizards in the area. Once the Weasleys arrive, Arthur or Molly can conveniently invent reasons to keep him under supervision. The only period he is out of all adult (i.e., qualified wizarding) company is on the train. I don't think they necessarily have any particular attack in mind, but they aren't taking chances, either. However, I still believe the most effective use of this line of reasoning is when it's used in combination with Lupin's other legitimate reasons to take the train: need for cheap transport, fatigue, etc. That is, I don't believe that these reasons are mutually exclusive. It's convenient for Lupin and at the same time does a service for Harry "just in case." The other thing to remember about Black at this point is they all believe he's insane (and they're right) and a Dark wizard who will stop at nothing to "get" Harry (which is also right with two important changes: not Dark, and it's Peter of course). So it's prudent to keep someone close to Harry at all times until he's supposedly safe at school. Gwen From ftah3 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 22 15:59:08 2002 From: ftah3 at yahoo.com (ftah3) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 15:59:08 -0000 Subject: adult supervision on the train (WAS: Werewolves and related topics) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33897 gwendolyngrace wrote: > Ah, but remember that since Black escaped, Harry has been under near > constant surveillance > The only period he is out of all adult (i.e., qualified wizarding) > company is on the train. You know, this made me wonder ~ previous to Lupin's appearance, the only adult we saw on the Hogwart's train was the candy cart lady; and there is (am I right?) also a conductor. Is that the sum total of adults on the train ride to Hogwarts? I'm thinking of school trips I took, in which we had much more than just the bus driver to supervise us. One or two teachers also went along to supervise, depending on the number of students involved. Since the Hogwarts train is the way in which all Hogwart's students get to school (er, so it seems, anyway), it would seem prudent to have an authority figure or two or five prowling the corridors making sure the students don't wreak too much havoc. I don't know if I think that said adults are present, but not mentioned by the students/author, or...not. I mean, the Good Guys get away with hexing the heck out of Malfoy & Co at the end of GoF, and earlier infractions occur. I almost think that there really might *not* be any more adult supervision for the hundred or thousand or howevermany students on that train. Maybe a few magical guards are in place to keep the train from being blown up or someone from being mortally injured, I suppose.... Hrm. At any rate, I think this is actually a good argument on Gwen's part for Lupin being aboard as a handy qualified wizard to keep an eye on Harry. The fact that HRH conveeeeeeeeeniently ended up in his cabin may have been conspiracy or happenstance, and I personally could imagine (having done it myself, ahem) faking sleep to either remain inconspicuous or to eavesdrop on an interesting conversation. And I lost my train of thought suddenly because I'm thinking the question of adult supervision on the train has surely come up before. Still, point being, would make sense, due to lack of regularly appointed supervision, to send someone along to watch over Harry in the even that clever evil Black got aboard. Mahoney off for that desperately needed second cup of coffee From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Tue Jan 22 16:08:31 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 16:08:31 -0000 Subject: Snape, the DEs and the Longbottoms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33898 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" wrote: > > Neither do I. But as it happens, I do think that Snape was > probably moody and snappish and temperamental and prickly and > unpleasant from a very early age. Less bitter, perhaps, but > still hardly an easy personality. After all, what other sort > of person arrives at school at the tender age of eleven with > an unwholesome fascination for the Dark Arts and a wicked > repertoire of curses under his belt? Agreed. What do y'all think of the "Snape was abused as a child" theory? It seems that people can't heap enough misery on his shoulders. > But he can't have been all *that* much of a loner. Sirius > says that Snape "was part of a gang of Slytherins who nearly > all turned out to be Death Eaters." 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. > > (BTW, that "nearly all" is interesting, isn't it? Not all of > them, but "nearly" all of them. Who, one wonders, were the > abstainers? And how do *they* feel about all of this?) 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. That said, I hope you're right. I want abstainers! I would dearly love to meet them. Since we're going to start learning more about Lily.... did she have any Slytherin friends who abstained? > I'll go you one further and say flat-out that I consider > killing and torturing people to be evil. My, how morally > daring of me! > > But you know, in the real world, people who kill and torture > others *do* generally have friends, and loved ones, and people > they care very deeply about. Life is complicated that way. > > 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. Let me add that the Slytherins can also be very charming (though the current lot doesn't exemplify that very well), witness Tom Riddle. Lucius Malfoy is handsome, and if Draco gets his sense of humour and gift of mimicry from his father, probably a very funny person to be with. After all, even when you hate Draco, he does come up with some good lines (though not against Ron and Hermione, more in regards to Hagrid), and he's said to be able to do a "cruel but accurate" rendition of Colin Creevey. 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. >But they do seem to have a strong sense of > in-group loyalty. I think you've proved the point very well indeed. 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 (rather than people's conceptions of backstabbing etc.) there's a huge loyalty factor. People make connections, endorse each other, reward their followers, stick together in a very Slytherin-like fashion. > But leaving that aside for the moment, I guess I just don't > have a problem imagining this. People who do dreadful things > usually do have friends and associates and colleagues who > consider them perfectly likable, worthy of affection and > respect. People are more than the sum of their rap sheets. Yes, Hitler and Stalin had endearing qualities. It's one thing to say, "Despite the fact his dog liked him, he's evil," and another to say, "Because he's evil, I don't think his dog liked him," or, "He couldn't have been that evil, because his dog liked him." > They were very young, yes. Depressingly so. And I strongly > suspect that none of them really understood completely what > they were getting themselves into. Not at first, at any rate. Which could make it worse. There could have been people sent to Azkaban/killed by aurors, who didn't yet really understand what they had got into. That might weigh on Snape, especially since he was inner-circle. > Nor did I mean to imply that I think that he misses them, > per se. I hardly imagine that he has fond memories of his > schooldays, or that he looks longingly back on those fine > old nights spent practicing Cruciatus on the lab rabbits > up in the Slytherin dormitories after lights-out (or whatever > other unsavory nastiness he and his cronies used to get up > to), or that he's just dying to take Avery out to lunch so > that they can reminisce about old times, or anything like that. > > I do think that he feels wretched about them getting > themselves killed and imprisoned, and that he would have > far rather they had all escaped unharmed, promptly abandoned > their wicked ways, and then disappeared from his life > altogether. (As, indeed, Avery would seem to have been > quite obliging in doing.) But that's not really at all > the same thing. Re: Avery being so obliging. So, what if Snape feels that several of his friends have joined him in abandoning their wicked ways. I've always read the 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. Eileen From lee_hillman at urmc.rochester.edu Tue Jan 22 16:14:15 2002 From: lee_hillman at urmc.rochester.edu (gwendolyngrace) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 16:14:15 -0000 Subject: adult supervision on the train (WAS: Werewolves and related topics) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33899 Mahoney, Yes, there's the witch with the cart and the engineer, who may or may not be a Squib for all we know. And there is a conductor: Hermione says she spoke to him in PS to ask how close they were, and later he announces their arrival at Hogwarts. However, I believe that the Prefects and the Head Boy and Girl are primarily responsible for ensuring the kids behave somewhat on the way to and from school. School hasn't really actually started yet, so think of this more like an extended bus ride (and on my buses, we usually just had the driver after 6th grade or so). Your description sounds to me like a field trip, which we've never seen or even had any hints of at Hogwarts. (And usually there were parents involved as chaperones as well, on those.) Also, recall that Hermione comes in to Ron and Harry's compartment in PS/SS, not only looking for Neville's toad, but later as well because, "people outside are behaving very childishly, racing up and down the corridors." (PS/SS Ch. 6) Doesn't sound like there's much supervision going on. Gwen From absinthe at mad.scientist.com Tue Jan 22 16:21:42 2002 From: absinthe at mad.scientist.com (milztoday) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 16:21:42 -0000 Subject: Why doesn't Harry ever ask questions? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33900 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lipglossusa" wrote: > I also realize that JKR intends to withhold info for as long as > possible in the interest of dragging out the suspense, but if I was > Harry, I would want to KNOW. Like, what really happened to the rest > of James's and Lily's families? Where was Harry born, and how long > were they living at Godric's Hollow? Where are they buried? ... and > all the other questions we ask each other on this list. Harry should > be the one to ask, and he doesn't. Any thoughts? I think Harry is the exaggeration of people who follow the "ignorance is bliss" principle. And people who follow that usually do so out of fear and/or to avoid pain. Harry has probably asked the Dursleys about his parents, when he was much younger and accepted their answers: died in car crash, scar on forehead is a result of that crash, etc. Hermione's admonition in SS/PS that she would have found everything out if it had been her, it pretty judgmental. In light of Harry's circumstances with the Dursleys how much opportunity would he have had to research his background in the one month before starting school? Not much. I see a great deal of ambivalence in Harry. On the one hand, he does open the photo album of his parents Hagrid gives him in SS/PS until PoA. On the other he seems happy (imho) when his physical appearance and Quidditch skill is compared to his father (SS/PS and CoS). And happier still when he is around people who were friendly his parents (Lupin, Sirius, and Hagrid). Yet, he doesn't look himself up in the various books about him like "The Rise and Fall of the Dark Arts" mentioned in SS/PS nor does he sit down with Hagrid or Dumbledore and ask questions. I think Harry's way of protecting himself psychologically is to be ignorant of his parents. Look how it affected him in PoA to hear Lily begging for his life. Harry is more emotionally fragile then we are lead to believe. Milz From pigwidgeon37 at yahoo.it Tue Jan 22 16:23:41 2002 From: pigwidgeon37 at yahoo.it (=?iso-8859-1?q?pigwidgeonthirtyseven?=) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 16:23:41 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Harry's Choices- Snape DE and Spy Message-ID: <20020122162341.55088.qmail@web14704.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33901 Alexander (who seems to become kind of a sparring partner for me) wrote: <> Ok, let?s have a closer look at what you called Harry?s choices, for I think that right here we?re in a bit of confusion: When it comes to explaining how exactly Harry has grown to be a fairly normal boy and not an antisocial brat, I must admit that I?m a bit at a loss. The only guess I can hazard is that it has to do with the special protection Dumbledore provided him with and with Lily?s sacrifice. Psychologists on this list please correct me if I?m wrong, but AFAIK, if a child is mistreated and abused during the earliest years of childhood ( 0-4 years) and does NOT become disturbed, we can hardly claim that this is due to this child?s conscious choices. OTOH, the most profound damage IS done during those years, so, given that Harry is as he is, I take the liberty of disagreeing on 1). Next: The meeting at Mme. Malkins. As I said before, Draco?s arrogant behaviour most certainly WAS one of the main reasons for Harry to decide against Slytherin. But I would refrain from taking this as a point in case for Harry CONSCIOUSLY choosing any house but Slytherin. I suppose that, had he met Colin Creevey instead of Malfoy, he would have been a little reluctant about Gryffindor. Anyway, we can give him the benefit of doubt, for he might have thought along the line ?Maybe all Slytherins are like this Malfoy, so it better be not Slytherin?. Hardly a choice, but at least what I?d call consistent logic in an 11 YO. Last: The greatness issue. I?ll certainly re-read the Sorting Ceremony in PS/SS, anyway I?m sure I never interpreted it as Harry seeing his ambition and wish for greatness as a potential danger for himself. If anybody, it?s the hat to see it. Elkins wrote(about Snape): <> Snape might just have been what Pettigrew was to the Marauders- a tagalong. Though I strongly doubt that, considering his above-average qualities which might not have assured him the affection, but certainly the esteem of his fellow Slytherins. If I had to characterize the nature of Slytherin relationships, I?d say that they are born out of necessity and convenience. Which OTOH, doesn?t mean that strong bonds cannot exist between them- dependence is as strong a bond as love. Still Elkins: <> Very wise. There is a German saying ?In meinem Vaterland spielen viele M?rder Bach? (In my country, a lot of murderers play Bach) which- at least I think so- clearly refers to the Nazi regime. I don?t doubt that some of the DEs had wives and children whom they dearly loved. Which doesn?t make their evil deeds less evil, but to try and see all of it together in one single person is what makes your brain seize up. Eloise wrote: <> Er sorry to rain on your parade, Dumbledore?s words are ?at great personal risk?, not ?sacrifice?. Which somehow changes the perspective. Had others (friends, family) been involved, it would have been a ?personal? risk, would it? <> Now that?s my girl!! But it?s strange all the same, isn?t it??? ;) Susanna/pigwidgeon37 "And how come those portraits seem to be alive?" "What'ya mean? All paintings move." "No, they don't. We have lots of paintings in our villa, among them a real Chagall, and none of them..." "And d'ya expect that something painted by a jackal will move? Now really..." --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Get personalised at My Yahoo!. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Tue Jan 22 17:13:48 2002 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 17:13:48 -0000 Subject: Gleam Of Triumph (filk) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33902 Gleam of Triumph (from GoF, Chap. 34) (To the tune of The Sounds of Silence) Hear the original at: http://www.foxlink.net/~bobnbren/1960s.html#S Dedicated to Jenny of Ravenclaw THE SCENE: The infirmary. HARRY, recuperating from his long dark night, catches a peculiar glimpse of something in Dumbledore's expression HARRY Hello, sick bay, my old friend I'm back in Pomfrey's bed again Having now survived this night of grief Dumbledore insisted I debrief When I told him that Voldemort had executed a swipe-o Of my Type O I witnessed a gleam of triumph Does Dumbledore think that we'll gain With Potter blood in Voldy veins? Is this the Dark Lord's Pyrrhic victory? Or is Dumble in conspiracy, Like the anarchists in Thursday who were fighting for both sides? I can't decide! The answer from Jo is silence - CMC "Thursday" refers to GK Chesterton's 1904 novel "The Man Who Was Thursday: A Nightmare" . I wanted to put in one line that was as cryptic and obscure as the original song., as well as throw in a plug for this great masterpiece (available online) http://www.ccel.org/c/chesterton/thursday/thursday.html HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm (updated yesterday with 14 new filks) From moongirlk at yahoo.com Tue Jan 22 17:28:18 2002 From: moongirlk at yahoo.com (moongirlk) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 17:28:18 -0000 Subject: Is Ginny a Parsiltongue?/Ginny&Harry Bond? In-Reply-To: <20020121044808.67688.qmail@web20403.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33903 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Robin B wrote: > I keep having this sneaky suspicion that the fact that TR's soul had been within Ginny is going to bring her character to the forefront of the story. Harry seems to have gained a part of Voldemort's powers -- LV would probably like to destroy Harry because of that alone. If Ginny had part of his soul within her, how would LV react? Would a combining of Harry's powers somehow with Ginny's lead to LV's defeat? Or even be a small element in the dark lord's destruction? We know that Snape was bonded to James because James saved Snape's life; and Pettigrew is bonded to Harry for the same reason. So, does that not mean that Ginny is bonded to Harry for having saved her life in the Chamber of Secrets? Wouldn't such a bond combined with Harry's LVish powers and Ginny's TR soul-sharing be something of value in the fight against LV? > > Yikes -- I best stop there. The above are just my opinions and thoughts. I would like to know what anyone here on the list thinks about any of what I've written. Just, please be gentle -- I'm already a nervous wreck about posting my thoughts :) > > RobinB > Robin, No need to be nervous about posting - you did beautifully. I think there are some on the list who don't see Ginny as being likely to have any potential of the sort you mentioned, but to me your idea is quite reasonable. In fact I've posted some thoughts along those lines in the past. I feel that one of the reasons that Ginny hasn't been a major player in the stories except for CoS is so that the reader will discount her potential and be surprised at a later date to find that her encounter with Riddle was not for naught, and that she has either some memories/information, or residual *something* that will prove to be useful in the fight ahead. I base this partly on my reaction to CoS after reading the first 3 books. I felt that as a part of the overall narrative arc it seemed lacking, that I didn't learn much of significance either about Harry's past or his purpose or the big fight to come. After reading just the first two books that didn't seem so odd, but when i read PoA I realizing that the books were more a continuous story serialized into several books than just a series of adventures tied together by characters and setting, and it occurred to me that CoS should have contributed more to the overarching storyline. So I decided that I must just not yet have all the information to see where that contribution comes in. That's when I started getting ideas about Ginny's potential. I don't think she's the key to defeating V, but she's bound to have some useful information or *something* as a result of several months of constant contact with Voldemort's younger self, otherwise, CoS doesn't seem to have served much overall purpose toward the progression of the narrative. kimberly From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Jan 22 17:40:56 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 17:40:56 -0000 Subject: Wand question and Malfoy In-Reply-To: <16600678.801048821@imcingular.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33904 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., heidit at n... wrote: > Canon only says, "looking at wands" which could - and imho does- mean having Mr Ollivander hunt thru the boxes to find the wand made from the heartstring of the same dragon that supplied one for his father and his father and his father and... PforGrownups] Wand question and Malfoy > Real-To: Whirdy at a... > > Let us add to the mix the fact that Mrs. Malfoy was off buying DM's wand > while he was being fitted for his robes. > > Dare we ask about the physical ramifications or the implications to be drawn > that his Mommy had to slect his wand? Freudians to the right and Jungians to > the left. Canon only says "looking at wands" which I always took to mean that Narcissa was shopping for *herself*, seeking a more stylish wand perhaps, or a replacement for one that had suffered chizpurfle damage. Pippin From jbryson at richmond.infi.net Tue Jan 22 16:57:16 2002 From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 16:57:16 -0000 Subject: Lack of traditional academics... In-Reply-To: <20020122050720.75243.qmail@web9501.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33905 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Andrew MacIan wrote: > > One of, if not THE reason calculus was developed was > to assist in the study of planetary/Lunar motion. > Similarly, physics got a start from the study of both > engineering and weapons/armor design. > I notice that JKR's observarorty course was astronomy, not astrology, although I'm sure there is an astrological component to the course. If the motion of the stars do have an influence on human affairs, and if this movement can be predicted mathematically, then, viola! we have a predictive tool, and math taught in the class. > That being true in period history, I would offer that > the same evolution(s) would have had some impact on > the 'wizarding' (what a solecism, IMO) world. That > there is no form of university education in Rowling's > universe makes no sense to me; I wonder if this a > means of sealing off the series after Hogwarts. It may be that the population of the wizarding world is too small to support a university. Later learning may be from self study, apprenticeships, and one-on-one instruction from other wizards. Both V and D seem to have accomplished right much without formal training after Hogwarts. Science fiction has stories about knowledge pills. Maybe in JKR's world you aquire Muggle knowledge with a potion, perhaps slipped into the food. Maybe the pumkin soda... Tex From ladjables at yahoo.com Tue Jan 22 17:35:54 2002 From: ladjables at yahoo.com (ladjables) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 17:35:54 -0000 Subject: Grammar, the Good & the Ugly, prejudice, WAS Harry that Heathen... In-Reply-To: <004501c1a32a$608271c0$7c50dccb@price> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33906 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ladjables"...> wrote: > His need to compartmentalize good and evil, to constantly >categorize and make divisions concerning morality, reflects the kind >of logic that is very dangerous, that can be (and has been) used to >justify anything from genocide to slavery.<< Eileen wrote: > >Oh for heaven's sakes, could we be a little more TOLERANT than >that? GENOCIDE AND SLAVERY? So when do we start making the Nazi >comparisons about people who disagree with us?< It has been MY experience, based on my ethnicity, nationality, culture and history, that the views Kevin Kimball profess are based on a logic that COULD be shared by a prejudiced mind. Since you do not know me, do not presume you know anything about my tolerance for others or lack thereof. I was trying to show that the difference between Kimball's thinking, and any bigot's, however vast it may be, is one of degree and not of type. I do not believe you will find a racist in someone who sees the grey areas, but you'll probably find one in a person whose world view seems strictly black and white, like Kimball's. Tabouli wrote: > Actually, extremely black and white logic *is*, in fact, closely >associated with prejudiced attitudes (which, combined with the >right/wrong combination of power and circumstances, have led to the >horrors mentioned). Studying the link between "black&white logic" >and prejudice was the very topic of my thesis, and I could send you >my entire reference list and the results of my own research as >evidence! (nonono, comes the alarmed chorus of HPFGU listmembers, >that's quite all right). All the same, I agree that comparing Kevin >with Hitler would be going a mite far, though I don't think >ladjables was really doing that... It never entered my mind. I was merely pointing out that his logic is dangerous because it is so reminiscent of the type of thinking that has underpinned genocide and slavery. I did not say Kevin Kimball was racist or would ever endorse genocide; his logic is his own and he is entitled to it. He is entirely welcome to submit another post criticizing Harry Potter. I have no problems reading his reasons for disliking the book because it ferments lively discussion. I cannot and would not judge someone I do not know, especially based on one post submitted to an online group. But I was in fact ruminating over the genocide of Amerindians and the enslavement of Africans in Latin America, both of which were supported by the Catholic church, official or de facto, it matters not to me. I was struck by how much Kimball's post reminded me of the literature I was reading, hence my own post. Thank you Tabouli for so eloquently expressing what I could not. If you're ever interested in sharing your thesis with a total stranger, please let me know. Sincerely, Ama > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Tue Jan 22 17:45:51 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 17:45:51 -0000 Subject: Gleam Of Triumph (filk) - Man Who Was Thursday Spoilers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33907 I suppose this whole discussion is a spoiler for "The Man Who was Thursday," by G.K. Chesterton. --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "coriolan_cmc2001" wrote: > Or is Dumble in conspiracy, > Like the anarchists in Thursday who were fighting for both sides? AND > "Thursday" refers to GK Chesterton's 1904 novel "The Man Who Was > Thursday: A Nightmare" . I wanted to put in one line that was as > cryptic and obscure as the original song., as well as throw in a plug > for this great masterpiece (available online) Having listened to the original song many times, trying to figure out what it meant, I laughed at the Thursday reference, which I did recognize. But then, I had this terrible vision of the end. * * * * * Snape started up, and stood crushing his costly robe in his hand. "I know what you mean," he cried, "and it is exactly that that I cannot forgive you. I know you are contentment, optimism, what do they call the thing, an ultimate reconciliation. Well, I am not reconciled. If you were the headmaster of Hogwarts, why were you also Voldemort, an offense to the sunlight? If you were from the first our father and our friend, why were you also our greatest enemy? We wept, we fled in terror; the iron entered into our souls--and you are the peace of God! Oh, I can forgive God His anger, though it destroyed nations; but I cannot forgive Him His peace." Dumbledore answered not a word, but very slowly he turned his face of stone upon Harry as if asking a question. "No," said Harry, "I do not feel fierce like that. I am grateful to you, not only for the butterbeer and hospitality here, but for many a fine scamper and free fight. But I should like to know. My soul and heart are as happy and quiet here as this old castle, but my reason is still crying out. I should like to know." Dumbledore looked at Ron, whose clear voice said-- "It seems so silly that you should have been on both sides and fought yourself." Fred and George said-- "We understand nothing, but we are happy. In fact, we are going to sleep." "I am not happy," said Ginny with her head in her hands, "because I do not understand. You let me stray a little too near to hell." And then Neville said, with the absolute simplicity of a child-- "I wish I knew why I was hurt so much." Still Dumbledore said nothing, but only sat with his mighty chin upon his hand, and gazed at the distance. * * * * Now that would be a Nightmare. Eileen From pollux46 at hotmail.com Tue Jan 22 16:42:37 2002 From: pollux46 at hotmail.com (charisjulia) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 16:42:37 -0000 Subject: Ethnicity in HP: an Utopian depiction? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33908 This discussion on the different nationalities in the potterverce and the wizarding handling of ethnicity has quite intrigued me and definitely set me thinking. I do believe that there is a rather utopian presentation of inter-nationality relations in the HP books- and also that there is not! Allow me to expand on this. The series is overwhelmingly British. The way people speak, the way they act, the way they think. That *is* in fact one of the things I like most about it! - I can spend hours fantasizing about living with people that use words like "blimey" or "crikey" and "all that jazz" and even "ruddy" or "git"! I love that "Wicked!" Ron blurts out when Harry shows him his scar on the Hogwarts Express in the movie! I could watch him say it again and again! J (There are, of course, other evidences of a seriously British mentality in the books besides accent, but I won't get into that now.) And at least up till now I can find no indication that the ethnically other than British students aren't in fact "culturally British" as jchutney suggests. At any rate Harry ?whose POV we follow- seems to regard them as such. However I also agree with Tabouli that when one moves to a foreign country assimilation is neither easy nor even desirable. Allow me draw from my own experiences here: I am half Greek and half English, that is, my mother is English and my father is Greek and I am both. I've lived all my life in Athens, but I definitely feel just as much British as Greek and whatsmore I seriously intend to move to England at some point in the future at least for a while. I don't believe, nor has my observations of other bi-cultural persons given me any reason to believe, that you have to make a choice of where your values lie, of what nationality you are more. One can be both simultaneously. As Tabouli points out, one can end up being "more Greek than the Greeks" (ha, ha, pun in my case! :-)): Through comparing two or more nations with each other you get a clearer idea of the group characteristics of each (though must point out I do not believe in stereotypes). Otherwise you just end up thinking that the greek way for instance is just the "human" way, they way people are. But this does not mean that one cannot be more of lots of nationalities than the people of only those nationalities (if you get my meaning?). Anyway to get to my point, I do not see that there is anything stopping Angelina, Cho or Parvati from being completely British in every way without losing the values or mentality of their respective ethnicities. They don't have to be undiluted anything! However the book is unrealistic in that the distinguishing features of the different nations are rather ignored (inside Hogwarts I mean obviously .It is not only Fleur and Krum's accents that tell us they are foreigners). And there is a Utopia in that there are no clashes between people of different ethnic origin-it doesn't even seem to be an issue- something unfortunately untrue of the Muggle world. However taking into account the particular circumstances at Hogwarts I do not think that would be an unrealistic Utopia (!). Once more I must call upon my own experiences to explain this. My mother is a teacher here in Greece at an English, that is English-speaking, school. Being an English-speaking school it has naturally drawn to it not only the British and Americans in Athens but also foreigners from all over the world who cannot send their children to Greek school. The result is the creation of a mini multinational community with a mentality, values, even an accent (no kidding) of it's own. Inside it there is no racism--in fact race isn't even an issue. Everyone is aware of their own ethnic identity and origin, but as far as other people are concerned, everybody is welcome, no problem! The more the merrier! And the same has happened to the French-speaking and German-speaking schools in the city as well, as I know from people who attended them. I kind of think of Hogwarts like this. The wizards are a small independent community inside a larger one. And they are divided from this larger community in a much deeper way then say a Scotsman is from the average Athenian. So they have to stick together. Or maybe it's just pride. Maybe they just don't want to adopt Muggle prejudices not because they see the wrongness, but solely because they're Muggle prejudices. And then there's the very sensible "literary" argument: JK Rowling couldn't approach racial prejudice in a big way in the books, it's too sensitive a subject. So she choose to take a stand against prejudice by creating one herself (Muggle/Wizard) and presenting the real-life one as none existant. I'm not sure I've made what I'm trying to say clear. It's a complicated subject. Anyway, in a nutshell my view is that there are people of none-British origin at Hogwarts, not in the great percentage however for the simple reason that it is situated in Britain. But because the pupils there seem to consider themselves firstly wizards and then English or Irish or Indian (so during the panic at the Quidditch World Cup the Beauxbatons girl who was looking for Madame Maxime when she realizes H, R and H can't help her, turns away saying "`Ogwarts", while Hermione mutters "Beauxbatons": They identify each other as different not by they're nationality but by the magical school they attend.), ethnicity and the differences of it between people do not present an issue. Charis Julia. From lucy at luphen.co.uk Tue Jan 22 18:19:01 2002 From: lucy at luphen.co.uk (Lucy Austin) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 18:19:01 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: New Theory about Why Sirius Played Trick on Snape References: Message-ID: <008701c1a371$443c02a0$11ae1e3e@stephen> No: HPFGUIDX 33909 >finwitch said: >What if Snape's a werewolf? He CAN brew Wolfsbane potion himself that no one notices, he knows about Whomping Willow... Then he would have also been a werewolf when Sirius played the 'trick' on him. So I'm afraid that won't work! Hmm, could have been nasty for our Sirius though, faced with 2 werewolves at once!! Lucy the Drifty [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Edblanning at aol.com Tue Jan 22 19:22:08 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 14:22:08 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups]Rainy parade (was Harry's Choices- Snape DE and Spy) Message-ID: <163.7898697.297f15e0@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33910 In a message dated 22/01/02 16:26:53 GMT Standard Time, pigwidgeon37 at yahoo.it writes: > Er? sorry to rain on your parade, Dumbledore?s words are ?at great personal > risk?, not ?sacrifice?. Which somehow changes the perspective. Had others > (friends, family) been involved, it would have been a ?personal? risk, > would it? > > (Hoping this doesn't come out in italics) Thanks, Susanna, major hallucination going on there (Memory charm, perhaps?). Had that illusion firmly fixed for some time. Guess there's no substitute for checking sources. Good theory while it lasted, though, wasn't it? Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lav at tut.by Tue Jan 22 19:17:52 2002 From: lav at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 21:17:52 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's Choices In-Reply-To: <20020122162341.55088.qmail@web14704.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20020122162341.55088.qmail@web14704.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <10519670516.20020122211752@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 33912 Greetings! > Susanna/pigwidgeon wrote to us: p> Alexander (who seems to become kind of a sparring partner p> for me) wrote: Ah, always at your service! :) "- Comittee of Humanity Control! - Always with you, Major Janeth Ruelo!" (Sergey Lukyanenko, "Genome"). p> Ok, lets have a closer look at what you called Harrys p> choices, for I think that right here were in a bit of p> confusion: When it comes to explaining how exactly Harry p> has grown to be a fairly normal boy and not an antisocial p> brat, I must admit that Im a bit at a loss. The only p> guess I can hazard is that it has to do with the special p> protection Dumbledore provided him with and with Lilys p> sacrifice. I disagree on protections. I don't think that Dumbledore provided any protection against psychological discomfort - only from an attack by an occasional Death Eater. IMHO it would hurt boy's upbringing much more if he was magically protected from any kind of abuse - the sense that he is "invulnerable" can really corrupt the child. p> Psychologists on this list please correct me if Im p> wrong, but AFAIK, if a child is mistreated and abused p> during the earliest years of childhood ( 0-4 years) and p> does NOT become disturbed, we can hardly claim that this p> is due to this childs conscious choices. OTOH, the most p> profound damage IS done during those years, so, given p> that Harry is as he is, I take the liberty of disagreeing p> on 1). Indeed not due to conscious choices. Conscious choices come later, and we see none even when Harry is 10 years old. A very strong character is most likely to grow in a very harsh environment. (My friend, who IS a psychologist, has told me once that the most psychologically "protected" child he has ever seen was raised in a family of religious sectants and narcomans). p> Next: The meeting at Mme. Malkins. As I said before, p> Dracos arrogant behaviour most certainly WAS one of the p> main reasons for Harry to decide against Slytherin. But I p> would refrain from taking this as a point in case for p> Harry CONSCIOUSLY choosing any house but Slytherin. I didn't mean the choice of the House here - only his instinctive rejection of prejudice and minority harassment. And THAT is a conscious choice, and not a bad one (I'm not saying that it's a good one... it still wasn't proved by anybody... does anybody want to flame me?) 8-P p> I suppose that, had he met Colin Creevey instead of p> Malfoy, he would have been a little reluctant about p> Gryffindor. That is arguable and depends a lot on meeting circumstances. Colin was not so fond of Gryffindor as he was fond of magic in general. And though he is of course an annoying lot, Harry hasn't demonstrated any disagreements in views with Colin so far... p> Anyway, we can give him the benefit of doubt, for he p> might have thought along the line Maybe all Slytherins p> are like this Malfoy, so it better be not Slytherin. p> Hardly a choice, but at least what Id call consistent p> logic in an 11 YO. I doubt he remembered about that scene when he was sitting with the Sorting Hat on his head - rather he remembered the words about most evil guys coming from Slytherin. p> Last: The greatness issue. Ill certainly re-read the p> Sorting Ceremony in PS/SS, anyway Im sure I never p> interpreted it as Harry seeing his ambition and wish for p> greatness as a potential danger for himself. If anybody, p> its the hat to see it. I didn't say he sees his ambition as danger. Harry definitely HAS ambition, he was proposed with an opportunity to receive a good deal of help on his ambitions, and still he refused the chance. p> Susanna/pigwidgeon37 Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, (Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed), who sincerely hopes Kevin Kimball will reply some day, especially as a letter has been sent to Kevin inviting him to do the job. From cityhawk at pobox.com Tue Jan 22 19:55:53 2002 From: cityhawk at pobox.com (cityhawk1) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 19:55:53 -0000 Subject: Ethnicity in HP: an Utopian depiction? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33913 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "charisjulia" wrote: >But because the pupils there seem to consider themselves > firstly wizards and then English or Irish or Indian (so during the > panic at the Quidditch World Cup the Beauxbatons girl who was looking > for Madame Maxime when she realizes H, R and H can't help her, turns > away saying "`Ogwarts", while Hermione mutters "Beauxbatons": They > identify each other as different not by they're nationality but by > the magical school they attend.), ethnicity and the differences of it > between people do not present an issue. Sorry if this has been said before, as I haven't followed this thread all the way back to the beginning, but one of the things that I love about HP is the way that bigotry is satirized by removing it from being about ethnicity and placing it on wizarding blood. The Malfoys and those who think like they do are the wizarding world's metaphor of racism/ethnocentrism/bigotry-against-anything. This way, Rowling can make a statement without pitting real-world ethnicities against each other. We're made to indentify with the "mudbloods" (since, after all, we all come from muggle families) in ways that we can't if the bigotry were targeted toward the black/asian/Indian students (unless we happen to be one of those ethnicities). Also, it's more subtle and allows her to be more satirical about it without offending people in the real world (it would be too close to home for many). Karl From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Tue Jan 22 20:17:49 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 20:17:49 -0000 Subject: Ethnicity in HP: an Utopian depiction? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33914 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cityhawk1" wrote: > Sorry if this has been said before, as I haven't followed this > thread all the way back to the beginning, but one of the things that > I love about HP is the way that bigotry is satirized by removing it > from being about ethnicity and placing it on wizarding blood. The > Malfoys and those who think like they do are the wizarding world's > metaphor of racism/ethnocentrism/bigotry-against-anything. This way, > Rowling can make a statement without pitting real-world ethnicities > against each other. We're made to indentify with the "mudbloods" > (since, after all, we all come from muggle families) in ways that we > can't if the bigotry were targeted toward the black/asian/Indian > students (unless we happen to be one of those ethnicities). Also, > it's more subtle and allows her to be more satirical about it > without offending people in the real world (it would be too close to > home for many). > I just wanted to add that another motivation may be that writing about race relations etc. is a tricky subject, in that, even people who are against racism, may not agree with your analysis of the facts of a certain situation. In HP, JKR is completely in control of her facts, so that everyone will get the message. Eileen PS Though I have known people who went, "Oh that Leftwing politics," when reading about S.P.E.W. Of course, I've heard people accuse her of "rightwing politics" in other respects, so I guess it's not true that everyone gets the message. From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Tue Jan 22 20:19:55 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 20:19:55 -0000 Subject: IntolerancRe: Grammar, the Good & the Ugly, prejudice, WAS Harry that Heathen... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33915 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ladjables" wrote: > Since you do > not know me, do not presume you know anything about my tolerance for > others or lack thereof. Since I do not know you, I do not presume to judge your tolerance. However, the way your words came across through the dead medium of the internet was not pleasant. Think of how you would have received that from some-one like Kimball. It seems that Kimball wasn't interested in a discussion, but such a remark is guaranteed to turn off anyone who receives it, whether they are looking for answers or not. FWIW, I completely agreed with most things you said, and disagreed with Kimball. His essay had some interesting points, a lot of really dumb points, a skewed world view, a faulty memory of Lewis, Tolkien, and Rowling, but there was nothing in it that called for that rejoinder. There are a lot of things which have been used to justify slavery and genocide in the past. Black and white reasoning is not the only way there. In fact, the people who have most been able to see the grey areas in my own personal experience are defenders of Confederate slavery. Against my simplistic black-and-white reasoning (pun definitely not attended, but that's the phrase we were using) that to hold another being as a chattel is wrong, they see so much ambiguity, grey areas everywhere. Extremely black and white logic is closely associated with prejudice, but it is also associated with our greatest heroes, who stick to a truth, no, a truism, when the rest of the world is caught up in endless ambiguity. I did not think you thought Kevin Kimball was a neo-Nazi. However, I am disturbed that we can't join in debate against someone without using emotionally loaded terms. FWIW, though, I think I can see your point about black-and-white reasoning. I actually have always referred to it as "closed reasoning", where everything fits perfectly, but leaves important parts of life out of the picture. And I think it runs the entire gamut from people with their closed theories about order, to people with closed theories,full of grey areas and ambiguity, which keep in everything except the fact that people are not chattels to be owned. Eileen From prongsnpadfoot at yahoo.com Tue Jan 22 20:21:05 2002 From: prongsnpadfoot at yahoo.com (prongsnpadfoot) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 20:21:05 -0000 Subject: Ron being a great wizard / when is lights out ? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33916 Hi All, This is my first post after lurking in the shadows, and thought it was time I added something to the pot. I apologize in advance if I am going over old ground. Firstly after re-reading PS and going over some of the previous mails on whether Ron has the makings of a great wizard. I wonder if any one has picked up on Ron knocking out the toll during Halloween. If we consider that his class had just started to learn the how to levitate objects earlier that day, and that the heaviest item they had used was a feather (which only Hermione could levitate). Then being able to levitate a large wooden club on his first attempt has to be a sign that Ron has the potential of being a powerful wizard. The odd thing is that this is the only time I can remember where Ron gets to show what he can really do, as he gets over shadowed by Harry and Hermione, in CS, POA and GOF, perhaps we shall see more in the later novels. On a completely different subject, has anyone wondered how Hogwarts' students managed to do any work, when it seems they have Astronomy classes at midnight, or can be found working / partying in the common room well into the night. Assuming normal boarding school rules I would have though the lights- out rule would be as strictly enforced as the `wandering around the school at night rule'. In GOA Hermione and Ron are up until three AM helping Harry with his Charms for the final challenge. I am not surprised that most of the students end up falling asleep in `History of Magic' lesions. I would have thought it would be the prefect's job to police this, which Percy would have loved, but the only time some sort of light's out / bed-time rule was enforced, was when the Professor McGonagall broke up the Gryffindor party after Harry won his second Quidditch match in POA Yours sincerely Daniel Koo . Gryffindor til the end From Edblanning at aol.com Tue Jan 22 20:31:17 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 15:31:17 EST Subject: Sleepy Lupin/ adult supervision on the train Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33917 I'm coming to the conclusion that Lupin is sleeping on the train for purely literary purposes. I don't think he can be there to supervise ( he wouldn't just sleep, would he, much too conscienscious) or to look out for Harry: they end up in the same carriage by accident. I think it's simply a way of a) introducing him, at the same time raising questions about his appearance and his reliability ( the Sneakoscope) and b) having him there to explain to the reader the Dementor whilst at the same time letting the trio get on with their conversation as if in private. (Someone posted an interesting message a while ago, pointing out the different ways in which the DADA teachers are introduced) Eloise, hoping she's got her facts straight this time [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From christi0469 at hotmail.com Tue Jan 22 20:47:26 2002 From: christi0469 at hotmail.com (christi0469) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 20:47:26 -0000 Subject: Why doesn't Harry ever ask questions? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33918 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lipglossusa" wrote: >> I also realize that JKR intends to withhold info for as long as > possible in the interest of dragging out the suspense, but if I was > Harry, I would want to KNOW. Like, what really happened to the rest > of James's and Lily's families? Where was Harry born, and how long > were they living at Godric's Hollow? Where are they buried? ... and > all the other questions we ask each other on this list. Harry should > be the one to ask, and he doesn't. Any thoughts? Harry has been programmed by the Dursleys for 10 years. No matter how comfortable he is at school, it's going to take him quite awhile to overcome this version of "children should be seen and not heard". In his case it's "Harry should be neither seen nor heard". He has learned not to cry, not to ask questions, not to seem weak, and not to let Dudley catch him if it's at all avoidable. He has also learned that adults are not likely to be sympathetic to your situation. Imagine him complaining to his aunt and uncle that Dudley had hit him. The response would likely be along the lines of "Good. You probably deserved it. Hit him again, Dudley". Straight from canon, not asking questions was highly emphasized, especially if those questions had to do with the Potters. "DON"T ASK QUESTIONS- that was the first rule for a quiet life with the Dursley's". We do see him start to get past this training in PoA and GoF. He is slowly starting to ask question and seek advice. Unfortunately he holds back in confiding in Sirius because he feels it may lead to Sirius taking risks and getting captured. Harry does seek out Dumbledore the second time his scar hurts. I can think of two examples of this progress when he is stopped by Hermione. In PoA(18) he is Harry tries to ask Lupin what sort of animal Prongs(James) was when Hermione interupts him, and in GoF(36) he is just about to break down and cry on Mrs. Weasley's shoulder when Hermione loudly slams the window (I'm not sure if this is significant). Hopefully Harry will come to realize that its is O.K. to ask questions and seek emotional support. Christi (who, like Ron, wishes SHE had a niffler). From christi0469 at hotmail.com Tue Jan 22 20:56:00 2002 From: christi0469 at hotmail.com (christi0469) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 20:56:00 -0000 Subject: Which Beasts did Hagrid Crossbreed? In-Reply-To: <012101c1a2a7$d441ba40$11ae1e3e@stephen> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33919 > > He crossed Manticores and Fire Crabs, as per GoF, chapter 24, Rita's Scoop. > > Lucy > > PS Sorry for the one line answer, but I'm very tired and it only needs a quick answer! > > I do have to say that this information is straight from Rita Skeeters article about Hagrid, and is therefore questionable. She also reported that Crabbe got a bad bite of a flobberworm, and they don't even have teeth. Christi From ftah3 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 22 21:01:19 2002 From: ftah3 at yahoo.com (ftah3) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 21:01:19 -0000 Subject: Sleepy Lupin/ adult supervision on the train In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33920 Eloise wrote: > I'm coming to the conclusion that Lupin is sleeping on the train for purely > literary purposes. *laughing out loud* Fie on you! I refuse to accept your terribly reasonable and most likely very true statement, because I'm having much more fun pondering non-existent chaperones! Mahoney still laughing :-D From gwynyth at drizzle.com Tue Jan 22 21:31:18 2002 From: gwynyth at drizzle.com (Jenett) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 13:31:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ron being a great wizard / when is lights out ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33921 On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, prongsnpadfoot wrote: > On a completely different subject, has anyone wondered how Hogwarts' > students managed to do any work, when it seems they have Astronomy > classes at midnight, or can be found working / partying in the > common room well into the night. > Assuming normal boarding school rules I would have though the lights- > out rule would be as strictly enforced as the `wandering around the > school at night rule'. This one doesn't bother me much, honestly. I went to boarding school for two years (my last two years of high school). Only the 9th graders (first year of high school, roughly age 14 for those not familiar with US school grades) had a lights out time (and that was either 10 or 11pm - it wasn't particularly early) and only for half the year. After that half year, it was only enforced for people who were in academic trouble. Everyone else, we had to sign into our dorms at 8, but could sign out of them until 10 to be in an 'academic study area' - the library, watching a movie for class in a classroom, in the art classrooms, the music practice rooms, working with a teacher, etc. We just weren't supposed to be in someone else's dorm room (except in our own dorm), downtown in the town center or off campus or anything (and in practice, no one really checked on us too much, it was mostly if a faculty member caught you somewhere you weren't supposed to be that you have problems.) We *were* supposed to be in our dorms after 10 (and the dorm proctor - a student, usually a 12th grader or two per dorm - and the house counsellors were supposed to check everyone was in) and quiet (i.e. no yelling in the hallways, no loud music after 10, etc) but if people wanted to hang out in the common room and talk, that was fine. Comparing this to Hogwarts - it's a little odd that the students don't have much supervision. However, I get the impression that they're taught responsibility for their own actions much earlier in some ways than equivalent students in the Muggle world. It's also not uncommon for 'ordinary' boarding schools for younger students (I had a friend who had been in boarding school since 6th grade, or about age 11.) to have limits about what seems to be true at Hogwarts - you're expected to behave yourself, a reasonable lights out time if one exists at all (doesn't Harry come down at midnight to talk to Sirius, and there's obviously no one there? That's not very late, for most boarding schools, quite honestly. At mine, there'd often be *someone* in the common room until midnight or 1 many nights.) most supervision in the dorms being done by proctors/prefects, and therefore the possibility of sneaking out once they've made their rounds. My guess is that the house points + prefects + the emphasis on greater responsibility (because, after all, we are teaching these kids magic that can do some .. interesting things) probably all combine to mean there's not a lot of late night carousing or goings on - or at least, that people who need to get rest leave when they need to. And I'm sure that if a student *were* staying up late and not getting enough sleep, that they'd get a talking to from someone (teacher, head of house, etc.) -Jenett From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Tue Jan 22 21:59:52 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 21:59:52 -0000 Subject: Maturity in the Wizardng World WAS (Re: Ron being a great wizard / when is ligh) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33922 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Jenett wrote: > Comparing this to Hogwarts - it's a little odd that the students don't > have much supervision. However, I get the impression that they're taught > responsibility for their own actions much earlier in some ways than > equivalent students in the Muggle world. This brings to mind many other circumstances of the wizarding world: Percy jumping into the work force at 18?, James' and Lily's early marriage, the fact that many couples seem to have met at Hogwarts, Viktor Krum's treating Hermione as if she was older, the surprisingly responsible behaviour from some of these teenagers. It's as if you had to get to the stage we almost associate these days with 30 by the time you're 18. If this is true, the wizarding world is really archaic, much more than is shown by old-style clothing and Latin spells. Eileen From m.bockermann at t-online.de Tue Jan 22 21:26:49 2002 From: m.bockermann at t-online.de (m.bockermann at t-online.de) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 22:26:49 +0100 Subject: Lily and the Marauders References: <1011712231.1646.37126.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <004201c1a390$ed788040$5d269d3e@oemcomputer> No: HPFGUIDX 33923 Well, I have been following the thread about Lily and the Marauders: was she an interruption on their friendship or not? I must admit I am not so sure about Lily anymore... I guess I will have to ponder this further. But one thing I am certain on: something happened to disrupt the gang/group/clique... around James Potter. And it happened before he and Lily were killed. All right, I cede that Peter might have become traitorous *after* they left the school, so that his treason does not hold that much impact. What continues to bother me is the fact that both Sirius and Remus accepted so easily that - as they believed - the other had turned out to be a traitor. I mean we know that they were both close friends to James. Both Sirius and James were close enough to help Remus with his fate by becoming animagi. When the Potters were killed I would have thought they would look for the blame elsewhere: that somebody else was a traitor (maybe even Peter), that - if the traitor was one of their friends - he or she might have been under the influence of the Imperius curse or something entirely else. But what *did* they do? Sirius blamed Remus, Remus blamed Sirius. No doubt, no hesitation? What in the world happened that made it possible for them to believe that one of their best friends had commited treason? If Lily was a disruptive factor for the Marauders who - without meaning - losened the strength of their friendship... maybe that was a factor. But if it was not, or not the deciding factor - then what was it? Barbara Jebenstreit From moongirlk at yahoo.com Tue Jan 22 22:19:13 2002 From: moongirlk at yahoo.com (moongirlk) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 22:19:13 -0000 Subject: Hagrid's Competence In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33924 I'm sorry, I know I'm the bleeding heart always jumping to the defense of pretty much everyone, but I love Hagrid, I can't help it. Jenny: <> The umbrella/wand ? he was explicitly given permission by Dumbledore to use magic in PS/SS ? one of the reasons he was excited to be the one to go get Harry. He is shown to ask permission to use magic another time, as well, so he's not just sneaking around breaking the rules all the time, and even if he were, I'd say he's more than justified, considering the wand and the educational opportunities that went with it were taken from him *unjustly* in the first place. I agree with you that the drinking is a clear and dangerous flaw, but not one more inexcusable than the flaws of Snape, who you cite as better, who is verbally abusive, threatens students with mind- altering and privacy-infringing drugs (veritaserum), goes off into unreasoning violent rages (end of PoA) and deliberately blocks students from access to higher authority (keeping them from getting to Dumbledore). In Hagrid's first class, the students are in no more danger than they were in Sprout's classes with the mandrakes ? handle them with proper respect for their power and magical qualities, and there is no danger. Yes, he did go with the flobberworms after the fact, and maybe that was a copout, but it makes sense ? twice now Hagrid has been punished for a crime he didn't commit, so it's perfectly understandable in my mind that after the Buckbeak incident, he would be afraid of being unjustly treated, and retreat to the safety of flobberworms (more on that below). As for Norbert ? initially he tried to keep him hidden from them, but they brought themselves into the loop. Then he considered it a treat for them to see him born, and they volunteered to help with him. After that, he allowed them to take control to get rid of Norbert, but they weren't pushed into doing any of that. Granted, it was dangerous to expose them to him, but he didn't make them do it. The skrewts may have turned out to be horrible, and it may have been illegal to breed them, but in the real world, that would be considered valuable research and he'd have gotten a grant to study them and ambitious graduate students would have been queuing up to get into the class. Jenny again: <> And Snape doesn't subject his students to things that are dangerous or difficult to understand? Hagrid never would have threatened to sic one of his creatures on a childs pet, but Snape doesn't hesitate to threaten to kill Trevor. I'd prefer a teacher who might be a little reckless, but had the faith in me to believe I could handle it to one who resorted to belittling and bullying, and assumed from the very first day that I'd be a "dunderhead", but that's just me. And Cindy's additions: <> I agree, these are problems, but they come from being overly trusting, and from drinking too much, both of which I think can be explained as stemming from Hagrid's not-too-happy life (also expanded upon below). <> Somebody already responded to this, but I have to reiterate ? in what world is Dudley an *innocent* child? I wouldn't buy that one even if the Brooklyn Bridge was thrown in. <> Hagrid had direct permission from Dumbledore to use magic in retrieving Harry, although possibly Dumbledore didn't have official authority to give that permission. <> That was not Hagrid's decision ? they got detention, and their punishment was to accompany him. He did not determine their detention, just did what he needed to do on the night in question. He would have gone alone were it not for the fact that someone else gave the kids the punishment to go with him. He had to go in search of the unicorn, which may have still been alive and in need of his help. <> Ok, this one seems like a stretch to me. He was being dragged off to Azkaban for a crime he didn't commit, he knew something that he thought could help stop attacks on students (attacks that he knew for a fact could escalate into killings) and had mere seconds to decide what to do ? he tossed out some information that he thought could help save lives. I agree that Hagrid has faults ? clearly he drinks too much, he has confidence problems, and he is way too trusting. I just think that 1. any good character is going to have faults, and 2. there are reasons for Hagrid's faults. There's been a lot of debate about Sirius and the nature of his personality and whether or not he suffers from PTSD, which would explain a lot of the things that we see as failings in Sirius's character, such as the angry slashing of paintings and bed-curtains and the breaking of a student's leg and the grabbing-by-the-neck thing. I don't know enough about mental illnesses to be certain of this diagnosis, but I think it would be equally useful to look at depression as an explanation of some of Hagrid's behaviors. Hagrid's had one heck of a sad life. Think of the problems that others have ? he's got many of them all put together. Like Harry, he lost parents. His mother simply abandoned him, and his dad died while he was still in his formative years. Like Lupin, he suffers from discrimination, in this case for being a half-giant. Like Sirius, he was accused of and punished for a crime he did not commit (granted the Aragog thing was wrong, but was not expel-the-kid wrong, and he never got anyone petrified or killed. He was basically labeled from that moment as either being dumb or evil ? people seem to have gone with the dumb explanation - but all the incident really proves is that he has an affinity for dangerous creatures. Sadly, he was denied the right to continue his studies so he could get a job like Charlie's, which he would presumably love and be extra-good at if his size would help him control the dragons. Which leads me to the fact that like Neville, he lacks confidence, in his case probably traceable in part to the abandonment of his mother, but even more so to the fact that he was denied the education that all other wizards get, and thus a part of him was sort of `suspended' at the age at which he was expelled from school. This is reinforced by the fact that he never actually left the school, and as kind as Dumbledore is to him, staying eternally at Hogwarts might not really be the best thing for him (one of the reasons I'm excited about the mission he has been sent on at the end of GoF). It is pretty reasonable to conclude from the scenes with Mme Maxime that he's never known any sort of romantic love relationship, or even anyone "of his own kind" before. He's lonely. The other adults at the school, other than Dumbledore, do not respect him, and have little faith in his abilities, thus reinforcing his self-doubts. McGonagall is kind enough to him, but doesn't have any faith in him, as is evidenced by her reaction to Dumbledore's entrusting Hagrid with Harry as a baby. He has few human friends, the beasts he cares for are the only ones who accept him without question, except maybe the trio, but even they believe briefly, because of Riddle, that Hagrid is capable of murder. All in all, I'd say it would be more than reasonable to consider that Hagrid may suffer from depression. In his loneliness and desire for acceptance, he may sometimes drink too much and trust the wrong people, and he may doubt his own skills, but so far little other than Dumbledore's trust has ever afforded him the opportunity to prove himself, even to himself. Of course he's going to falter a bit. The Buckbeak incident in PoA nearly broke my heart. His very first class ever, he's finally been entrusted with something important, but he knows he's not `properly' qualified. He wants to start off with a bang and do something interesting, so he introduces them to Buckbeak and his pals. He did everything right in that class, it's only Malfoy's complete disregard for him that causes a problem. The kid's injury is minimal and he knows it, but he also knows from experience that in regards to Hagrid, the world is not a fair place, and Malfoy's father is a powerful man. He assumes, rightly, that his resignation will be called for. He does not count on Dumbledore standing up for him and refusing to let him resign. He thinks of Dumbledore as a "great man", but knows that he's the only thing standing between Hagrid and dismissal and maybe even legal action. Plus they're going after his "friend" Buckbeak, with the intent to kill. He turns to safe flobberworms because that way no student can get hurt (even if they may later claim to Rita Skeeter that they were), and flobberworms don't seem to have much in the way of feelings or anything, so no noble creature like Buckbeak will be hurt in the future either. As his confidence comes back, he does move on, even to useful and interesting creatures by the end of GoF. I totally see Hagrid's flaws as understandable and normal, and no more debilitating to him as a teacher than Snape's flaws. Both of them, I'd wager, are less effective than Sprout or Flitwick who seem to be getting pretty good results with their students even while being reasonable and kind, but given the choice between Hagrid and Snape, I wouldn't have to think long to decide who's class I'd want to take as a student, regardless of my growing empathy for Snape. I'll learn my potions out of a library book the way the trio do for Polyjuice ? much less emotionally battering, even if I do inadvertently pick up the screaming book. kimberly From richasi at azlance.com Tue Jan 22 22:43:34 2002 From: richasi at azlance.com (Richasi) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 17:43:34 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lily and the Marauders In-Reply-To: <004201c1a390$ed788040$5d269d3e@oemcomputer> Message-ID: <000601c1a396$39417ea0$e6d51b18@cfl.rr.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33925 > From: m.bockermann at t-online.de [mailto:m.bockermann at t-online.de] > else. But what > *did* they do? Sirius blamed Remus, Remus blamed Sirius. No doubt, no > hesitation? Of course there wasn't any hesitation. Everyone believed that Sirius was the Potters' secret keeper. Once he comitted the crime against the Muggles everyone pegged him as the traitor. But, through the course of the third book we learn that Sirius wasn't the Potters' secret keeper after all and that duty was bestowed upon Wormtail who betrayed them all. But nobody knew that other than James and Lilly (who are dead), Sirius (who told James to go to Wormtail) and Wormtail (who was the betrayer, and honored dead). All the witches and wizards in the wizarding world believed Sirius was guilty, why wouldn't Remus? And when Remus came to Hogwarts and the plot which began to unfold around him, the blame game makes sense. At least to me :) Thankfully, they're both good guys and I hope we see lots more of them in the future. Richasi From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Tue Jan 22 22:45:14 2002 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 22:45:14 -0000 Subject: Secret Chamber Plan (filk) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33926 Finally! Professor Binns, that international specter of mystery, in his first filk! Secret Chamber Plan (from CoS, Chap. 9) (To the tune of Secret Agent Man) Hear the original at: http://www.donwalker.net/mididonwalker.htm Dedicated to Steve Vander Ark (HP4GU's very own Professor of Magical History) THE SCENE: History of Magic classroom. The normal listlessness of PROFESSOR BINNS' class is abruptly dispelled when HERMIONE asks the question on everyone's mind HERMIONE (spoken): Professor. I was wondering if you could tell us anything about the Chamber of Secrets BINNS (scornfully): My subject is History of Magic. I deal with facts, Miss Granger, not myths and legends .The legend of which you speak is such a very sensational, even ludicrous tale (relenting in the face of the students' interest) Oh, very well ..Let me see ... the Chamber of Secrets ... (music) When Hogwarts' founding parents first made pledge-ins (An episode lost long ago to legend) A dispute arose, it's told If Mudbloods should be enrolled Slyth'rin swore he'd not let that thin wedge edge in Secret Chamber plan, Secret Chamber plan His goal of ethnic cleansing was how this whole thing began Slyth'rin, they say, then launched furtive construction Of a place to purge Hogwarts of rank corruption For in time his truest heir Would unleash from this dark lair A horror who would need no introduction Secret Chamber plan, Secret Chamber plan Salazar declared that Hogwarts School should ev'ry Mudblood ban Of course this story is the merest fancy It can't be true, there's not even a chance, see! I deal only with the facts And verified historic acts Of the deeds of warlocks, goblins and of banshees I'll disclaimers chant of this lame old rant The story's too fantastic, and the proofs are far too scant! - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm (freshly updated on 1/21/02) From ambiradams at hotmail.com Tue Jan 22 21:29:29 2002 From: ambiradams at hotmail.com (Ambir Adams) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 13:29:29 -0800 Subject: Harry's parents really are dead Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33927 Are you all forgetting the duel with between Harry and Voldie near the end in GOF? Voldie's wand spit out the souls or spirits of both James and Lily, along with Cedric's. The people Voldie killed with his wand in order of the most recent to the ones before Voldie lost his power. The spirits even talked to Harry and helped Him get away to be able to take Cedric's body back. Ryoko-- _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx From lav at tut.by Tue Jan 22 22:20:47 2002 From: lav at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 00:20:47 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Wizard children responsibility (was: when is lights out ?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1214851382.20020123002047@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 33928 Greetings! > Jenett wrote to us: J> (a lot of text information skipped ...) J> Comparing this to Hogwarts - it's a little odd that the students don't J> have much supervision. However, I get the impression that they're taught J> responsibility for their own actions much earlier in some ways than J> equivalent students in the Muggle world. J> (... and even more text information skipped) J> -Jenett That's the point I was nurturing for a long time already. It seems to me that wizards are much more responsible and adult than muggle kids of the same age. Perhaps that has something to do with the power they have (from the very childhood they have to control their powers - Stephen King wrote a novel about such girl - don't remember the name). There are countless examples that seem to support this point of view. Students are not supervised in their dorms. Students are on their own at Hogwarts Express. House points system, representing the idea of "collective responsibility" in it's best (and worst) form (should I add that collective responsibility was the backbone of nazi occupation order?). Nobody seems to control do students are visiting the Forest or not... We would expect that most kids, who have so far lived with their families under much more strict rules, to "go wild" at first. Still, they don't. Of course, the amount of academic study may have something to do with this, but still it does not explain everything. From my ex-Soviet point of view, Hogwarts is an example of pure anarchy (though it's the Order itself compared to Russia of early 90'ies :). Even those of you who are of Western origin and grown up in much more liberal environment find Hogwarts extremely "unregulated". And still some resemblance of order exists in the school. With minimum of 280 students of various ages, families, upbringings, nationalities, heritage and genders, and only 12 professors, 1 director and 1 Filch to control them, such order can only be imposed by students themselves. And for that to do, they must have much more responsibility than their age would suggest. Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, (Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed), avatar of Chaos serial number #TX-45690834. From Zarleycat at aol.com Tue Jan 22 23:37:13 2002 From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 23:37:13 -0000 Subject: Why doesn't Harry ever ask questions? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33929 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "christi0469" wrote: > > Harry has been programmed by the Dursleys for 10 years. No matter > how comfortable he is at school, it's going to take him quite awhile > to overcome this version of "children should be seen and not heard". > In his case it's "Harry should be neither seen nor heard". "DON"T ASK QUESTIONS- > that was the first rule for a quiet life with the Dursley's". We do > see him start to get past this training in PoA and GoF. He is slowly > starting to ask question and seek advice. Leaving aside JKR's wish to keep things secret, Harry's apparent lack of curiosity about his parents combined with his reluctance to confide in adults could very well be the end result of his years with the unsupportive Dursleys. The fact that he worried about his scar hurting at the beginning of GoF and knew he wanted to tell someone, but had a problem figuring out who might be the right person, speaks volumes about his lack of adult support. He has to go through a mental checklist of the people in his life who might be of help to him and it takes him a while to figure out that, yes, he can write to Sirius. I can understand that JKR doesn't want to reveal too much too soon in order to add to the suspense of the series. However, as Harry gets older and has to deal with more adult situations, as he had to do in GoF, it will seem increasingly unlikely to me that he won't ask questions, at least of Dumbledore and Sirius, about his parents and Voldemort. If not out of idle curiosity, then out of a growing anger that these things keep happening to him and no one will tell him why. I'll predict that in the next book Harry has trouble coming to terms with what happened to Cedric Diggory. As a result of that he will either start demanding answers, or the people who have knowledge will start doling it out to him. Marianne From Rebecca.Allen at turner.com Tue Jan 22 23:26:21 2002 From: Rebecca.Allen at turner.com (Allen, Rebecca) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 18:26:21 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape, the DEs (long, of course) Message-ID: <759A085B4DB9AF47AD5BB22098C91728075329@cnncex01.turner.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33930 Hi folks. I'm replying here to Elkins (and indirectly some other posters) on Snape's attitude towards his old friends. 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. A fanfic based strictly on canon would be boring and awfully short. 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). Examples of this below... Elkins and I were speculating on the degree to which Snape was a loner, and Elkins said: > But he can't have been all *that* much of a loner. Sirius > says that Snape "was part of a gang of Slytherins who nearly > all turned out to be Death Eaters." 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. 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. > (BTW, that "nearly all" is interesting, isn't it? Not all of > them, but "nearly" all of them. Who, one wonders, were the > abstainers? And how do *they* feel about all of this?) I thought "nearly all" meant all but possibly Snape -- Sirius isn't sure if Snape actually became a DE when he spoke this. Still, if there was more to the gang than the six of them, I'd like to meet them too. > future Death Eaters ever having formed friendships> > > > 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. > > It's very hard for me to imagine a Wizarding Britain in which > a full quarter of the population is composed of murderous > sadists with little or no redeeming qualities. Let's face > it -- if the Slytherins really are all like that, then the > entire society is *doomed*, no matter what Our Heroes might > or might not accomplish. 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 do concede your description of how the current Slytherin students exhibit loyalty toward each other, maybe they aren't all so bad. You make a better case than I've heard so far. But if we are talking about Snape's attitude towards the former DE's then we only have the adults to go by, and if we are talking about his attitude towards his former schoolmates, then we have even less to go by. > > See, if we are to imagine Snape really liking these people, > > we have to have some reason to imagine them as likable. > > Well, the issue here isn't really what *we* find likable. It's > what *Snape* finds likable, which may not be at all the same > thing. I agree, but I'm defending the type of person who imagines that he never liked them. 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. And Snape is contemptuous and dismissive of Karkaroff, there's no love lost there, so you wonder about the other people. Unfortunately this does not support my argument because Karkaroff was not one of Snape's old classmates and neither was Lucius. 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. By the way, a few people have brought up lately whether or not Snape knew about how bad Lucius is, to which I can only say, how could he not? Everyone knows! The Weasley's know, Dumbledore knows, even Fudge practically admits Lucius bribed his way out of prosecution. Granted, Fudge may not realize that this is what he says -- if anyone in this series is guilty of cognitive dissonance it's Fudge. But in CoS, Dumbledore is completely unsurprised to discover that Lucius masterminded the whole evil diary plot. How could Dumby not mention this to Snape? I'm quite sure that Snape's "sudden movement" at the mention of Lucius' name is more one of fury than surprise. > But leaving that aside for the moment, I guess I just don't > have a problem imagining this. People who do dreadful things > usually do have friends and associates and colleagues who > consider them perfectly likable, worthy of affection and > respect. People are more than the sum of their rap sheets. [also, quoting you out of order:] > We're talking about people who hung out, attended classes, > ate meals, and slept in the same room together for seven years, > from the age of eleven to the age of seventeen, in a school > environment which actively encourages students to think of > their housemates as their "family." Even if their > relationship was deeply ambivalent -- and it probably was -- > there's still got to be a strong bond there. I agree this is true in the real world. But also in the real world it can work the other way. I have witnessed more than once adult siblings, who were close in age and had lived together for 18 years who turned their backs on each other permanently and with no remorse after a falling out (in one case is was an inheritance dispute, but in other cases even more trivial fights). My point is that while blood or a sense of familial belonging can be thicker than water, it's not always the case. Some people blow off their old friends without looking back. If one of my friends became a murderer I'd consider our friendship null and void. So I'm only saying that both interpretations are based more on real life experiences than what JKR depicts with Snape and his old DE friends, which is quite slight. > 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. 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. But on the other hand, and regarding familial loyalties, I found her portrayal of Crouch Sr.'s dilemma really interesting. I wish we could have heard his account of how it felt to have sent his only son to jail, and why he wound up listening to his wife to help him escape in the end. I would think this must have been gut wrenching for him, even for a guy who mistreats his house elves. But of course we never hear his story...sigh. But I find it hopeful that she even dreamed up this subplot; maybe we will hear more about whether Snape had some of the same loyalty problems himself. > comment rises ire from Rebecca> > > > Whether or not one likes Snape, I think this last statement > > is completely unsupported by the text. > > I adore Snape, and I don't think that it is at all unsupported > by the text. Just look at how Snape reacts to Sirius, when he > thinks that Sirius, rather than Peter, is the traitor. Well, we already know he hates Sirius for the prank and it could be he hates Sirius for simply causing the Potter's death as he imagines. I don't see how this makes Snape parallel to Peter. > For that matter, look at how he reacts to Quirrel in PS, when he > comes to suspect Quirrel of infidelity to Dumbledore. I'm not sure what you mean here. Snape does get riled at the thought that Quirrel's "loyalties" might be to the wrong party, and has been observed on this list, he even seems to give Quirrel the chance to think it over and change his mind. But to me this just means that a) Snape would find it traumatic if history repeats itself and another Potter dies when he could have protected him and b) he maybe wants to give Quirrel the same chance he had to change his mind. Again, I'm not sure how this makes him similar to Peter. > Or how > he reacts when Crouch/Moody implies that Dumbledore doesn't > really trust him. Her certainly acts like he has a guilty conscience, and/or the idea of not having Dumbledore's trust is unbearable for him. But Crouch/Moody accuses him of not being trustworthy to the good guys because he was a DE in the past. 'You were a criminal' is a different issue of guilt than of 'you are the type of guy to turn in your friends.' > Issues of trust and betrayal are serious > hot buttons for Snape. He's exceptionally sensitive there; > they're sore spots. I agree with this, and he might be totally obsessed with whether or not he is a trustworthy person. But I guess it's a question of what exactly does he feel untrustworthy about. Snape might have real live blood on his hands, he might be a lot more worried about what crimes he himself committed as a DE while his old friends might be least on his mind. Maybe. ;-) > > In order for them to be reflections of each other you have to > > overlook some barn-door sized issues like, oh say, good vs. evil, > > cowardice vs. courage, etc. > > Er...no. The mirror reverses that which it reflects. In order > for Snape and Pettigrew to be *reflections* of each other, what > they need to do is to be the same in certain respects, > while "reversing the image" in others. Which I think that they > do quite nicely, myself. I appreciate that you clarified this, it seems that what you meant and what I went off on arguing against were two different things. Still, I'm uncomfortable with the looking glass metaphor. I still think a looking glass implies that there is some kind of symmetry or balance between the two parties, and I don't see this with Snape and Peter. Now if Sirius really had turned out to be the spy, then we could say they are both intelligent, powerful, fearless and impulsive, and thus seem to reflect each other. But Peter is just too incongruous to Snape to make an easy comparison. Of course, as Catlady reminded me in her post, Snape has thought all along that Sirius actually was the spy, and to the extent that Snape might recognize some similarity between them (but does he?) then he might have felt they were uncomfortably alike. But I feel that he and Peter just don't have enough in common except for being very different sorts of spies. > > I don't really think that you're in disagreement with me here. Less so than I thought! Well, this is long, so I'll pipe down for now. Thanks for the chance to chew on this, Rebecca From Zarleycat at aol.com Wed Jan 23 00:03:21 2002 From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 00:03:21 -0000 Subject: Lily and the Marauders In-Reply-To: <004201c1a390$ed788040$5d269d3e@oemcomputer> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33931 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., m.bockermann at t... wrote: > > But one thing I am certain on: something happened to disrupt the > gang/group/clique?... around James Potter. And it happened before he and > Lily were killed. > What continues to bother me is the fact that both Sirius and Remus accepted > so easily that - as they believed - the other had turned out to be a > traitor. I mean we know that they were both close friends to James. Both > Sirius and James were close enough to help Remus with his fate by becoming > animagi. > > When the Potters were killed I would have thought they would look for the > blame elsewhere: that somebody else was a traitor (maybe even Peter), that - > if the traitor was one of their friends - he or she might have been under > the influence of the Imperius curse or something entirely else. But what > *did* they do? Sirius blamed Remus, Remus blamed Sirius. Once the Potters were dead Sirius knew the traior was Peter and not Remus. Sirius and Remus became distrustful of each other before James and Lily died. > What in the world happened that made it possible for them to believe that > one of their best friends had commited treason? > > If Lily was a disruptive factor for the Marauders who - without meaning - > losened the strength of their friendship... maybe that was a factor. But if > it was not, or not the deciding factor - then what was it? File it under the category of "We Don't Yet Have Enough Information." Of course, after the Potters' deaths Remus believes with the rest of the wizarding world that Sirius did it. As yet we have no evidence that he or anyone else who presumably knew and/or worked with Sirius made any attempt to see him. If I had been in Remus' shoes I would have wanted to look that traitor in the eyes and 1) tell him what I thought of him and 2) ask him WHY? What did Voldemort offer that made him do this? We can make up all sort of situations that James and Sirius and Remus may have been in that somehow one of them misinterpreted to the point of suspecting another in the group of being a spy. For instance, they're in a room talking about an upcoming raid on a bunch of DEs. Peter had been there, but he left because he's not involved with this. He sneaks back in in his rat form, unseen by the others, and hears the plan. The plan goes badly wrong - Sirius knows he's not the traitor, he's pretty sure James isn't, either, so that leaves Remus as a potential spy. Did Remus pass information on, or did things just go wrong because sometimes bad stuff happens? Perhaps one of Voldemort's greatest weapons is not only his power as a wizard, but an ability to sow discord and distrust among his enemies. Marianne, who really, really, really hopes some of these questions will have canon answers soon. From jklb66 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 22 22:08:55 2002 From: jklb66 at yahoo.com (jklb66) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 22:08:55 -0000 Subject: Ron being a great wizard / Will Ron die? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33932 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "prongsnpadfoot" wrote: > > Firstly after re-reading PS and going over some of the previous > mails on whether Ron has the makings of a great wizard. I wonder if > any one has picked up on Ron knocking out the toll during Halloween. > If we consider that his class had just started to learn the how to > levitate objects earlier that day, and that the heaviest item they > had used was a feather (which only Hermione could levitate). Then > being able to levitate a large wooden club on his first attempt has > to be a sign that Ron has the potential of being a powerful wizard. > The odd thing is that this is the only time I can remember where Ron > gets to show what he can really do, as he gets over shadowed by > Harry and Hermione, in CS, POA and GOF, perhaps we shall see more in > the later novels. I know one person who has noticed that Ron gets overshadowed by Harry- - Ron does! It isn't until GF that it really starts to get on his nerves. No wonder Ron temporarily deserts his best friend at this point; "the famous Harry Potter" is about to become more famous. PA helps to set up this development by introducing the theme of betrayal by a friend. In PA, Harry is torn up inside because his parents' betrayor is his dad's best friend! Murder is in his heart. When it is revealed that Peter (the tag-along) and not Sirius (the best friend) was the traitor, Harry is able to accept it and even show mercy to Peter. (Yes, he didn't do it for Peter's sake, but he did spare his life.) jklb66 And so we have to ask, could any of Harry's friends betray him as one of James's friends did? Most importantly, could Ron? I don't think so. I think the temporary schism in GF gives Ron a wake up call. I think Ron's devotion to Harry will end up being strengthened by it. Which brings me to a frightening thought. Ron's devotion to his friend is likely to be put to the ultimate test. JKR said in the A&E interview that there was one death that was the hardest for her to write. Ron's? To quote from PA: "'You don't understand!' whined Pettigrew. 'He would have killed me, Sirius!' 'THEN YOU SHOULD HAVE DIED!' roared Black. 'DIED RATHER THAN BETRAY YOUR FRIENDS, AS WE WOULD HAVE DONE FOR YOU!'" I think this sums up what a "true Gryffindor" is-- someone brave enough, and loyal enough, to die for friendship. From jchutney at yahoo.com Wed Jan 23 00:42:33 2002 From: jchutney at yahoo.com (jchutney) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 00:42:33 -0000 Subject: Ethnicity in HP: an Utopian depiction? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33933 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cityhawk1" wrote: > I love about HP is the way that bigotry is satirized by removing it from being about ethnicity and placing it on wizarding blood. The Malfoys and those who think like they do are the wizarding world's metaphor of racism/ethnocentrism/bigotry-against-anything. This way, Rowling can make a statement without pitting real-world ethnicities against each other. We're made to indentify with the "mudbloods" (since, after all, we all come from muggle families) in ways that we can't if the bigotry were targeted toward the black/asian/Indian students (unless we happen to be one of those ethnicities). Also, it's more subtle and allows her to be more satirical about it without offending people in the real world (it would be too close to home for many).> Furthering your statement, I think one reason avoids racism/religionism/other"ism" and focuses on Wizard Blood Purity is that it allows the Malfoys & other Purebloods to represent *any* group with "status". You could see them as South African Whites, the titled British,Turks oppressing the Armenias, minority Immigrants (purebloods) in a majority society(muggles) who don't want to lose their culture, etc, etc. I've read articles comparing Voldemort to Hitler, Bin Ladin, and other infamous psychotics. Who or what Voldemort represents will be something different to each child. The cool thing about JKR's set-up is that the Malfoys and the Weasleys are the same "type" (whatever that means). What differiantes them is the way they act. This prevents (IMO) Harry & Hermione from forming a reverse-prejudice against purebloods. They see Draco as rotten because of what he does, not who is, and Draco's action in no way influence they way H&H see Ron. jchutney From theennead at attbi.com Wed Jan 23 00:48:07 2002 From: theennead at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 00:48:07 -0000 Subject: Snape and the Longbottoms In-Reply-To: <029c01c1a324$8320ce80$99c71bce@hppav> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33934 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Eric Oppen" wrote: > One thing to keep in mind about Snape's attitude toward the > senior Longbottoms is that during the latter stages of the > First Voldemort War, the Aurors were about as ruthless and > hair-triggered as the DEs themselves. We don't _know_ how > Mr. Longbottom, or both Longbottoms if they were both > Aurors, approached their duties...were they like Mad-Eye > Moody, and at least willing to _try_ not to kill, or were > they more like Judge Dredd on acid? Heh. Oh, boy, do I like *you!* My original de-lurk actually had some very harsh things to say about Aurors, but I was too cowardly to leave them in. You're very brave. But I can't quite bring myself to believe that Longbottom was Judge Dredd on acid. Dumbledore gives too great an impression of having approved of the man, and while my readings of the books may often be a tad subversive, I just can't quite help myself. I do trust Dumbledore. No, I'm sure that Frank Longbottom was not all that bad, as Aurors go. (I don't think that his wife was an Auror, BTW. Had she been one, then Crouch's summary of his son's crimes in the Pensieve scene would surely have included something about the prisoners having captured *two* Aurors, rather than an Auror and "his wife.") I feel reasonably confident that Longbottom was a "Good Auror." For whatever *that's* worth. I mean, let's take a look at our exemplar of "Good Auror" for a moment, shall we? Alastor Moody. Dumbledore's friend. The man Sirius claims was one of the better ones. Tried to avoid killing. All of that. What do we know about him? Well, he doesn't believe in plea bargains, which is certainly understandable -- most cops don't. But he also seems to consider it morally acceptable to _break faith_ with captive prisoners ("Let's hear his information, I say, and throw him straight back to the dementors.") He is not adverse to dehumanizing his enemies; he feels free to sneer at them; in the course of a single page, he refers to Karkaroff as both "filth" and "scum." He is skeptical of Dumbledore's judgement of Snape; he does not believe in second chances. He tries not to kill, but he doesn't seem unduly bothered by it when he does so. And he approves of the use of the dementors as prison guards. ("For scum like this...") Also, word of Crouch/Moody's decision to torture a student surely must have made its way to Dumbledore's ears at some point, and it didn't tip him off. I think it safe to assume that such an action would have been in character for the real Moody as well. And this is one of the GOOD Aurors. I know that many people on this board really really *like* Moody, and that I'm probably making myself very unpopular by saying this, but I simply must. I don't like Moody. I really don't care for him at all. He strikes me as the sort of person who would happily strip away all of my civil liberties, given half the chance, and I consider such men a serious threat to civilized society. There. I've said it. I feel better now. A while back, JudySerenity wrote that the fates of Snape's old friends might have given him a "powerful reason to hate Aurors." To which I was sorely tempted to reply: does anyone really need a *personal* reason to hate Aurors? Sirius -- no bleeding-heart himself -- says that many of the Aurors descended to the level of the Death Eaters. We've heard about the licence to kill; we've heard about the licence to use the Unforgivables. God only knows how many innocent people were interrogated under Cruciatus in those dark days before Voldemort's defeat. Or, for that matter, how many other "special powers" Crouch invested in his jackbooted thu...er, excuse me, I mean Protectors of the People, before he was done. Search and seizure, anyone? Surveillance without warrant? Indefinite detention without arrest? (Am I treading too closely on current political events here?) Hey, or how about Profiling? Returning briefly to the issue of the members of Snape's little clique who did *not* become Death Eaters, does anyone but me worry about what might have happened to them during those years? If we want to assume that Snape doesn't like Aurors, I really don't think we have to wander too far into the realms of the personal. There are plenty of reasons why even perfectly law-abiding witches and wizards with no personal baggage might dislike them as a general class. -- Elkins From rachrobins at hotmail.com Wed Jan 23 01:54:58 2002 From: rachrobins at hotmail.com (tangawarra1) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 01:54:58 -0000 Subject: Lily and the Marauders In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33935 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "kiricat2001" wrote: > > Perhaps one of Voldemort's greatest weapons is not only his power > as a wizard, but an ability to sow discord and distrust among his > enemies. > > Marianne >>> We know that Dumbledore tells the students at the leaving feast (GoF) that Voldemort's ability to create division between people is a great threat and that everyone (Beauxbatons, Durmstrang, giants, elves) must stand together. (Sorry dont have a direct quote - I've lent GoF to a friend.) So I think it is entirely possible that Voldemort (via one of his supporters .. more than likley Wormtail) would be malicious enough to create distrust between the Marauders by whatever means they can in order to get to Lily and James. What I cant wait to find out in later books is why Lily and James were such a target. All who openly opposed Voldemort's reign would, admittedly be at risk, but to invoke "ancient magic" in the form of a secret keeper... why were they particularly targeted? Rachel an enthusiastic newbie From fiatincantatum at attbi.com Wed Jan 23 02:11:09 2002 From: fiatincantatum at attbi.com (Fiat Incantatum) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 21:11:09 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] a character's character & house In-Reply-To: <3C4CA22B.FA933571@kingwoodcable.com> Message-ID: <3C4DD56D.7855.C0BB74D@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 33936 On 21 Jan 2002 at 17:20, Katze wrote: > Anyway...my point is simply that if we look hard enough, all of our > characters will have traits of each house. I think the sorting hat > assesses the qualities of each house in the person, and then looks deep > in their mind to see what kind of choices the person has made, and > that's what causes a house to be chosen. I think this is the most important bit, right here. The major difference between Slytherin and Gryffindor is not really courage but attitude. A Gryffindor says "OK, this action is the absolute last one that any sane being would contemplate taking, but it needs doing. Where do I sign up?" A Slytherin asks "What's in it for me?" It would not surprise me at all to learn that Gryffindor students generally have shorter-than-average lifespans. Glorious Destinies get you Glorious Funerals. -- 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 jklb66 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 22 21:34:03 2002 From: jklb66 at yahoo.com (jklb66) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 21:34:03 -0000 Subject: Wand question and Malfoy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33937 > > Whirdy wrote: > > Let us add to the mix the fact that Mrs. Malfoy was off buying > > DM's wand while he was being fitted for his robes. > > > > Dare we ask about the physical ramifications or the > implications to be drawn that his Mommy had to slect his wand? > > Freudians to the right and Jungians to the left. >>> Mommy picking out Draco's wand while he was busy with a robe fitting; it is SO revealing of Draco Malfoy. Style is more important than substance. What is the MOST important purchase a young wizard/witch makes when going off to school? The wand. Does Draco want to be bothered? No, getting his robes to look just right is more important! We see this again and again with Malfoy. Ex. The highly competent Prof. Lupin gets dissed just because his robes are shabby. jklb66 From andrew_macian at yahoo.com Wed Jan 23 02:48:30 2002 From: andrew_macian at yahoo.com (Andrew MacIan) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 18:48:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lack of traditional academics... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020123024830.36657.qmail@web9504.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33938 Greetings from Andrew! One day I think a general treatise on what we know and can deduce (well...guess, OK?) about the magic in Rowling's universe should be written, with direct parallels drawn to the magic(k) we have in the 'real' world. Now, let's look at our calendars.... --- tex23236 wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Andrew MacIan > wrote: > > > > > One of, if not THE reason calculus was developed > was > > to assist in the study of planetary/Lunar motion. > > Similarly, physics got a start from the study of > both > > engineering and weapons/armor design. > > > I notice that JKR's observarorty course was > astronomy, not astrology, > although I'm sure there is an astrological component > to the course. It seems that Rowling's world has the same rule ('As above, so below') as we do. > If > the motion of the stars do have an influence on > human affairs, and if > this movement can be predicted mathematically, then, > viola! we have > a predictive tool, and math taught in the class. One hopes so; after all, somebody has to calculate all of the ephemerides/annual ephemeris for use. I know that the Requisite Tables and &c that are published by the USNO/RO/RN are the outgrowth of those originally used for astrological purposes; something similar must have occurred in the early days of Rowling's world. Alternatively, of course, is that this is yet another direct parallel to our 'real' world. > > > That being true in period history, I would offer > that > > the same evolution(s) would have had some impact > on > > the 'wizarding' (what a solecism, IMO) world. > That > > there is no form of university education in > Rowling's > > universe makes no sense to me; I wonder if this a > > means of sealing off the series after Hogwarts. > > It may be that the population of the wizarding world > is too small to > support a university. Erm. The lady across the table from me is a geneticist; her take is that, given a gene pool the size of the (current) US, there should be nearly 300k people who qualify as 'magical'. > Later learning may be from > self study, > apprenticeships, and one-on-one instruction from > other wizards. > Both V and D seem to have accomplished right much > without formal > training after Hogwarts. Concur, and this was handled very adroitly by the Cat Lady (and I shall finish an answer to her shortly). However...given the tentative population in the US, I would hazard the guess that *some* form of formal higher ed would become mandatory over time. Presuming this to be the case, the 'one-on-one' brutalis....erm...*mentoring* would come as they approached the equivalent of the MA/MSc or PhD/ScD; such as I give my own pre-docs, so to speak. > > Science fiction has stories about knowledge pills. > Maybe in JKR's > world you aquire Muggle knowledge with a potion, > perhaps slipped > into the food. Maybe the pumkin soda... Mixed with gin for me, please! {grin} I await with interest your answer in re the thought experiment post {nudge, nudge; wink, wink}. 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 video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ From earthman007 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 23 03:27:44 2002 From: earthman007 at yahoo.com (Stephanie Gates) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 19:27:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape and the Longbottoms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020123032744.77986.qmail@web10403.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33939 ssk7882 said: "Sirius -- no bleeding-heart himself -- says that many of the Aurors descended to the level of the Death Eaters. We've heard about the licence to kill; we've heard about the licence to use the Unforgivables. God only knows how many innocent people were interrogated under Cruciatus in those dark days before Voldemort's defeat." Could JKR be basing the Aurors after the SAS that England employed to "keep the peace" in Northern Ireland, who were also given a liscence to kill? Currently, I'm taking Irish history at college, and some of the parallels between the two groups are a little unnerving. Anyone think the same, or want to refute this thinking? Steph ===== Music to hear, stories to write, not enough hours in the day... Come, and read my fanfics at fanfiction.net. My author name is pandorabox82 Thank you! __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ From Rebecca.Allen at turner.com Wed Jan 23 04:04:29 2002 From: Rebecca.Allen at turner.com (Allen, Rebecca) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 23:04:29 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Aurors Message-ID: <759A085B4DB9AF47AD5BB22098C9172807532C@cnncex01.turner.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33940 Steph asked: > > Could JKR be basing the Aurors after the SAS that > England employed to "keep the peace" in Northern > Ireland, who were also given a liscence to kill? > Currently, I'm taking Irish history at college, and > some of the parallels between the two groups are a > little unnerving. Anyone think the same, or want to > refute this thinking? Sure sounds like it from your description. As an American I always imagined the typical Auror to be a little like Donald Rumsfeld. Reporter to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld: " ... beyond the criticism from human rights organizations for using the cluster bombs, they're calling for a halt - could you explain the tactical rationale for using them?" Secretary Rumsfeld: "They are being used on front-line al Qaeda and Taliban troops to try to kill them, is why we're using them, to be perfectly blunt." I think JKR is setting us up to have grave doubts about the moralism of the Aurors; I'm not crazy about Moody either. /Rebecca [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From asifjuk at yahoo.co.uk Wed Jan 23 04:24:08 2002 From: asifjuk at yahoo.co.uk (asifjuk) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 04:24:08 -0000 Subject: Ron, Harry....or Draco? Who do you think Hermione will fall for? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33941 Hi! In Book 4 we got some initial indications of a possible romance between Ron and Hermione--but given JKR's impartiality to surprises do you think it might turn out in Books 5,6 and 7 that Harry or Draco (or an unknown character) will win her heart? From rachrobins at hotmail.com Wed Jan 23 05:14:22 2002 From: rachrobins at hotmail.com (tangawarra1) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 05:14:22 -0000 Subject: Aurors In-Reply-To: <759A085B4DB9AF47AD5BB22098C9172807532C@cnncex01.turner.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33942 Its really interesting what perspectives we all have on the aurors. I'm an australian, and although i keep up with world politics, we do not really have a recognisable military force like the SAS etc here to relate to. I tend to think the aurors would be more of an intelligence service than brute military strength. (lets face it, aurors are challenging dark magic - that would take cunning, daring and intelligence, violence wouldn't be much help if you're up against avada kedavra lets face it!). It seems to me that Dumbledore abhores violence (his attitude towards the use of dementors a good example), and trusts moody implicitly, therefore i feel that he would not have Moody at the school if aurors generally were like the SAS. In addition to this, we dont know the real moody yet. We hear about him second hand from Amos Diggory and Arthur Weasley at the beginning of GoF regarding the disturbance in his rubbish bins, and then at the end when he attends the leaving feast. From memory, I think the only other auror we have any chracter information on at all is Frank Longbottom, and details on the Longbottoms are still very sketchy. so thanks what i think anyway. disagree to your hearts content :-D Rachel [Mod note: full quotation of message replied to removed by JW] From andrew_macian at yahoo.com Wed Jan 23 06:48:18 2002 From: andrew_macian at yahoo.com (Andrew MacIan) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 22:48:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Aurors In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020123064818.85056.qmail@web9502.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33943 Greetings from Andrew! A few comments on what we laughingly call 'intelligence' services... --- tangawarra1 wrote: > Its really interesting what perspectives we all have > on the aurors. > I'm an australian, and although i keep up with world > politics, we do > not really have a recognisable military force like > the SAS etc here > to relate to. I tend to think the aurors would be > more of an > intelligence service than brute military strength. > (lets face it, > aurors are challenging dark magic - that would take > cunning, daring > and intelligence, violence wouldn't be much help if > you're up against > avada kedavra lets face it!). Perhaps thinking in terms of the US FBI; both a law enforcement agency and one that has both national and international intelligence functions. Most of the Feds are, basically, cops; thus, in some cases, they have both the need (so to speak) and the necessity of killing people. They operate under Federal law, and (theoretically) restraint. This seems to me to be a good model of the Aurors, as far as we know them. As for the curses...they're line-of-sight, just like firearms. To me, violence via spell and violence vie physical weapon is, in most cases, identical. After all, dead is dead and the reason's pretty much academic. > > It seems to me that Dumbledore abhores violence (his > attitude towards > the use of dementors a good example), Possibly, but I reall wonder if this isn't an objection to the modality. After all, at the end of GoF, speak of the dementors as being the natural allies of Voldemort. > and trusts > moody implicitly, > therefore i feel that he would not have Moody at the > school if aurors > generally were like the SAS. Concur. Vide supra. > > In addition to this, we dont know the real moody > yet. We know that Prof D trusts Moody. If that is good enough for the Snape fans amongst us.... 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 video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ From yankee00 at earthlink.net Wed Jan 23 07:08:19 2002 From: yankee00 at earthlink.net (Amanda Rush) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 02:08:19 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Aurors References: <20020123064818.85056.qmail@web9502.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001301c1a3dc$bd6db220$c133fea9@amanda> No: HPFGUIDX 33944 Extracting myself from lurkdom for this one: I think Dumbledore abhores the dementors because he seems to abhore all things evil. The dementors, to me, seem to be the embodyment of all evil. Kind of like the demons of the magical world, with physical bodies. Dumbledore seems to be the embodiment of good. ----- Original Message ----- From: Andrew MacIan To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 1:48 AM Subject: Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Aurors Greetings from Andrew! A few comments on what we laughingly call 'intelligence' services... --- tangawarra1 wrote: > Its really interesting what perspectives we all have > on the aurors. > I'm an australian, and although i keep up with world > politics, we do > not really have a recognisable military force like > the SAS etc here > to relate to. I tend to think the aurors would be > more of an > intelligence service than brute military strength. > (lets face it, > aurors are challenging dark magic - that would take > cunning, daring > and intelligence, violence wouldn't be much help if > you're up against > avada kedavra lets face it!). Perhaps thinking in terms of the US FBI; both a law enforcement agency and one that has both national and international intelligence functions. Most of the Feds are, basically, cops; thus, in some cases, they have both the need (so to speak) and the necessity of killing people. They operate under Federal law, and (theoretically) restraint. This seems to me to be a good model of the Aurors, as far as we know them. As for the curses...they're line-of-sight, just like firearms. To me, violence via spell and violence vie physical weapon is, in most cases, identical. After all, dead is dead and the reason's pretty much academic. > > It seems to me that Dumbledore abhores violence (his > attitude towards > the use of dementors a good example), Possibly, but I reall wonder if this isn't an objection to the modality. After all, at the end of GoF, speak of the dementors as being the natural allies of Voldemort. > and trusts > moody implicitly, > therefore i feel that he would not have Moody at the > school if aurors > generally were like the SAS. Concur. Vide supra. > > In addition to this, we dont know the real moody > yet. We know that Prof D trusts Moody. If that is good enough for the Snape fans amongst us.... 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 video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ________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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From djdwjt at aol.com Wed Jan 23 07:01:01 2002 From: djdwjt at aol.com (elfundeb) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 07:01:01 -0000 Subject: Divination -- Cause or effect? In-Reply-To: <20020122044544.24271.qmail@web9504.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33945 > > I watched the Div class in PoA and began to wonder > > which way it was > > working. Trelewany tried to get Harry to "see" > > Beaky twitching > > headles on the ground, but Harry tells her he sees > > him flying off. My > > question is, did Harry "seeing" Beaky fly away, > > somehow _cause_ or > > contribute to causing, Beaky's escape? > > Predictive causation on the atomic scale was one of > the great problems in the early days of QM. Consider > the famous photon experiment that illustrates that > which way the probability function collapses > determines which 'side' of the barrier the photon > 'chooses'. Rephrasing your notion slightly, if one predicts > something and has enough belief to See it occur, does > that Sight force the event? If so, does this imply > that magic has both substance and force? > > Given your well-chosen example, I would support this > as being true, at least within what we have been shown > in Rowling's universe. > > > Going out > > further on this limb, > > night this be how magic works, involving > > visualization of the desired > > effect? > > You approach one of the major schools of Western > magic(k) with this, as I am sure you're aware. One of > the bases of what is called Ceremonial Magick (and > this is the school that most closely resembles > Rowling's version of magic) is that if the thaumaturge > can visualize an object (or an effect; again the QM > duality) precisely enough at a fine enough level, > he/she will, in effect, create or transform the object > into whatever it is that he/she wills it to be. (To > do what thou will shall be the whole of the law.) > > > > > Running, dodging, and ducking, > > > > Tex > > Stand and deliver, sir! > > {grin} > > Cheers, > > Drieux > I find the predictive causation analysis as a theory of magic in HP fascinating and very plausible. But I'd like to throw out another predictive causation example. In Trelawney's first class, she predicts that Neville will break teacups, whereupon nervous Neville begins breaking them almost immediately. Some of us in the Trelawney-is-a-fraud camp have used this as an example of her use of the power of suggestion to create a self-fulfilling prophesy, arguing that if you tell the most nervous person in the class that he will break something, that increases the probability that the breakage will occur, but that is merely using one's powers of observation and playing the odds, not divination. Is this a valid example of predictive causation, or is it different from the Harry/Buckbeak example because Trelawney did nothing to bring about the result except to make the suggestion? If it is valid, then I hesitate to classify predictive causation as "divination" as that term appears to be used in the Potterverse, at least by Trelawney (though seeing possibilities and acting on them, while more mundane than prophesy, is arguably a more valuable form of "seeing" than merely knowing the future).> > Debbie (who has never studied probability and welcomes enlightenment) Divination: (1) "the art or practice that seeks to foresee or foretell future events or discover hidden knowledge usually by the interpretation of omens or by the aid of supernatural powers" (2) "unusual insight; intuitive perception" Websters Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary> > ===== From catlady at wicca.net Wed Jan 23 08:24:56 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 08:24:56 -0000 Subject: Sirius and Remus suspecting each other Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33946 Barbara Jebenstreit wrote: > But what *did* they do? Sirius blamed Remus, Remus blamed Sirius. > No doubt, no hesitation? I am thinking that Sirius didn't suspect Remus because of believing Remus to be untrustworthy, but because Remus is a werewolf and that might make him vulnerable to something in between being blackmailed and being manipulated in wolf form into doing things he doesn't really remember the next day. And he doesn't want to tell Remus something so unkind, but he broods on it and thus becomes a bit cold or constrained in his behavior toward Remus. And Remus noticed this unexplained change in Sirius's behavior and the only reason he can figure out for it is if Sirius is the traitor. And I personally am a Sirius/Remus shipper, which makes the mutual suspicion all the sadder, but also all the more likely: one comes to believe that the worst fear is the true one, and the worst fear is that one's own spouse/partner/lover is the traitor. From pigwidgeon37 at yahoo.it Wed Jan 23 09:39:44 2002 From: pigwidgeon37 at yahoo.it (=?iso-8859-1?q?pigwidgeonthirtyseven?=) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 09:39:44 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Imperius-ed Lucius/ Law&Order&Aurors/ Harry's Choices/ Student Discipline Message-ID: <20020123093944.55921.qmail@web14703.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33947 Mahoney wrote: <> To which Rebecca Allen responded: <> Here, I completely agree with Rebecca. Even if Snape had believed that Lucius had really been put under the Imperius Curse, he must know better now, after the end of CoS. But I sincerely doubt that he bought the Imperius excuse even for a moment. After all, Snape has known Lucius for many years, even assuming that they were not at school at the same time, as Lucius seems to be some years older. (I just had a look at Steve?s lexicon, but couldn?t find a time line for Malfoy) What I?m going to say now is mere speculation: I think that those people who claimed to have been under the influence of the Imperius Curse only got away with it because those questioning and trying them for their crimes didn?t have sufficient insight. A person, like Snape, who had participated in meetings and eventually also taken an active part in the DEs? evil deeds, IMO was able to distinguish curse-induced from authentic behaviour. If Lucius really is the sadistic pervert most of us seem to think he is (and Muggle-torturing certainly qualifies for labelling him thus), he did enjoy torturing and killing. Whereas I imagine that the curse can make people do what they are told, but is it possible to make them enjoy it? So I suppose that, if there really were followers of Voldemort who had been cursed into obeying him, Snape would have known exactly who they were- remember Fake!Moody?s ?You see it in the eyes?? Elkins wrote: <> This ties in nicely with the topic I raised some time ago, about human rights in the wizarding world: For even if we concede that during the last months of Voldemort?s reign of terror there was some kind of martial law, so as to allow the Aurors to defend themselves properly, even martial law is always LAW. There are courts, to begin with, and trials. It may permit greater efficiency for those who are presumed to be the Good Guys, but a minimum of rules has to be respected. Considering the rather gruesome situation Sirius depicts, it seems, though, that Crouch Sr. simply let loose the bloodhounds, more or less explicitly giving them permission to live out all their nastier instincts and desires of revenge on a ?legal? basis. What I find interesting in this whole good Auror- bad Auror discussion is that JKR seems to be more inclined to convey the message ?Just because somebody is an Auror that doesn?t mean they?re necessarily good persons?, than ?Just because somebody?s a Slytherin that doesn?t mean they?re necessarily bad persons?. Take ?bad? at face value, but be suspicious of ?good?? At least that is the impression I get. Alexander wrote: <> Nope, all flames already used to light countless cigarettes. Of course, Harry instinctively shies away from harassment and prejudice, because that?s exactly what he has been confronted with all the time he lived with the Dursleys. Bullying the weaker is Dudley?s favourite pastime, anyway. And there?s no need to go into further detail about Vernon and Petunia?s being prejudiced. So I?d rather suggest that Harry?s main reason for refusing Slytherin was the perspective of Crabbe and Goyle, who appear to be built along Dudley?s lines both physically and mentally, continuing what his cousin had been doing for the past eleven years. One more word about prejudice: That is a game in which Gryffindors and Slytherins have an equal score. Not only are they prejudiced against each other, but their feelings about werewolves aren?t that much different (Ron?s ?Get your hands off me, filthy werewolf!?), members of both houses firmly believe that House Elves are happy when enslaved- I suppose I could cite some more examples. And the Gryffindors also have their fare share of bullying. These are certainly not the main differences between these two houses who believe to be so very much opposed, but have a lot more in common than they?d like to. Still Alexander: <> Don?t forget the prefects and the Head Boy and Girl. They don?t have as many disciplinary possibilities as the teachers (e.g. I?m not sure whether they can give detentions), but their main duty is to help keep up order. The 15 YO daughter of a friend of mine started at a boarding school near London last fall, and from what she tells me and from the pictures I saw, I get the idea that Hogwarts, as far as discipline is concerned, is pretty similar to other British boarding schools. Students are without supervision when in their dormitories, and unless they get into fights or set the school on fire, they?re left in relative peace. What?s more, I believe that at Hogwarts the staff might have better possibilities of controlling what?s going on once the students have retired to their respective common rooms, so if a situation tends to get out of hand, the Head of House or another staff member is able to get there immediately. Susanna/pigwidgeon37 "And how come those portraits seem to be alive?" "What'ya mean? All paintings move." "No, they don't. We have lots of paintings in our villa, among them a real Chagall, and none of them..." "And d'ya expect that something painted by a jackal will move? Now really..." --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Get personalised at My Yahoo!. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com Wed Jan 23 13:09:03 2002 From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 07:09:03 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ron, Harry....or Draco? Who do you think Hermione will fall for? SHIP References: Message-ID: <3C4EB5EF.ADAC4C1A@kingwoodcable.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33948 asifjuk wrote: > > Hi! > In Book 4 we got some initial indications of a possible romance > between Ron and Hermione--but given JKR's impartiality to surprises > do you think it might turn out in Books 5,6 and 7 that Harry or Draco > (or an unknown character) will win her heart? Draco would have to lose that purist attitude before Hermione gives him a single thought. I would be very surprised if Hermione actual went for him, when he's blatant about his feelings towards "mudbloods". It is possible, but I think he's got a lot of damage to repair before he's even allowed to be in the running for Hermione. -Katze From Joanne0012 at aol.com Wed Jan 23 13:06:40 2002 From: Joanne0012 at aol.com (joanne0012) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 13:06:40 -0000 Subject: Lack of traditional academics... In-Reply-To: <20020123024830.36657.qmail@web9504.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33949 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Andrew MacIan wrote: > > It may be that the population of the wizarding world > > is too small to > > support a university. > > > Erm. The lady across the table from me is a > geneticist; her take is that, given a gene pool the > size of the (current) US, there should be nearly 300k > people who qualify as 'magical'. In reality, we know nothing of wizarding "genetics" except that squibs are rare and the spontaneous appearance of wizarding skills is not (witness the several muggle-borns in Harry's class). Everything else is speculation and extrapolation. We don't even know whether wizarding skills are physically inherited rather than caused by some other mechanism. I don't want to get into the whole population debate again, but even given the higher-end estimate of 1000 students at Hogwarts and a wizarding lifetime of 150 years, that yields an estimate of 22,000 wizards in Britain. Since their population is about one-fifth that of the US, that would yield a US population of 100,000 wizards. Epidemiology, not genetics! From theennead at attbi.com Wed Jan 23 06:16:26 2002 From: theennead at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 06:16:26 -0000 Subject: Sins of Hagrid -- Subversive bigotry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33950 > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > Hagrid gave Dudley (an innocent child) a pig's tail because > he was angry at Vernon. Jo replied: > Dudley an innocent child? He's a horrid, mean, bullying brat. Yes, but Hagrid had no real way of knowing that at the time, now, did he? He may have inferred it from the overall unpleasantness of the family, but that's every bit as bad as people judging Hagrid himself on the basis of his giant parentage. I just went and re-read the scene in question, and it seemed quite clear to me. Hagrid was angry with Vernon, and he chose to take it out on the man's eleven-year-old son. Not nice. Not nice at all. I do think that he acted impulsively, without any particular degree of malice aforethought, but it was still a rotten thing to do, and it doesn't win him any sympathy points from me. Furthermore, I think that it revealed a rather disturbing lack of respect and consideration for Muggles as a general class. Which brings me to my own problem with Hagrid. My problem with Hagrid isn't that he's a rotten teacher (although I think that he is), nor that he recklessly endangers his students' safety (although he does), nor that he tipples (which he does, but I don't have a problem with that), nor even that he lacks discretion (hey, nobody's perfect). No, my problem with Hagrid is that his thoughtlessness all too often leads him perilously close to bigotry. I don't think that he's a bigot in any deep, philosophical sense, no. Far to the contrary, he is one of the most consistent and vocal antagonists to the entire "pure-blood" aesthetic throughout the books. But. He's also a bigot himself, and a very particular type of bigot: the thoughtless man whose fondness for sweeping generalizations and snap judgments leads him to make statements that are not only deeply prejudiced, but also frequently Just Plain Not True. "Not a single witch or wizard who went bad who wasn't in Slytherin," for example. Or that bit about how you can't trust foreigners. Or his comment about the Malfoys having "bad blood" -- which really is _rich,_ you know, given the big-boned skeletons hiding in Hagrid's own family closet. Or, for that matter, his assurance to Harry that he'll surely grow up to be a great wizard, because "with a mum an' dad like yours, what else would yeh be?" Hagrid is *not* a believer in the primacy of blood. He really, really isn't. But when he isn't thinking too hard, he just kind of...slips back into that mode of thinking, and starts going on about "bad blood" and Harry's rights of magical inheritance and so forth. Just as he is *not* a muggle-hater, and yet, and yet, and yet... "I'd like to see a great Muggle like you stop him." "...it's your bad luck you grew up in a family o' the biggest Muggles I ever laid eyes on." "Look at what she had for a sister!" And so forth. I like to think that we're supposed to notice this unsavory tendency of Hagrid's, that this is Rowling's way of showing the subversive power of institutionalized bigotry. Hagrid's a product of his culture, and his culture is not an egalitarian one. He *does* believe in egalitarianism, very strongly. But when he isn't watching himself, the ugly underside of his own culture slips through the cracks, and he betrays himself. -- Elkins, who is kind of fond of Hagrid, but sometimes wants to smack him upside the head From jchutney at yahoo.com Wed Jan 23 07:53:32 2002 From: jchutney at yahoo.com (jchutney) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 07:53:32 -0000 Subject: Ron, Harry....or Draco? Who do you think Hermione will fall for? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33951 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "asifjuk" wrote: > Hi! > In Book 4 we got some initial indications of a possible romance > between Ron and Hermione--but given JKR's impartiality to surprises > do you think it might turn out in Books 5,6 and 7 that Harry or Draco > (or an unknown character) will win her heart? I guess anything is possible with JKR but I just can't see anything besides Ron/Hermione. They have been brewing since Book 1. Maybe a triangle with HRH but that's tricky. Personally, I think it would be great if H/H could be an example of a great platonic friendship between a boy and girl. (Such a purely platonic friendship is already not possible with R/H cause we know R has a huge crush on H). As for Draco - no way! I could see him falling for Hermione (she's brilliant and lovely and heroic) but I can't see Hermione falling for someone as immoral as Draco. Honestly, Hermione & Neville is a far more credible match. From lav at tut.by Wed Jan 23 08:32:16 2002 From: lav at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 10:32:16 +0200 Subject: Wizard Economics Message-ID: <312520337.20020123103216@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 33952 Greetings! P.S. I'm writing it here because it should be read before the rest of the letter. Everything below is not a PoV by any approximation - just a sequence of thoughts that I was writing down. So please be patient with the text - it's not a statement, but rather a loosely connected bunch of ideas. Some thoughts about Wizarding World economics. From what we know already, economics of WW is not like muggle-world economics. First of all, they have no institution that would serve the role of muggle banks (Gringotts is NOT a bank by muggle definition). Currency of WW is solid gold standard - something muggles refused long ago. It's difficult to understand just how that economy works. Let's try to investigate, though. 1) Foodstuff. Yes, it's not funny. Just tell me - do you believe in lots of wizard-farmers who grow all that foodstuff that Molly Weasley is so good cooking with? No, that would be nearly senseless. We can reasonably assume that most of foodstuff, clothing (at least fabrics), and most other "mundane" things come directly from muggle-world. (Those who believe in wizards conjuring up tons of grain - answer a simple question: isn't it simpler and cheaper to conjure bread instead of grain?). But this means that Wizarding World has a very high level of economical interaction with Muggle World! 2) Currency Exchange Another thing that supports this point of view is the very _existence_ of fairly constant currency exchange rate. As any economist will tell you, this is only possible if there's a considerable level of goods exchange (in BOTH directions). Assuming that Wizarding World is completely separated from Muggle World, we have to assume that most of economical activity in WW is limited by WW borders and does not concern MW. But then currency exchange will be an ad-hoc deal, not a "default" service of Gringotts or whoever else. Of course, there's quite a flow of muggle currency with all those muggle parents buying sorcery schoolbooks for their wizard children. Still, this is NOT enough to explain the fact. 3) Gold, Silver and Copper All three metals are no longer currency in modern Muggle World. They can be bought and sold (with certain limits, of course), and their price varies due to various reasons. But, what's most important, amount of all three metals in Muggle World economy is many times greater than their amount in Wizarding World economy! Anybody familiar with demand&supply rules will know what it means - exchange rates are dictated not by economical exchange between Wizarding and Muggle worlds, but by Muggle prices on all three metals. A solution? Let's see. Indeed we know that exchange rates are not favourable to Wizards. Wizarding currency is simply cheap - a sum that is great for a Wizard is modest for a muggle of similar relative wealth. This definitely does simplify matters. Indeed, Gringotts currency exchange service is nothing more but a precious metal trading company from the point of view of Muggle World. There's no trouble with getting any amount of Muggle currency to make your purchases, if you have adequate amount of Galleons. The only trouble that still remains is the foodstuff and fabrics. They are still most likely made by muggles and sold to Wizards for _muggle_ prices. But then they should be really expensive! They are not. What have we got? That there ARE wizards who are conjuring all that wheat, salt and everything? Definitely a subject for further research. Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, (Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed), always happy to throw weird ideas into the community. - Why does everything always go wrong? - Because when it goes right, we don't notice. Sergey Lukyanenko, "Dances on the Snow". From didds at usa.net Wed Jan 23 12:33:14 2002 From: didds at usa.net (noo_bagga) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 12:33:14 -0000 Subject: Snape and the Longbottoms In-Reply-To: <20020123032744.77986.qmail@web10403.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33953 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Stephanie Gates wrote: > Could JKR be basing the Aurors after the SAS that > England employed to "keep the peace" in Northern > Ireland, who were also given a liscence to kill? I dount its that specific. History is littered with "powers for good" that usurped/abused their positions in the quest for "justice" and "the right side". Allegedly British forces in Ulster do fit this bill (30th anniversary of Bloody Sunday this weekend - good timing for this!) ... but what about British internment of Boer women and children? Same same but different. From didds at usa.net Wed Jan 23 12:48:03 2002 From: didds at usa.net (noo_bagga) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 12:48:03 -0000 Subject: Sorting- Sirius's prank- Snape and the Longbottoms- Speechless Harry In-Reply-To: <20020122112114.32609.qmail@web14702.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33954 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., pigwidgeonthirtyseven wrote: > ... what WAS Harry?s ?choice?? What had he heard about Slytherin so >far? Hagrid?s ?There isn?t any wizard who turned bad who didn?t come >from Slytherin? (Pettigrew- ha,ha!), and Malfoy?s appraisal of >Slytherin being the best house which rather backfired because of >Malfoy being such a snobbish slimeball. Did he not know at this stage that LV was a slytherin? i.e. the man that killed his parents, and attempted to kill him? And left him with an early childhood of misery at the Dursley's? Failing all that, at least the alleged "fact" that the DE's were Slytherins, and that the DE's "master" had killed his parents blah blah blah. hardly positive resons for HP to accept Slytherin; certainly reason enough for a 11YO to NOT want to choose Slytherin? From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Wed Jan 23 15:02:27 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 15:02:27 -0000 Subject: Imperius-ed Lucius In-Reply-To: <20020123093944.55921.qmail@web14703.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33955 > To which Rebecca Allen responded: > > > > < discover that Lucius masterminded the whole evil diary plot. How could Dumby > not mention this to Snape? I'm quite sure that Snape's "sudden movement" at > the mention of Lucius' name is more one of fury than surprise.>> What evidence have we that Snape is aware of the CoS events? Dumbledore hushes most everything up in order to protect Ginny Weasley from persecution and prosecution (the wizarding world which sends people to Azkaban like that mightn't be that compassionate to an 11 year old girl), to avoid charges of defamation from Lucius, to protect Arthur Weasley's legislation, and to shield the trio for their rule-breaking. I personally don't think any of this got beyond its immediate audience. (You'll notice that Snape is mysteriously not there during the denouement scene.) Snape would have known that Lucius was acting nastily and horribly (after all, he was threatening to kill his fellow governors, while getting Dumbledore sacked), but I don't think he knew that it was connected with Voldemort. > > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., pigwidgeonthirtyseven wrote: > > Here, I completely agree with Rebecca. Even if Snape had believed that Lucius had really been put under the Imperius Curse, he must know better now, after the end of CoS. But I sincerely doubt that he No, I agree, but would Snape care? If Malfoy has redeemed his messed- up life, why would Snape (who has too) barge in and tell everyone, "It wasn't the Imperius curse!" In fact, I believe there must be a large section of he wizarding world that allowed the Imperius excuse to function as a legal way in which mercy could be shown to those who seemed to have changed their ways. Crouch Sr. may have been furious, but juries can think differently. If Malfoy made a big thing at his trial about how his life had changed for the better since the Imperius curse was lifted, and he had given up smoking and drinking, and discovered the meaning of life, and, while in prison, had become involved in every rehabilitation program they had, and had his young wife and baby son sitting there sobbing, while his relatives talked about his desire to go out into the world and work for the poor, the opressed, and the downtrodden... The Jury may not have believed he was under Imperius, but they may have felt that he deserved a second chance. Such things happen in the real world, and I'm sure Malfoy had the wits and money enough to orchestrate it. Eileen From jbryson at richmond.infi.net Wed Jan 23 14:55:38 2002 From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 14:55:38 -0000 Subject: Wizard children responsibility (was: when is lights out ?) In-Reply-To: <1214851382.20020123002047@tut.by> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33956 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Alexander wrote: >Even those of you who are of > Western origin and grown up in much more liberal environment > find Hogwarts extremely "unregulated". And still some > resemblance of order exists in the school. With minimum of > 280 students of various ages, families, upbringings, > nationalities, heritage and genders, and only 12 professors, > 1 director and 1 Filch to control them, such order can only > be imposed by students themselves. And for that to do, they > must have much more responsibility than their age would > suggest. Two ideas: (1) The use of magic. Perhaps a watered-down version of the Imperius charm, which gives them some freedom but keeps them from going over the edge. (2) Uncontrolable witches/wizards got selected out by them getting themselves killed before they reproduce. (Thanks, Darwin!) The Hogwarts age range is a seething cauldron of hormones even when you add the preceptors and first girl and boy, you have little supervision. Perhaps D'dore or somebody has a map like that of the Marauders, that tells him what most everybody is up to. Of course, it would itself need limits to preserve privacy. Tex From jklb66 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 23 14:39:04 2002 From: jklb66 at yahoo.com (jklb66) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 14:39:04 -0000 Subject: Ron, Harry....or Draco? Who do you think Hermione will fall for? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33957 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "asifjuk" wrote: > Hi! > In Book 4 we got some initial indications of a possible romance > between Ron and Hermione--but given JKR's impartiality to surprises > do you think it might turn out in Books 5,6 and 7 that Harry or Draco > (or an unknown character) will win her heart? In an ideal happy ending, Ron & Hermione, and Harry & Ginny. Harry and Ginny even LOOK like James and Lily! And what family could Harry possibly want for in-laws more than the Weasleys, the only people who have ever been like a family to him. However, JKR has made it clear more than once that we aren't to expect a traditional "happy ending." I'm positive that at least one of the "Terrific Trio" is doomed. Maybe the other couple will name their first child after their fallen comrade. From christi0469 at hotmail.com Wed Jan 23 15:32:35 2002 From: christi0469 at hotmail.com (christi0469) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 15:32:35 -0000 Subject: Hagrid's Competence In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33958 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "moongirlk" wrote: > I'm sorry, I know I'm the bleeding heart always jumping to the > defense of pretty much everyone, but I love Hagrid, I can't help it. > > kimberly I wanted to add two points to your wonderful defense of Hagrid. 1) His affinity to beasts that most people view as dangerous is most likely a reaction to the way Hagrid himself is perceived. People initially judge Hagrid by his size, and by the looks of him he could tear a person apart with his bare hands. This gruff exterior hides a very gentle and understanding soul. I think it is only natural that he would feel an empathy with creatures that he feels are being unfairly discriminated against. He sees value in creatures that most people would just as soon see killed. 2) Hagrid became a better teacher after the Rita Skeeter article exposed him as a half-giant. He continued the lesson on unicorns that Grubbly-Plank initiated, and organized a very enjoyable hands- on class with the nifflers. The Care of Magical Creatures course should involve both gentle and dangerous beasts. Hagrid could prove to be a very good teacher for this course indeed, as he is very experienced in this field and has a natural ability with anaimals. He just needs a more balanced approach between his dangerous creature activism and the students preference for all things cute and cuddly. Hagrid is one of my favorite characters. You could not hope for a gentler and more devoted friend. I don't thinks he would hesitate to give his life for someone he loved. He gives Harry the last kiss in what probably amounts to 13 years (I don't see him getting any love from the Dursleys). Harry has dreams of a flying motorcycle, so he most likely retained some of Hagrid's care subconsiously. Hagrid is also the one to rescue Harry from the Dursleys and introduce him to the world in which he belongs. Hagrid has flaws without a doubt, on the balance he is a very positive character. Christi From unia1800 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 23 16:05:56 2002 From: unia1800 at yahoo.com (unia1800) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 16:05:56 -0000 Subject: chat room Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33959 no one ever chats that is what i am looking for is a chat on harry potter any one have any suggestions were i might find a chat. From ftah3 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 23 16:51:04 2002 From: ftah3 at yahoo.com (ftah3) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 16:51:04 -0000 Subject: Sins of Hagrid -- Subversive bigotry; Rowling's political intent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33960 Elkins wrote: > I like to think that we're supposed to notice this unsavory > tendency of Hagrid's, that this is Rowling's way of showing > the subversive power of institutionalized bigotry. Well, it takes, as they say, all kinds. I've never really considered Hagrid a thinker of complex thoughts, and his slap-dash judgements and inopportune/inappropriate comments and actions seem to support this. He understands what is overwhelmingly Good versus Evil, but doesn't necessarily take the time to muddle through the grey details. Rather, he lumps the details in one pot or another; Slytherins have produced Riddle, Snape, and Malfoy Sr., ergo Slytherins are horrible nasty people. And even: he thinks that all magical creatures are interesting and wonderful, ergo everyone should think that magical creatures are interesting and wonderful. All in all, I see Hagrid's mindset to be one part subverted bigotry, and three parts a simplistic way of understanding the world. As far as Rowling's intent in creating Hagrid, your postulation made a concept that lives in my head finally click into coherent thought. Much has been discussed in regards statements Rowling may be making with her stories, but I am of the mind that I don't wish to try to pin intent on her based on text nor even on the very brief and unexplicated statements she has made in terms of intent. I do see in her books distinct 'types' existing in everyday life, and by way of that I find myself musing not on what I think the book should be teaching or promoting, but on what those reflected 'types' say about the society in which I am personally involved. For example, I don't think that Hagrid was meant to be an example of institutional bigotry; rather I'm struck by how he reflects a certain type of colorful rural personality. Hagrid doesn't so much provide a political statement by the dissection of his character, as open doors to a dissection of a similar social norm on the basis of, say, the benefits/negatives of such a personality in a teaching position; or the causes/effects of the subversive power of institutionalized bigotry. It also causes me to consider how I, in real life, deal with that sort of person. I do know Hagrids of varying similarity. Most of them I find colorful but not friend-material; some of them (i.e. relatives, whom I can't escape) I argue with when they have the bad sense to air their occasionally un-thought-through black and white views in front of me. Others I ignore. And then it occurs to me that I *shouldn't* ignore them, because so often silence amounts to de facto agreement, and I usually severely do *not* agree.... This is how I approached the discussion about gender/minority stats in the HP books. If I will focus my attention on the disparate percentage of women/minorities in the literary world, I'll pretty much ignore the number of women/minorities *within* works of literature and focus on the number of women/minority *authors* who are not given their due. I don't see that counting characters proves any points one way or another, and I don't see that attempting to label a work as prejudice, period, serves any purpose at all. On the other hand, I will focus on, say, the roles played by female characters in the Harry Potter books insofar as it applies to the world around me. Although, if I cared to, I could write a feminist critique of the books for a bit of mental mastication; but, along more (personally) interesting lines, I might want to look at social trends or mythological archetypes that match or enlighten Rowling's use of women. That would go beyond the traditional feminist approach, as it would include the resurgence of respect (in some arenas) for traditional roles/personality types that have been heretofore decried by feminists; the positives, as opposed to the negatives of stay-home mothers, which would quite possibly take me off on a tangential exploration of Molly Weasley as an 'earth mother' or Goddess character type, or as the female equivalent (quite possibly the Wise Woman/Mother to Dumbledore's Wise Man/Father for Harry) of the Wise Man archetype.... Which is all to say, I think I'm somewhat incapable of plumbing the depths of speculation in terms of Rowling's political intent by way of her books, or for passing judgement on her along those same lines, for the simple reason that author intent analysis and judgement feels like a house of cards in my mental hands ~ too easily toppled. Though it's highly energizing to read the comments of others.... Mahoney From christi0469 at hotmail.com Wed Jan 23 17:43:32 2002 From: christi0469 at hotmail.com (christi0469) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 17:43:32 -0000 Subject: Sins of Hagrid -- Subversive bigotry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33961 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" wrote: > > > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > > > Hagrid gave Dudley (an innocent child) a pig's tail because > > he was angry at Vernon. > > Jo replied: > > > Dudley an innocent child? He's a horrid, mean, bullying brat. > > Yes, but Hagrid had no real way of knowing that at the time, now, > did he? He may have inferred it from the overall unpleasantness > of the family, but that's every bit as bad as people judging > Hagrid himself on the basis of his giant parentage. But Hagrid did have ways of knowing about the Dursleys. Dumbledore told Hagrid that he might have trouble with the Dursleys. Harry's letters show that someone at Hogwarts is aware of where Harry sleeps (cupboard under the stairs, smallest bedroom, hotel room, the floor). Hagrid is unaware of how ignorant Harry is of his heritage, but IMHO he was briefed on Harry's general treatment. Mrs. Figg has probably been in contact and has probaly witnessed Dudley's bullying Harry. She definately knows that Harry is not taken on Dudley's birthday outings. And as Hagrid knew Lily she may have told him what Petunia was like as a child. Hagrid probably had very good reason to dislike the Dursleys, and Dudley specifically for beating on Harry at every opprotunity. > > > He's also a bigot himself, and a very particular type of > bigot: the thoughtless man whose fondness for sweeping > generalizations and snap judgments leads him to make > statements that are not only deeply prejudiced, but also > frequently Just Plain Not True. > > "Not a single witch or wizard who went bad who wasn't in > Slytherin," for example. Hagrid probably is a bit predjudiced against Slytherin house. Remember that Tom Riddle was responsible for Hagrid getting expelled and wrongly accused of being responsible for Myrtle's death. LV and the DEs caused enough suffering in the wizarding world to cast a pall over anything they were associated with. While it is unfair to assume that all students sorted into Slytherin are evil, we do know that Slytherin has produced the worst evil wizard in a century and probably most of his followers. The only Slytherin we see on the side of good so far is Snape, and he's not particularly nice. I myself have a bias against Slytherin based upon Harry's POV, but hope to see good people come out of Slytherin house. Or that bit about how you can't > trust foreigners. The one comment I remember Hagrid making about foreigners comes after his experience with Madame Maxime at the Yule Ball. While the comment is unfair to foreigners, I think it comes from hurt feelings rather than actual bias. As he apparently forgives Madame Maxime at the end, perhaps we can forgive him that moment of weekness. Or his comment about the Malfoys having > "bad blood" -- which really is _rich,_ you know, given the > big-boned skeletons hiding in Hagrid's own family closet. I'm not sure where this comment is made, so I cannot defend it based on context. We do know that Lucius Malfoy was and is a DE, and that Draco has been trying to Hagrid and Harry in trouble. Hagrid may know things about the Malfoy line that we don't. It is wrong to assume that no Malfoy could ever be good because of bloodline; however Lucius and Draco can certainly be counted as enemies of Hagrid, and viewing the whole family as bad is a natural, if flawed, reaction. > Or, for that matter, his assurance to Harry that he'll surely > grow up to be a great wizard, because "with a mum an' dad > like yours, what else would yeh be?" Given Hagrid's great regard for James and Lily this comment makes sense, especially if there is a strong genetic component to magical ability. Harry's parentage does not garantee he would be on the side of good, but James and Lily's abilities could be an indication of Harry's potential magical ability (and we know Squibs are rare). On the other hand, expecting children to be talented because of their parents ability can be unfair. Hagrid's reasoning may be flawed in this regard, but he does seem to have come up with the correct conclusion. > Hagrid is *not* a believer in the primacy of blood. He > really, really isn't. But when he isn't thinking too hard, > he just kind of...slips back into that mode of thinking, and > starts going on about "bad blood" and Harry's rights of magical > inheritance and so forth. Just as he is *not* a muggle-hater, > and yet, and yet, and yet... > > "I'd like to see a great Muggle like you stop him." > > "...it's your bad luck you grew up in a family o' the biggest > Muggles I ever laid eyes on." > > "Look at what she had for a sister!" > > And so forth. Once again, I think this is an indication of what Hagrid knows about the Dursleys specifiaclly, rather than a bias against Muggles in general. We do know that he holds Lily and Hermione, both Muggle- borns, in great regard. > I like to think that we're supposed to notice this unsavory > tendency of Hagrid's, that this is Rowling's way of showing > the subversive power of institutionalized bigotry. Hagrid's > a product of his culture, and his culture is not an > egalitarian one. He *does* believe in egalitarianism, very > strongly. But when he isn't watching himself, the ugly > underside of his own culture slips through the cracks, and > he betrays himself. > > -- Elkins, who is kind of fond of Hagrid, but sometimes > wants to smack him upside the head I do agree that Hagrid might deserve an occasional smack upon the head, but so might we all. Hagrid seems to have an egalitarian ideal. If he does have an occasional bigotted moment, I would say that's just because he is ruled by his human half, and is therefor as imperfect as any of us. Christi From pennylin at swbell.net Wed Jan 23 17:49:02 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny & Bryce) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 11:49:02 -0600 Subject: ADMIN: Reminder re: SHIPping post requirements (was Ron, Harry....or Draco? Who do you think Hermione will References: Message-ID: <3C4EF78E.6040509@swbell.net> No: HPFGUIDX 33962 Hi everyone -- asifjuk wrote: > Hi! > In Book 4 we got some initial indications of a possible romance > between Ron and Hermione--but given JKR's impartiality to surprises > do you think it might turn out in Books 5,6 and 7 that Harry or Draco > (or an unknown character) will win her heart? Just a reminder that any post to the main group (this list) that pertains to romantic relationships between the characters must follow a few rules. 1. You must use the designation SHIP in the subject line so that people who are so inclined can skip right over those posts. 2. Any main list post discussing romantic relationships in the Potterverse must use evidence from the books to support their arguments. If all you are going to say is "I think Harry and Ginny should end up together," your post should go to OT_Chatter. If, OTOH, you want to say "Harry & Hermione (commonly abbreviated H/H) are destined to be together and here's why [insert lengthy canon evidence]," by all means, post away. To recap: any responses to asifjuk's question on this group must include SHIP in the subject line & use some canon to support their response. My response: I believe Hermione has *her* heart set on Harry, not Ron (and certainly not Draco at this point). A summation of my evidence that I've argued ad nauseum many times before (chronologically, not prioritized): the hug she gives Harry at the end of the Potions Challenge in SS, the expensive broomstick servicing kit she buys him for his birthday in POA, her constant fretting & fussing over him, the time she spends with Harry during the Harry/Ron falling-out during GOF, her response to Harry's performance in the 1st Task ("Ooh, Harry, you were *amazing*, you really were!"), her reaction to Harry after the 2nd Task (too busy worrying about him to pay any attention to Krum), the fact that she talks about Harry so much & in such a way to elicit a jealous reaction from Krum, and the Kiss at the end of GoF. Er ... there's probably more, but those are the high points in short. Penny (the ADMIN note is in my capacity as Moderator ... the remainder is clearly my own personal opinion) From cindysphynx at home.com Wed Jan 23 18:08:56 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 18:08:56 -0000 Subject: Hagrid's Competence And Other Flaws In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33963 Cindy wrote: > > Hagrid gave Dudley (an innocent child) a pig's tail because he was > > angry at Vernon. > Jo responded: > Dudley an innocent child? He's a horrid, mean, bullying brat. I > completely reject the notion that because someone is a child, that > means they are not responsible for their choices no matter how awful > they are. The pig's tail actually made me like Hagrid more . I think it is pretty clear that Hagrid was angry at Vernon for insulting Dumbledore, and he gave Dudley the tail. What's going on there? Is Hagrid, the magical towering giant, not brave enough to take on Vernon, a cowering muggle, so he puts a tail on a child that requires surgical removal at a hospital? Hagrid admits that he wanted to turn Dudley into a pig, which if successful, couldn't have been reversed absent outside magical assistance? And Hagrid, who is not a qualified wizard, performs this unnecessary bit of magic with a broken wand and could have accidently visited all manner of terrible consequences on the child? And the incident left Dudley fearful as judged by his behavior in GoF? No, Hagrid didn't score any points with me with that episode, regardless of how awful Dudley is. Indeed, I'm unhappy with Hagrid's behavior in another important scene. Karkaroff spits at Dumbledore's feet, which is not nice, of course. Hagrid, who is bigger and stronger, responds with a fair amount of violence by slamming Karkaroff into a tree. The reader is apparently supposed to be impressed with Hagrid's loyalty to Dumbledore. OK, I get it. I still don't like this scene, though. I don't see Karkaroff's conduct justifies an attack by Hagrid, and I didn't think it did a whole lot for Hagrid's characterization in my eyes. I guess if someone spit on the ground at my feet, I wouldn't find this sufficient justification to commit assault and battery, although I would probably be quite miffed. This scene is consistent with Hagrid's characterization, but it is hardly a step forward in making me like Hagrid. Cindy wrote: > > Hagrid used magic to retrieve Harry when he was not permitted to >do > > so and asked Harry to keep it a secret. > Jo responded: > I was under the impression that Hagrid was authorised to use magic to > retrieve Harry and that it was only the above "pig's tail" incident > that Harry was asked to keep secret. > OK, my facts were off, but not by much. Hagrid asks Harry to keep quiet about the pig tail, which Hagrid wasn't supposed to do. But Hagrid also tells Harry that he is not supposed to do magic once he retrieved Harry, yet Hagrid uses magic to power the boat. Again, he tells Harry to cover for him: "If I was ter -- er-- speed things up a bit, would yeh mind not mentioning it at Hogwarts." So now the towering giant is breaking the rules and asking a child to cover for him just because he doesn't feel like rowing a boat? Cindy wrote: > > Hagrid endangered Ron and Harry by encouraging them to enter the > > forest in CoS, which almost got them eaten by large spiders. > Jo responded: > Well, if they hadn't gone into the forest, how would they have found > out that Hagrid wasn't the one who opened the chamber? They would > have continued to believe Riddle's diary, and Ginny (and likely > others) would have died. Remember, Dumbledore is gone by now and >is > in no position to help. The Monster Spider In The Forest scene just baffles me. If I recall CoS correctly, Hagrid knows these life-threatening spider beasts are in the forest, and he puts Ron and Harry on a collision course with them. Why? To clear his own name? I beg your pardon? To save Ginny? Well, OK. But risking two lives to save one hardly seems like a bargain to me, particularly as there was no guarantee that the information the kids learn from the spiders would definitely save Ginny. I guess I can't get past the idea that the adults should step up and handle problems instead of risking having two unarmed and untrained children get their heads pinched off by giant spiders. Somehow, I don't think a professor like Lupin would have suggested such a thing. Jo again: > > Hagrid certainly has his shortcomings, but they are IMO more than > overcome by the good things he has brought to Harry's life. He was, > after all, his first real friend and is possibly the most loyal > defender Harry has ever had. That makes him ok, in my book. I still can't figure out what is going on with Hagrid. Hagrid isn't a failed characterization (like Lockhart, IMHO). Instead, he is clearly someone we are meant to love deeply. So why does JKR keep having Hagrid do these awful (IMHO) things? Characters should have flaws, of course, and all of them do in the books to date. But Hagrid has so many flaws and his actions are so inexplicable to me that I can't muster any enthusiasm for his character. Of all the characters we are meant to adore, Hagrid is the only one who doesn't work for me. It's quite a shame. Cindy (not ruling out the possibility that Hagrid can be redeemed) From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jan 23 18:28:55 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 18:28:55 -0000 Subject: Wizard Economics In-Reply-To: <312520337.20020123103216@tut.by> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33964 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Alexander wrote: > Some thoughts about Wizarding World economics. > 1) Foodstuff. > > Yes, it's not funny. Just tell me - do you believe in lots > of wizard-farmers who grow all that foodstuff that Molly > Weasley is so good cooking with? No, that would be nearly > senseless. We can reasonably assume that most of foodstuff, > clothing (at least fabrics), and most other "mundane" things > come directly from muggle-world. > The only trouble that still remains is the foodstuff and > fabrics. They are still most likely made by muggles and sold > to Wizards for _muggle_ prices. But then they should be > really expensive! > > They are not. > > What have we got? That there ARE wizards who are conjuring > all that wheat, salt and everything? > > Definitely a subject for further research. Salt? Well, there are either wizard salt mines, or they are extracting sea salt by magical means. As for raw foodstuffs and natural fibers, probably there are indeed wizard farms, but they are far more efficient and productive than even modern Muggle farms. We know that Hagrid can grow giant pumpkins, and I get the impression Hogwarts grows all its own vegetables. There could be fields attached to Hogsmeade and to the Malfoy manor where grain is grown. Enchanted crops might have many times the yield of conventional ones, could harvest themselves when they are ripe, rid themselves of infestation without having to be sprayed, and conceal themselves from prying Muggle eyes by making themselves look exactly like any other stand of grain. Another possibility, more supported by folklore, is that the wizards are stealing from us. Cases of blighted crops and unproductive milk animals were often blamed on theft by witchcraft. In the case of crops, the witch or wizard would be thought to have stolen the "foison" (the inherent vitality) of the crop for their own use. Of course I am sure the Ministry of Magic would frown on such things nowadays. Pippin From cindysphynx at home.com Wed Jan 23 18:29:57 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 18:29:57 -0000 Subject: Sirius and Remus / In Defense of Moody In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33965 Catlady wrote: > > I am thinking that Sirius didn't suspect Remus because of believing > Remus to be untrustworthy, but because Remus is a werewolf and that > might make him vulnerable to something in between being blackmailed > and being manipulated in wolf form into doing things he doesn't > really remember the next day. And he doesn't want to tell Remus > something so unkind, but he broods on it and thus becomes a bit cold > or constrained in his behavior toward Remus. > > And Remus noticed this unexplained change in Sirius's behavior and > the only reason he can figure out for it is if Sirius is the traitor. > The wild card in all of this is Peter. Peter has shown himself to be fairly clever and cagey. I suspect he influenced Sirius and Remus by telling each of them things to make each suspicious of the other. Elkins wrote (of Moody): >But he also seems to > consider it morally acceptable to _break faith_ with captive > prisoners ("Let's hear his information, I say, and throw him > straight back to the dementors.") He is not adverse to > dehumanizing his enemies; he feels free to sneer at them; > in the course of a single page, he refers to Karkaroff as both > "filth" and "scum." He is skeptical of Dumbledore's > judgement of Snape; he does not believe in second chances. > He tries not to kill, but he doesn't seem unduly bothered > by it when he does so. And he approves of the use of the > dementors as prison guards. ("For scum like this...") > > > And this is one of the GOOD Aurors. > > I know that many people on this board really really *like* > Moody, and that I'm probably making myself very unpopular > by saying this, but I simply must. I don't like Moody. > I really don't care for him at all. He strikes me as the > sort of person who would happily strip away all of my civil > liberties, given half the chance, and I consider such men a > serious threat to civilized society. > Uh, oh. I don't recall anyone really critizing my beloved Alastor before, so this is new to me. And as a card-carrying libertarian, I have to admit you make some darn good points. Hmmm. Despite your compelling argument, I still think Moody is great. The reason the civil liberties issues with him don't bother me is that this was a wartime situation. Voldemort was taking over. No one in Moody's day went to Azkaban (that we know of) without a trial (or, at least, the skimpy excuse for a proceeding that wizards call trials), so I don't mind if part of the punishment is having one bummer of a day right after another. Moody did try to bring people in alive, although he didn't have to, and he probably risked his life doing it. That he doesn't display compassion for the DEs doesn't trouble me much, either. I'm more interested in his actions than his words. Yes, Moody does say a lot of things that indicate that he doesn't play by rules that would work well under our constitution. But then again, Moody certainly operates within the civil liberty protections that exist (or don't exist) in the wizarding world. I get the feeling that Moody doesn't make the criminal justice rules, but he does follow them. Should we really ask for much more than that? Elkins again: > Also, word of Crouch/Moody's decision to torture a student > surely must have made its way to Dumbledore's ears at some > point, and it didn't tip him off. I think it safe to assume > that such an action would have been in character for the > real Moody as well. As for the bouncing ferret episode, you make a very good point that this sort of thing must be consistent with real Moody's character. That's OK, though. If I might be permitted to hide behind the rule of law, Moody acted in defense of another and he did not use deadly force (or even sufficient force to injure). What he did would most likely pass muster under U.S. law, so it must be perfectly fine in the looser construct of the wizarding world. Moody certainly erred in not knowing that different rules apply in a school. He would have known that, however, had he been Real Moody, who probably was briefed on school discipline by Dumbledore. Cindy From ftah3 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 23 18:58:21 2002 From: ftah3 at yahoo.com (ftah3) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 18:58:21 -0000 Subject: Hagrid's Competence And Other Flaws In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33966 I disagree with none of Cindysphinx's points, although I think the flaw mentioned below is not the knowing endangerment of children, rather it is the faulty idealization of magical beasts, no matter how dangerous other people think/know they are: > The Monster Spider In The Forest scene just baffles me. If I recall > CoS correctly, Hagrid knows these life-threatening spider beasts are > in the forest, and he puts Ron and Harry on a collision course with > them. Why? To clear his own name? I beg your pardon? To save > Ginny? Well, OK. But risking two lives to save one hardly seems > like a bargain to me, particularly as there was no guarantee that the > information the kids learn from the spiders would definitely save > Ginny. I guess I can't get past the idea that the adults should step > up and handle problems instead of risking having two unarmed and > untrained children get their heads pinched off by giant spiders. > Somehow, I don't think a professor like Lupin would have suggested > such a thing. Well, no, Lupin wouldn't have done it because he doesn't have a (vaguely pathological) blind spot when it comes to large, dangerous, magical beasts. My impression was that Hagrid figured that once the acromantula knew Harry et al were friends of his, they'd be safe ~ naive, but not willfull endangerment. Whether that makes it less, equally, or more a black mark against Hagrid ~ shrug. > I still can't figure out what is going on with Hagrid. Hagrid isn't > a failed characterization (like Lockhart, IMHO). Instead, he is > clearly someone we are meant to love deeply. So why does JKR keep > having Hagrid do these awful (IMHO) things? Characters should have > flaws, of course, and all of them do in the books to date. But > Hagrid has so many flaws and his actions are so inexplicable to me > that I can't muster any enthusiasm for his character. And that's your perspective on Hagrid. On my part, I like Hagrid, gargantuan flaws and all, partly because of the terribly noticeable quality of his flaws. His aren't the easy kinds of flaws. His are the kinds of flaws that, maybe, you discover in a beloved uncle, and then you have to really struggle with how you now feel about him. Rowling really plays fast and loose with Good and Bad. The most colorful, full-fledged and, to me, interesting characters are the ones in whom the mix positive and negative qualities makes your eyes cross. I've really enjoyed the posts made by people who note Harry's flaws ~ Kevin Kimball keyed in on Harry's penchant for disobeying and lying; someone else took issue with Harry's off-handed manner toward Hermione's S.P.E.W. passion. I find I can argue either way, depending on where my Devil's Advocate lands; but ultimately I do find that Harry is entirely imperfect. In fact, he's somewhat realistic in that respect. Similarly, Hagrid. Harry's flaws are, depending on your wishes/POV, easily smoothed over. He lies *usually* to help someone (even though he also lies to have fun on occasion, and even when he's trying to help, he frequently lies first, without even considering an alternate, more honest approach to the problem [/devil's advocate]). Hagrid's flaws are more difficult in some ways to gloss over. I regard Hagrid in a similar way to how I regard Snape. I love both characters because they are interesting and surprising; I feel affectionate toward Hagrid despite his flaws, but I happily loathe Snape in spite of his positive qualities. (If I enjoy a book, I tend to love to love or love to hate or love to not care a whit about all of the characters. It's all good! says my inner book geek.) On the other hand, if I were to meet them both in reality, I would have a difficult time accepting Hagrid's loveable qualities in light of his tendency to view the world (good/evil, danger to others per magical creatures) in an intensely, unfairly, and dangerously blindered manner; while I would probably cut Snape a huge break, attempting to forgive his eccentrically rotten personality in light of his good qualities. (And actually, I would probably seek out Snape to challenge as a teacher, and as someone who, showing a meager nice side, could potentially have an even larger, though hidden, nice side. Ack.) To repeat a part of Cindysphinx's post: > Instead, he is > clearly someone we are meant to love deeply. So why does JKR keep > having Hagrid do these awful (IMHO) things? Characters should have > flaws, of course, and all of them do in the books to date. But > Hagrid has so many flaws and his actions are so inexplicable Thematically, it makes some sense, in terms of Good not necessarily being easy nor cut and dried. Thanks to a very positive first meeting with Hagrid, Harry is downright philosophical about Hagrid's defects. Not having texts with me, I can't quote exactly, but upon escaping the acromantula Harry is not angry at Hagrid for putting he and Ron in danger, but he admits with little more than a sort of mental sigh that it's just like Hagrid to think that since the beast didn't eat him [Hagrid] it wouldn't eat his friends. So in Hagrid, Harry experiences the need to balance friendship with forgiveness, and it's to Harry's credit that he doesn't drop the friendship nor backstab Hagrid when faced with Hagrid's wierd behavior. That's Easy. The Hard thing to do will be to learn to accept, and not revile, Snape. Harry has learned that Good Guys occasionally have glaring faults; it seems that as part of Harry's process of maturation, he will need to apply this to Snape. He may not come to adore Snape, or call him a friend or mentor, but he could at least learn to view Snape's not-so-nice attitude philosophically, and give Snape the respect that his position and talent deserves. Maybe. Mahoney From btk6y at virginia.edu Wed Jan 23 18:58:53 2002 From: btk6y at virginia.edu (btk6y) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 18:58:53 -0000 Subject: Snape and the Longbottoms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33967 I could not disagree more with your post... not necessarily the content, but the underlying tone inherent in it. This argument has at its basis a fundamental difference in philosophy- where do we want to live on the continuum between freedom on one end and stability/safety on the other? What annoys me is that people who champion civil liberties seem to without fail give the benefit of the doubt to those that least deserve it, may that be Death Eaters, terrorists, what have you. The people that are out there, fighting FOR YOUR SAFETY while you lie comfortably in your bed, however, are subject to incredible scrutiny and mistrust. You say about Moody: > I know that many people on this board really really *like* > Moody, and that I'm probably making myself very unpopular > by saying this, but I simply must. I don't like Moody. > I really don't care for him at all. He strikes me as the > sort of person who would happily strip away all of my civil > liberties, given half the chance, and I consider such men a > serious threat to civilized society. Do you think you could be a better Auror? Do you think that a Death Eater will see your compassion and decide to forgo the Dark Side? Nooo... what happens is that the Death Eaters take full advantage of that compassion (Malfoy, Macnair, Avery, Crabbe, Goyle, Karkaroff), live amongst you until the time is right, then reign terror again. Guess what happens to civilized society then. Thank God the magical world had someone like Moody to catch Death Eaters, because if the Aurors ascribed to your philosophy, Voldemort would have taken over even faster than he did. Now, it may surprise you to believe that I agree with the majority of the CONTENT of your post. People who champion civil liberties DO serve a purpose because if a watchful eye were not kept on law enforcement, a "1984"-like world would soon develop, which is something that obviously no one wants. What bugs me to no end is that while you are watching law enforcement, you refuse to give them the same benefit of the doubt that you do those who readily and willingly break the law to harm the public. That priority is completely out of whack with reality and would never work in the real world. From lav at tut.by Wed Jan 23 13:24:35 2002 From: lav at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 15:24:35 +0200 Subject: Fidelius, Sirius and Dumbledore Message-ID: <1594698335.20020123152435@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 33968 Greetings! While re-reading Prisoner of Azkaban, a question had crossed my mind. There are many paradoxes in JKR texts that are mentioned in Steve's Lexicon, but I haven't found this one there, so I put it here for discussion. There were not many people who knew that Potters are going to hide by Fidelius Charm. Potters themselves, Sirius Black, probably Lupin, Peter Pettigrew and Dumbledore. Even more, Dumbledore was unaware of Peter Pettigrew participation, so he thought that it was Sirius who was the Secret Keeper. Now reading 1st chapter of SS/PS. Dumbledore knows that Secret has been broken due to treachery of Secret Keeper. He thinks that Sirius is the Keeper (and hence the traitor). But when Hagrid tells him that it was Sirius Black who gave the motorcycle to Hagrid, Dumbledore shows no surprise, or shock, or anything! How can Dumbledore be so ignorant about this news? Did he know _already_ that Sirius was innocent? Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, (Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed), who would love to read second edition of JKR series with all errors fixed... - What are you asking me for? Do you want for someone to tell you what the Light is? Nobody will do! Everyone has his own Light - have you got your own? Then fight for it! Defend it, damn you! Sergey Lukyanenko, "Night Patrol". From bonnie.abrams at cwine.com Wed Jan 23 19:06:39 2002 From: bonnie.abrams at cwine.com (sing2wine) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 19:06:39 -0000 Subject: Hagrid/ Bigotry/ Morality & a question on sorting Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33969 Christi writes: Hagrid is one of my favorite characters. You could not hope for a gentler and more devoted friend. I'm with Christi and would also like to thank Kimberly for her eloquent defense of Hagrid: I totally see Hagrid's flaws as understandable and normal, and no more debilitating to him as a teacher than Snape's flaws.....given the choice between Hagrid and Snape, I wouldn't have to think long to decide who's class I'd want to take as a student... Snape doesn't subject his students to things that are dangerous or difficult to understand? Hagrid never would have threatened to sic one of his creatures on a childs pet, but Snape doesn't hesitate to threaten to kill Trevor.... and yet, Mahoney writes: I do know Hagrids of varying similarity. Most of them I find colorful but not friend-material; (i.e. relatives, whom I can't escape) I argue with when they have the bad sense to air their occasionally un-thought-through black and white views in front of me. Is that not a statement that implies bigotry on the part of the writer? I have always valued kindness above intelligence - much to the chagrin of some of my more "intellectual" friends. And yet, when it comes to being there when you need them - the kinder, simpler folks win hands down over the intellectuals - much the way Hagrid would be there over Snape who literally tried to block Harry from seeking badly needed help from Dumbledore in GoF(unlike Kimberly I have not yet developed empathy for Snape...). I sense, from the description of Mahoney's relatives airing their un-thought-through views, that these relatives may have the bad combination of being small-minded but sure their views are correct. Hagrid, on the other hand, while emotional, is always aware of that which he does not understand - which makes him rather a wise man in his own way.... pigwidgeonthirtyseven writes: what we are talking about here are 11 YOs! What "choices" can a child of this age make or have made that would truly justify him or her being put into a house with as doubtful a reputation as Slytherin? Piaget described the age of reason as being between 5 and 7 years old - the age when children begin to grasp the concept of morality outside themselves. Children can begin taking the Red Cross babysitting course at age 11. I know I made moral choices at that age (I was conscientious objector to frog dissection...). Slytherin's primary characteristic is ambition - we all know that ambition is connected to power and power is often corrupting. Many an ambitious person has begun with noble characteristics but was unable to resist the dark side of power (Anakin Skywalker). Last I knew, in our muggle society, ambition was considered a "good" characteristic. That's how a lot of innocent 11 year olds might want to end up in Slytherin. As for Draco Malfoy - he already embraces the dark reputation of Slytherin (his overheard conversation on the Hogwarts Express in GoF - about his father wanting to send him to Durmstrang - because of their more "balanced" attitude toward the dark arts....) And this brings me to my last question: Many of the list members sign their names with the house they believe they would have been sorted into (Jenny:Ravenclaw, Alexander Gryffindor-Slytherin crossbreed). for those of you who have done this - are you looking back at your 11 year old selves or your present selves? Do you see a difference in where you might have been placed? I have a terrible time trying to sort my present middle-aged self. I am no longer ambitious or brave though some of my cleverness seems to have remained (which means Jenny & I would be arguing late into the night in our dormitory about Hagrid....) But at 11 I was both brave & ambitious (never hard working - would never have been a Hufflepuff...). This has relevance with regard to pigwidgeon's question about sorting 11 year olds... Bonnie / sing2wine [Moderator Note -- if you would like to reply to Bonnie's thought-provoking last question, please make sure that it goes to the appropriate list. Remember that the main HPforGrownups list is for book discussion only, so if you're going to say "based on the characteristics of character X and Y, combined with X value from Chapter 98 of GoF, I would be in Hufftherclor House", the Main List is fine, yet if you're not referring to specific bits in the books but to yourself "I'm ambitious, yet not evil, and I love hard work and books, so I'd be a Slyffincluff" then HPFGU-OTChatter would be the place for it. Cheers, --John, technoMod] From moongirlk at yahoo.com Wed Jan 23 19:27:56 2002 From: moongirlk at yahoo.com (moongirlk) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 19:27:56 -0000 Subject: Sins of Hagrid -- Subversive bigotry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33970 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "christi0469" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" wrote: > > > > Jo replied: > > > > > Dudley an innocent child? He's a horrid, mean, bullying brat. > > > > Yes, but Hagrid had no real way of knowing that at the time, now, > > did he? He may have inferred it from the overall unpleasantness > > of the family, but that's every bit as bad as people judging > > Hagrid himself on the basis of his giant parentage. > > Christi responded: > But Hagrid did have ways of knowing about the Dursleys. dislike the Dursleys, and Dudley specifically for beating on Harry > at every opprotunity. That was my immediate thought on the subject as well. With all the debate about whether Dumbledore knew of Harry's treatment or not, I came to the conclusion that probably he did know, but didn't have a choice about it because a. the Dursleys were his only living relatives, b. Harry was in a lot of danger and would be harder to find in the muggle world and c. being with blood relatives has something to do with protecting Harry. All those wizards that Harry had come into contact with while living with the Dursleys, and of course Mrs. Figg, were watching and reporting back. I like to imagine that Hagrid not only knew what Dudley was like, but had been fuming for years at his bullying treatment of Harry, so when he saw the kid trying to take Harry's birthday cake, he took action. > > Or his comment about the Malfoys having > > "bad blood" -- which really is _rich,_ you know, given the > > big-boned skeletons hiding in Hagrid's own family closet. > > > I'm not sure where this comment is made, so I cannot defend it > based on context. We do know that Lucius Malfoy was and is a DE, and > that Draco has been trying to Hagrid and Harry in trouble. Hagrid > may know things about the Malfoy line that we don't. It is wrong to > assume that no Malfoy could ever be good because of bloodline; > however Lucius and Draco can certainly be counted as enemies of > Hagrid, and viewing the whole family as bad is a natural, if flawed, > reaction. > Isn't "bad blood" often a figure of speach as well? I don't remember the statement that was made either, but in general when I have heard the term bad blood it has not been an actual comment on blood or genetics. > > > Or, for that matter, his assurance to Harry that he'll surely > > grow up to be a great wizard, because "with a mum an' dad > > like yours, what else would yeh be?" > > > Given Hagrid's great regard for James and Lily this comment makes > sense, especially if there is a strong genetic component to magical > ability. Harry's parentage does not garantee he would be on the side > of good, but James and Lily's abilities could be an indication of > Harry's potential magical ability (and we know Squibs are rare). On > the other hand, expecting children to be talented because of their > parents ability can be unfair. Hagrid's reasoning may be flawed in > this regard, but he does seem to have come up with the correct > conclusion. More important, to me, is the context of the statement. He's making an attempt at reassuring a frightened 11 year old boy who's feeling, and has expressed, that there must be some kind of mistake because he's nothing and nobody and couldn't possibly be a great wizard. I would assume that he makes reference to the parents' abilities simply because he's got no empirical proof of Harry's own abilities yet, and "I'm sure you'll manage" isn't all that reassuring. It's true that sometimes Hagrid makes rash statements and generalizations, but I don't think these particular ones really qualify. And as someone mentioned, he's rather simple in his way of viewing the world, and part of my pet Hagrid theory is that that is because he is poorly educated and somewhat emotionally stunted due to the things that happened to him as a child. kimberly loving her buddy Hagrid From christi0469 at hotmail.com Wed Jan 23 19:39:15 2002 From: christi0469 at hotmail.com (christi0469) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 19:39:15 -0000 Subject: Fidelius, Sirius and Dumbledore In-Reply-To: <1594698335.20020123152435@tut.by> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33971 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Alexander wrote: > Greetings! > > While re-reading Prisoner of Azkaban, a question had > crossed my mind. There are many paradoxes in JKR texts that > are mentioned in Steve's Lexicon, but I haven't found this > one there, so I put it here for discussion. > > There were not many people who knew that Potters are going > to hide by Fidelius Charm. Potters themselves, Sirius Black, > probably Lupin, Peter Pettigrew and Dumbledore. Even more, > Dumbledore was unaware of Peter Pettigrew participation, so > he thought that it was Sirius who was the Secret Keeper. > > Now reading 1st chapter of SS/PS. Dumbledore knows that > Secret has been broken due to treachery of Secret Keeper. He > thinks that Sirius is the Keeper (and hence the traitor). > But when Hagrid tells him that it was Sirius Black who gave > the motorcycle to Hagrid, Dumbledore shows no surprise, or > shock, or anything! > > How can Dumbledore be so ignorant about this news? > > Did he know _already_ that Sirius was innocent? > Dumbledore probably maintained a poker-face here, not wanting to reveal his knowledge of the Fidelius charm and Sirius Black's probable involvement. If he had mentioned that he suspected Sirius Hagrid might have gone of to catch (or kill) Sirius. Recent posts have pointed out Hagrid's tendency to act impulsively. Dumbledore may also have wanted to get more information before accusing Sirius. Dumbledore did seem to accept Sirius' story very quickly in PoA, so he may have had doubts about his guilt all along, just needing the Wormtail piece of the puzzle to make everything fit. IIRC Dumbledore gave testimony that to the best of his knowledge Sirius was the secret-keeper (I could be completely wrong here as I could not find the exact quote). My guess is that Dumbledore thought Sirius was guilty, but had reasonable doubt. It makes me wonder why Crouch sent Sirius to Azkaban without the benefit of a trial. Was he afraid Sirius would have been acquitted? Is reasonable doubt a concept that is relevant to the wizarding judicial system? Christi (who is glad that Alexander is always willing to throw strange ideas into the community) From cindysphynx at home.com Wed Jan 23 21:06:40 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 21:06:40 -0000 Subject: Fidelius, Sirius and Dumbledore In-Reply-To: <1594698335.20020123152435@tut.by> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33972 Alexander wrote: > Now reading 1st chapter of SS/PS. Dumbledore knows that > Secret has been broken due to treachery of Secret Keeper. He > thinks that Sirius is the Keeper (and hence the traitor). > But when Hagrid tells him that it was Sirius Black who gave > the motorcycle to Hagrid, Dumbledore shows no surprise, or > shock, or anything! > > How can Dumbledore be so ignorant about this news? > > Did he know _already_ that Sirius was innocent? > Hmmm. Now that you mention it, that is rather odd. I think that Dumbledore doesn't have enough facts to know that Sirius (supposedly) betrayed the Potters yet. There are a few key facts Dumbledore doesn't know yet: 1. Dumbledore doesn't know that the Fidelius Charm was ever cast. The Potters could have changed their minds, or were attacked before they cast the spell. 2. Dumbledore doesn't know that the Charm was cast correctly. Also, as we recently discussed, there could be additional means to break the spell that we don't know about (Imperius Curse on the SecretKeeper). I don't think Dumbledore believed Sirius to be innocent at that early stage when Hagrid showed up, either. I think he came to that conclusion later once he had all the facts. Cindy From Rebecca.Allen at turner.com Wed Jan 23 21:31:13 2002 From: Rebecca.Allen at turner.com (Allen, Rebecca) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 16:31:13 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Imperius-ed Lucius, what Snape knows Message-ID: <759A085B4DB9AF47AD5BB22098C9172807532D@cnncex01.turner.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33973 Eileen asked: > What evidence have we that Snape is aware of the CoS events? > Dumbledore hushes most everything up... I agree that there is no direct evidence that Dumbledore informed Snape about the events at the end of CoS, but I'm arguing that it would be out-of-character for Dumbledore to have neglected to do so. We have, as of GoF, evidence to suggest that Dumbledore and Snape have a far deeper and more complicated relationship than Harry was previously aware of. In some ways it might be a father-son relationship, but also it seems like they still have a spymaster-spy relationship: here I refer to the time when Snape reported to Dumbledore that Karkaroff's scar as well as his was coming back, and also the fact that when Dumbledore sent Snape on this evidentially dangerous, secret mission, it was obviously a contingency plan that they had been working out in private together. So I can't imagine Dumbledore letting Snape run around thinking that Lucius has nothing to do with Voldemort anymore, it would be a bizarre lapse on D's part, IMHO. However, I don't think that Snape knows about Lucius because Dumbledore told him, rather I think it's the other way around: Dumbledore is totally blaz? about Lucius' connection to Tom Riddle because Snape had been telling him Lucius was an unrepentant DE all along. I think Pigwidgeon is totally correct to say: > A person, like Snape, who had participated in meetings and eventually also taken an > active part in the DEs' evil deeds, IMO was able to distinguish curse-induced from > authentic behaviour. Also, let's look at Snape's track record for figuring things out. He figured out that Lupin had some very strange and secret problem from his youthful spying forays, he figured out Quirrel was up to no good pretty quick, he's always on the spot to point out a suspicious situation and he can tell when Harry is lying by noticing when he blinks. Yes, he draws the wrong conclusions about Sirius and Lupin in PoA, but that's not for lack of scrutinizing the evidence. Rather, I'd argue that Snape errs on the side of suspicion rather than trust, and he usually seems to be able to read people pretty well. I think Lucius could only have fooled him if there were large extenuating circumstances that we don't know about. But I doubt it. :-) Also, lets look at Lucius for a minute. While he seems like he'd be wise enough to keep still about his feelings and cunning enough to fool people, I'm not sure I see real evidence of that. Lucius is very rich and powerful and he seems to get what he wants more through bribery and intimidation than charm. He bought his son's way onto the Quidditch team, when Voldemort fell he made out a hefty check to St. Mungo's and when he wanted Dumbledore suspended from his position he didn't cajole the other board members into doing so, he threatened to curse their families. Plus he's quick to viciously inform Harry that he'll meet the same nasty end as his meddling parents. So I'm not sure that Lucius actually follows the advice he gives Draco to keep up appearances; rather I think his true sympathies are pretty evident. Eileen also asks: > No, I agree, but would Snape care? If Malfoy has redeemed his messed- > up life, why would Snape (who has too) barge in and tell > everyone, "It wasn't the Imperius curse!" I'd answer that Snape cares because it's still his job to do so, at least in private with Dumbledore. Of course this chimes in with my other belief that Snape is still unofficially spying on any Slytherin children from iffy families, and that he torments the Gryffindors and favors Draco to throw everyone off the scent. And maybe you have to buy this whole story or reject it all. But since it seems to me that if Snape's true loyalties lie with Dumbledore and one of his many talents is spying, then this whole thing just seems plausible to me. /Rebecca [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cindysphynx at home.com Wed Jan 23 21:38:03 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 21:38:03 -0000 Subject: Hagrid's Competence And Other Flaws In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33974 Mahoney wrote (regarding Hagrid): > Hagrid's flaws are more difficult in some ways to gloss over. I > regard Hagrid in a similar way to how I regard Snape. I love both > characters because they are interesting and surprising; I feel > affectionate toward Hagrid despite his flaws, but I happily loathe > Snape in spite of his positive qualities. > > So in Hagrid, Harry experiences the need to balance friendship with > forgiveness, and it's to Harry's credit that he doesn't drop the > friendship nor backstab Hagrid when faced with Hagrid's weird > behavior. That's Easy. The Hard thing to do will be to learn to > accept, and not revile, Snape. All interesting points and valid points, Mahoney. I know I won't win any converts to the Critics of Hagrid viewpoint, but Mahoney's post does help me crystalize my thinking about what it is about Hagrid's flaws that bugs me more than the flaws of others. Snape, Sirius, and Lupin have all said or done things that are quite questionable, and in some cases, indefensible. As Mahoney points out, Harry isn't holding a grudge, so why am I so hard on Hagrid? One reason is that out of these 4 characters (Snape, Sirius, Lupin, and Hagrid), Hagrid is unique because he is the only one with a close, mentoring relationship with Harry who frequently models poor behavior/judgment for no good reason. If Harry were to emmulate Hagrid's behavior, Harry would grow up to drink to excess, resort to violence unnecessarily, exercise poor judgment, and break rules as a matter of convenience rather than when there is no other way to accomplish a noble goal. I'd bet the parents on the board know exactly what I mean. The cop pulls you over, and you'd really like to tell her what to do with her traffic ticket, and you swallow it and behave yourself to model good behavior for the kids. Hagrid's offense in my eyes is largely that he doesn't often do the right thing in light of the special relationship he has with Harry. Yes, I know that kids can turn out fine even if the adults in their lives aren't perfect, and Harry likely will. It's just that parents and other important adults in a kid's life ought to try awfully hard to model good behavior, even when it is inconvenient. Hagrid frequently falls short of good behavior in Harry's presence, and it is hard for me to respect him as a result. Compare Sirius and Lupin. Yes, Sirius was a hothead in PoA, but Sirius' excesses in Harry's presence were all justified by the need to apprehend Pettigrew. Sirius was the model of appropriate behavior in GoF. Lupin, of course, always (with one exception I won't expound on here) models good behavior for Harry. Snape, on the other hand, is not really a father-figure/mentor to Harry in the sense that Sirius, Lupin and Hagrid are and therefore is held to a different (lower) standard in my eyes. Also, we still don't know enough about what makes Snape tick to judge whether his motives are noble. Ah, well. It's a funny thing. I don't find Hagrid especially annoying or detest him or anything. He's just a flat-liner for me, and if he were dropped from the series without so much as a farewell paragraph, I wouldn't miss him. More space would be available for Lupin! :-) Cindy From hapaloca at aol.com Wed Jan 23 21:36:21 2002 From: hapaloca at aol.com (hapaloca at aol.com) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 16:36:21 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Sleepy Lupin/ Sneakoscope Message-ID: <154.7bdf055.298086d6@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33975 Eloise touched on something I've been wondering about since I first read the passage: ************ I think it's simply a way of a) introducing him, at the same time raising questions about his appearance and his reliability ( the Sneakoscope) ************ I've been lurking for a while and wondering why nobody had brought up the Sneakoscope when referring to this scene. Maybe I'm just too new, so sorry if this has been talked out already. (Newbie trying to be polite) I'm surprised by the number of people on these lists who are Lupin "fans", because the Sneakoscope episode made me suspicious of him the first time I read PoA. After re-reading the chapter, it seems Lupin would the most logical "sneak". I know there is a question of the Sneakoscope's reliability, but the timing might be foreshadowing. I just wonder if the Sneakoscope going off was more of a clue of where Lupin's character is headed, since I believe JKR was quoted somewhere saying that Lupin will be in the 5th book. Meli (Hoping she got her HPisms right!) From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Wed Jan 23 22:09:18 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 22:09:18 -0000 Subject: Sleepy Lupin/ Sneakoscope In-Reply-To: <154.7bdf055.298086d6@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33976 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., hapaloca at a... wrote: > > I'm surprised by the number of people on these lists who are Lupin "fans", because the Sneakoscope episode made me suspicious of him the first time I read PoA. After re-reading the chapter, it seems Lupin would the most logical "sneak". I know there is a question of the Sneakoscope's reliability, but the timing might be foreshadowing. I just wonder if the Sneakoscope going off was more of a clue of where Lupin's character is headed, since I believe JKR was quoted somewhere saying that Lupin will be in the 5th book. > The #1 rule of HP, sneakoscopes NEVER malfunction. They also fulfill a sort of "Cassandra" role in the HP world. No-one ever pays attention to them. However, the reader was SUPPOSED to believe that it was Lupin's presence that set off the sneakoscope. There are many things through the book to make one suspicious of Lupin. Was I the only one to think he was Sirius Black? The whole thing about "How can Black get into the building?" , "I knew your father, Harry", "Does anyone deserve the dementor's kiss?" lead me to that conclusion. And, so of course, I decided that Sirius Black wasn't as bad as he was made out to be, which turned out be true, even though Black ended up as a different man. As for the sneakoscope, do you remember who else was in the compartment? A certain rat, IIRC. Eileen From ftah3 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 23 22:16:28 2002 From: ftah3 at yahoo.com (ftah3) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 22:16:28 -0000 Subject: Hagrid's Competence And Other Flaws In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33977 cindysphynx wrote: > One reason is that out of these 4 characters (Snape, Sirius, Lupin, > and Hagrid), Hagrid is unique because he is the only one with a > close, mentoring relationship with Harry who frequently models poor > behavior/judgment for no good reason. If Harry were to emmulate > Hagrid's behavior, Harry would grow up to drink to excess, resort to > violence unnecessarily, exercise poor judgment, and break rules as a > matter of convenience rather than when there is no other way to > accomplish a noble goal. > > I'd bet the parents on the board know exactly what I mean. Indeed I do. I'm also aware that my son may grow up to really enjoy the company of my likeable, well-meaning, but heavy-drinking cussing lay-about brother-in-law, but I don't loathe the guy for it, and until I see that my son is the type to emmulate that kind of behavior (he's only three, so I've a bit of time to wait), I'm fairly content knowing that my son also has other, more responsible role models who may influence him. Harry Potter has a lot of role models in his life, doesn't seem incredibly prone to emmulating Hagrid and as I said in my previous post seems to view Hagrid rather philosophically. I'm not in any Love-Hagrid Club, I just also view Hagrid philosophically. Especially as he is an interesting part of a neat, fictional tapestry and not a real person. >It's just that parents and other important adults in a > kid's life ought to try awfully hard to model good behavior, even > when it is inconvenient. Hagrid frequently falls short of good > behavior in Harry's presence, and it is hard for me to respect him as > a result. And some characters are incapable of being good role models ~ not because they're lousy people, but because they haven't experienced the proper socialization or haven't the mental equipment necessary. Hagrid's characterization consistently shows an individual who has no clue that he's acting inappropriately, and my assumption is that he'd be utterly surprised and horrified to discover that he's considered a bad role model. I don't think he has a real concept of how to be a good role model; his mindset in general is so very off the beaten path. > Also, we still don't know enough about > what makes Snape tick to judge whether his motives are noble. And to be fair, I don't think we know enough about Hagrid to judge whether or not he is being ignoble, backwards, or (if one buys the 'nature' argument for personality traits) a typical half-giant. > He's just a flat-liner for me, > and if he were dropped from the series without so much as a farewell > paragraph, I wouldn't miss him. Ah, but would you appreciate the lack of writerly finesse (read: laziness) apparent in such a drop-kick? It'd scream "plot hole!" to me.... ;-) Mahoney From meboriqua at aol.com Wed Jan 23 22:20:45 2002 From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 22:20:45 -0000 Subject: Sins of Hagrid -- Subversive bigotry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33978 Elkins wrote, among other excellent comments about Hagrid: > Or his comment about the Malfoys having > > "bad blood" -- which really is _rich,_ you know, given the > > big-boned skeletons hiding in Hagrid's own family closet.> and Christi responded with: > I'm not sure where this comment is made, so I cannot defend it > based on context. We do know that Lucius Malfoy was and is a DE, and > that Draco has been trying to Hagrid and Harry in trouble. Hagrid > may know things about the Malfoy line that we don't. It is wrong to > assume that no Malfoy could ever be good because of bloodline; > however Lucius and Draco can certainly be counted as enemies of > Hagrid, and viewing the whole family as bad is a natural, if flawed, > reaction.> Flawed is the key word here. Doesn't JKR make a big point about choice meaning everything and blood not meaning so much? Shame on Hagrid for writing off the Malfoys in much the same way he has been written off so many times before. We need to remember that Draco is still young; he is not so developed in his thinking or set in his views as his father is. No one can make a blanket statement about how he will turn out. I teach 17-21 year olds in the Bronx and many of them have done terrible things. However, that doesn't mean that they are terrible now and will be terrible for the rest of their lives. With the right support and encouragement, any one of my students can turn his/her life around and make a great future. Why can't Draco do the same? Elkins again: > > Or, for that matter, his assurance to Harry that he'll surely > > grow up to be a great wizard, because "with a mum an' dad > > like yours, what else would yeh be?" Christi's response: > Given Hagrid's great regard for James and Lily this comment makes > sense, especially if there is a strong genetic component to magical > ability. Harry's parentage does not garantee he would be on the side > of good, but James and Lily's abilities could be an indication of > Harry's potential magical ability (and we know Squibs are rare). On > the other hand, expecting children to be talented because of their > parents ability can be unfair. Hagrid's reasoning may be flawed in > this regard, but he does seem to have come up with the correct > conclusion.> I find Hagrid's comment quite dangerous, actually. Once again, Hagrid is generalizing, especially as he does *not* know Harry very well at the time. Parents have significant influence over their children's lives, even if the parents haven't been around, but children also can't turn to their parents as the final say in things: "Well, Dad was a great Quidditch player. Guess I am too!" Doesn't that sound silly? There has been speculation about Draco getting away from under his father's coat tails. At some point in his life Draco will have to be his own man because he, like Harry, is an individual, not a puppet controlled by his father. I'm not saying this well at all. What I mean is that I agree with Dumbledore when he says it is the choices we make that determine who we are. We do not inherit everything that our parents are or were simply because they are or were our parents. --jenny from ravenclaw, who isn't fond of Hagrid and doesn't think a smack on the head will do it ******************** From Whirdy at aol.com Wed Jan 23 22:22:42 2002 From: Whirdy at aol.com (Whirdy at aol.com) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 17:22:42 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sins of Hagrid -- Subversive bigotry Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33979 In a message dated 1/23/02 8:41:48 AM Eastern Standard Time, theennead at attbi.com writes: > I like to think that we're supposed to notice this unsavory > tendency of Hagrid's, that this is Rowling's way of showing > the subversive power of institutionalized bigotry. Hagrid's > a product of his culture, and his culture is not an > egalitarian one. He *does* believe in egalitarianism, very > strongly. But when he isn't watching himself, the ugly > underside of his own culture slips through the cracks, and > he betrays himself. > > All we have here is Hagrid displaying the very human failing (it is almost genetic) of stereotypical thinking and painting all with broad brush. And I don't begrudge Hagrid's little slip with Dudley, if only to even the score for eleven years of Harry bashing. BTW, given DD's first year at Smelting, Hagrid's warning was almost pearl-like. whirdy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From meboriqua at aol.com Wed Jan 23 22:41:02 2002 From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 22:41:02 -0000 Subject: Hagrid's Competence And Other Flaws In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33980 First, I must ask Cindy if she knows just how much I love her for agreeing with me about Hagrid. I've been harboring a dislike for him for a long time... --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ftah3" wrote: > Hagrid's characterization consistently shows an individual who has no clue that he's acting inappropriately, and my assumption is that he'd be utterly surprised and horrified to discover that he's considered a bad role model. I don't think he has a real concept of how to be a good role model; his mindset in general is so very off the beaten path.> He should have a clue that he's acting inappropriately. He doesn't know he shouldn't use magic? He doesn't know he shouldn't drink? He doesn't know he shouldn't give a child the tail of a pig? He doesn't know he shouldn't raise a baby dragon alone or at all? Oh, I'd say Hagrid knows about his own behavior. Cindy's comments about Hagrid's flaws are exactly what I've been thinking. She just articulated them much better than I could. You see, for a quite a while I've been worried about Hagrid. His blind loyalty to Dumbledore, his temper, drinking, lack of finished education... these are things that make me think some ugly things are going to happen because of Hagrid. He already has indirectly encouraged the Trio to behave inappropriately: they go out of their way to help him in Norbert, resulting in much trouble for all of them (remember, Ron actually gets hurt by Norbert). They also visit Hagrid in his cabin in PoA when Harry in particular is *not* supposed to be out and about the campus unescorted and in the evenings. If Hagrid, as an adult, knew better how to keep his problems to himself, Harry and friends wouldn't be risking trouble and danger for Hagrid. Nope, I can't be convinced that Hagrid is okey-dokey. No way, no how. --jenny from ravenclaw, out of the closet and proud about her negative feelings for Hagrid! ****************** From Whirdy at aol.com Wed Jan 23 22:45:33 2002 From: Whirdy at aol.com (Whirdy at aol.com) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 17:45:33 EST Subject: What Is Immortal? Message-ID: <15c.74201e8.2980970d@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33981 In the PS, the Philsopher's Stone is described as a legendary substance with astonishing powers, including producing "the Elixir of Life, which will make the drinker immortal." How much do you have to drink and for how long? Now NF is 665 and PF is 658 and "they have enough Elixir stored to set their affairs in order and, yes, they will die," reports AD. If the PS was stored in Gringott's how often did the Flamel have to tap the stone while it was under the control of AD? It is like polyjuice, good for a finite period of time. whirdy who notes that a lot of questions pop up not during the reading of HP, but when HP is heard! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com Wed Jan 23 22:56:16 2002 From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 16:56:16 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Sleepy Lupin/ Sneakoscope References: <154.7bdf055.298086d6@aol.com> Message-ID: <3C4F3F90.72E6079B@kingwoodcable.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33982 hapaloca at aol.com wrote: >> I'm surprised by the number of people on these lists who are Lupin "fans", because the Sneakoscope episode made me suspicious of him the first time I read PoA. After re-reading the chapter, it seems Lupin would the most logical "sneak". I know there is a question of the Sneakoscope's reliability, but the timing might be foreshadowing. I just wonder if the Sneakoscope going off was more of a clue of where Lupin's character is headed, since I believe JKR was quoted somewhere saying that Lupin will be in the 5th book.<< I think JKR introduced the sneakoscope to cast a doubt on Lupin's character, but we find out that Scabbers was the actual problem. Scabbers was in the compartment that HRH and Lupin were in when they were on their way to Hogwarts. Since we didn't know that Scabbers was Peter, we assumed it was either not working or something was up with Lupin. An indicator that "it wasn't working" is that it kept going off when Ron still had it in Egypt. But it's said that there's a picture of the Weasley family in Egypt, and scabbers was in the picture. So I think it was working just fine, but since the Weasleys thought Scabbers was a rat, they thought it wasn't working. JKR did a good job with casting doubt on Lupin's character, and before I got to the end of the book, I thought Lupin was Black in disguise. Since we know that Scabbers was the actual problem, I don't think JKR is attempting to foreshadow something about Lupin. The sneakoscope (not Harry's) has shown up elsewhere in very much the same way, but I didn't catch it until the end of GoF. When Harry is in Moody's office (can't remember where in the book and I don't have my book with me), before H knew that M was actually Crouch, he notices that the sneakoscopes are going off. Moody says it's because there are so many people doing things wrong at the school, and we take this on faith that this is true. In truth it was an indicator that something was up with Moody. Lupin will be back in book 5, and I believe book 7. I am a fan of Lupin, and I don't suspect him do be a traitor or anything of the sort. I'm quite fond of him, because he's humble, and he wants to help, and he's kind to Harry. -Katze From lav at tut.by Wed Jan 23 23:31:19 2002 From: lav at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 01:31:19 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Fidelius, Sirius and Dumbledore In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6041107825.20020124013119@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 33983 Greetings! > Christi wrote to us: c> Dumbledore probably maintained a poker-face here, not wanting to c> reveal his knowledge of the Fidelius charm and Sirius Black's c> probable involvement.If he had mentioned that he suspected Sirius c> Hagrid might have gone of to catch (or kill) Sirius. Recent posts c> have pointed out Hagrid's tendency to act impulsively. Dumbledore c> may also have wanted to get more information before accusing Sirius. Yes, maybe. Still, this doesn't explain why he showed no emotion at all. He could leave Hagrid ignorant as to the reasons of his surprise if he wanted to, but he doesn't show anything. Note that in GoF when he hears about Voldemort getting Harry's blood JKR tells us of "glint of triumph" in his eyes. In PS1, there's nothing like that - as if it was not Sirius who gave Hagrid the motorcycle, but any other wizard. (My IMHO is that at the time of writing PS, JKR simply had no idea of GoF scenario. But that's too mundane to discuss on the List... :) c> Dumbledore did seem to accept Sirius' story very quickly in PoA, so c> he may have had doubts about his guilt all along, just needing the c> Wormtail piece of the puzzle to make everything fit. IIRC Dumbledore c> gave testimony that to the best of his knowledge Sirius was the c> secret-keeper (I could be completely wrong here as I could not find c> the exact quote). My guess is that Dumbledore thought Sirius was c> guilty, but had reasonable doubt. It makes me wonder why Crouch sent c> Sirius to Azkaban without the benefit of a trial. Was he afraid c> Sirius would have been acquitted? Is reasonable doubt a concept that c> is relevant to the wizarding judicial system? Wizarding justice seems to be fuelled by emotions rather than Law. As such, Justice is much more personalised in the Wizarding World. It may be unjust, of course (and will be) but on the other hand it will not create such perversions of the law that exist currently in US/Europe... c> Christi (who is glad that Alexander is always willing to throw c> strange ideas into the community) Always at your service! :) Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, (Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed), who suspects that there are some Death Eaters in the group who are trying to justify evil characters and accuse good ones in all guilts possible... :) - I have seen your True form, Zavulon. - And I have seen yours. And I must say you were not an angel in shining armour. Everything depends on the position from which you look, Anton. Sergey Lukyanenko, "Night Patrol". From m.bockermann at t-online.de Wed Jan 23 23:33:12 2002 From: m.bockermann at t-online.de (m.bockermann at t-online.de) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 00:33:12 +0100 Subject: Economy, Aurors and the Bad Times, the next School holidays References: <1011799921.947.32492.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <004901c1a46b$fb8f1a00$b17e9e3e@oemcomputer> No: HPFGUIDX 33984 Alexander Lomski wrote: >>The only trouble that still remains is the foodstuff and fabrics. They are still most likely made by muggles and sold to Wizards for _muggle_ prices. But then they should be really expensive! I agree with you, that foodstuff, fabrics and other goods the wizards use are imported form the MW. But where is the problem? I can see a problem, if somebody used raw metals to fake wizard money. But I suspect that there are spells on wizard coins that guarantee they are genuine - which Ron and Harry apparently dont know. ;-) Using the same reasoning, I doubt that you could easily melt wizard coins into the pure metals. So if there is a firm exchange rate between wizard and muggle money, I dont see why some goods would be unduly expensive. Id say wizard shop owners exchange money at Gringots and pay Muggle traders with muggle money. I dont think every wizard is as helpless muggle money as the wizards. (Though I can feel with them - I am still converting Euro to Marks in my mind...) Elkins wrote: >>Sirius -- no bleeding-heart himself -- says that many of the Aurors descended to the level of the Death Eaters. We've heard about the licence to kill; we've heard about the licence to use the Unforgivables. God only knows how many innocent people were interrogated under Cruciatus in those dark days before Voldemort's defeat. Or, for that matter, how many other "special powers" Crouch invested in his jackbooted thu...er, excuse me, I mean Protectors of the People, before he was done. Search and seizure, anyone? Surveillance without warrant? Indefinite detention without arrest? >>(Am I treading too closely on current political events here?) Ah, I agree with you completly and then some. When I read POA, when it came to Sirius recounting of the past I thought: wow, JKR has guts. Do you know the saying about the violent end of the French revolution: "the revolution eats its children"? That is what came to my mind (though other saying and other political and/or historical events went a similiar way). Let us reflect the situation the wizard world was in when Voldemort was on the height of his powers: - it might seem funny that people dont call Voldemort by his name, but they *are* scared by his name. Considering that names and magic are often strongly connected in magical lore, I can even understand that. - people were afraid of each other, they didnt know who was a DE or not (Hagrid: "Nobody knew whom to trust". Sorry, not an exat quote, I dont have the books at hand) - people mistrusted each other, to the extend that Remus blames a former friend for treason, Peter to commit treason, pitting father against son (the Crouches) - for whatever reason, it was necessary for the Potters to hide and to use a secret keeper. - people were sent to Askaban without a trial (like Sirius), let alone a fair trial - the Aurors were allowed to use the Unforgivables. There is a difference between an Auror (or in the living world a cop) using mortal force to defend him/herself and/or to protect others... or interogating people using the Cruciatus curse (and from what Sirius says, I conclude that this happens). - others, like Bagman, were exonerated (!) in trials, that did not deserve this name. And even at the times the books are playing, the wizard world is not exactly a sunny place: Fudge is an unqualified minister even in peaceful times (a potentially disasterful in the coming time). Lucius Malfoy - whatever he has done - was not only exonerated, but is also a respected citicen who was a member of the school council up to CoS. From what Fudge says, he donated a lot of money to the community - essentially bribing himself back into respectability. People like Arthur Weasly who care for muggles are mobbed and hindered in their work. DD allows "Mudbloods" in Hogwarts, but Malfoy, and probably a lot of others dispise that fact. - it might be that the mistreatment of house elfs is the exception - or that happy house elves like those at Hogwarts are the exception. In any case, there *are* still some that are mistreated (or do you believe that the Malfoys will treat their new house elf better than Dobby?) and, according to Dobby - it had even been worse when Voldemort was at power. - the wizards use dementors as guardians for Askaban, a pact with the devil if I ever saw one. - it was a bad time, and various people like DD, Hagrid, Sirius or Arthur Weasly still avoid speaking about it before the children. Considering all that, I dread the things that Harry and the others will yet (probably) learn. In a purely heroic world, the people would present a united front against a common enemy like Voldemort. But in reality, people give in to fear an oppression, some are tempted by evil, some colloborate... What impresses me is that JKR does include these unpleasant aspects of human beings. There are a lot of Sience Fiction or Fantasy novels in which The Evil Overlord of the day hungers for something: smashing the rebellion, getting the ring, the sword... of power and he (less often she) supposedly uses all his power to reach his aims. But only rarely does the author show the impact this antagonist has on his surroundings realistically or in its full extend. Which forces me to assume, that the next years will polarize the pupils at Hogwarts even further: whose parents did what back then - and do their children agree with them? Sorry if this has been discussed before: but how do you suppose the Dudleys will treat Harry during the next school break? Is it possible for them to be redeemed, by caring at least a little bit for Harry? I mean they put Duddley on a diet during the last school break and if his school continued to do so, he might have lost some weight. Did their sons trouble with his weight (apparently the nurse made her point very clear in her letter) cause Vernon and Petunia to ponder the possibility that Duddley might not be perfect after all? And could that cause them to be a little kinder to Harry? I mean, they *have* to notice that Harry comes back from school changed: sad, more silent may, possibly less prone to react to Duddleys teasings and attacks. Even Vernon or Petunia might ask him: "How was your year?" So what will they do when he says: "The man who killed my parents has risen again and has killed a school mate of mine. He tried to kill me and took some of my blood." Or will Harry keep silent? Barbara Jebenstreit From brewpub44 at earthlink.net Thu Jan 24 01:12:09 2002 From: brewpub44 at earthlink.net (brewpub44) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 01:12:09 -0000 Subject: Snape and the Longbottoms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33985 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" wrote: > [about Moody]: > Well, he doesn't believe in plea bargains, which is certainly > understandable -- most cops don't. But he also seems to > consider it morally acceptable to _break faith_ with captive > prisoners ("Let's hear his information, I say, and throw him > straight back to the dementors.") He is not adverse to > dehumanizing his enemies; he feels free to sneer at them; > in the course of a single page, he refers to Karkaroff as both > "filth" and "scum." He is skeptical of Dumbledore's > judgement of Snape; he does not believe in second chances. > He tries not to kill, but he doesn't seem unduly bothered > by it when he does so. And he approves of the use of the > dementors as prison guards. ("For scum like this...") > I know it is probably not a good idea to compare British law enforcement with American (I am assuming JKR is modelling wizard law enforcement on a British model), but I will try. Moody personified "bad cop" in a good cop/bad cop scenario. The deal is one police officer is the nasty guy who treats baddies as scum, breaks faith, likes nasty imprisonments, etc. Then there is a "good cop" who offers the plea bargains, tries to be the friend, etc. Both are actors who try to find a crack in the baddies armor. Then the crack is exploited and you get the confessions, squealing, whatever. Plus, note that Moody is a spectator in the wizard court, it is Crouch who acts as the prosecutor. So it's not Moody who sentences, unless he has to protect others or defend himself while apprehending the bad guy. A Barkeep in Diagon Alley From brewpub44 at earthlink.net Thu Jan 24 01:23:57 2002 From: brewpub44 at earthlink.net (brewpub44) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 01:23:57 -0000 Subject: Wand question and Malfoy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33986 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jklb66" wrote: > Mommy picking out Draco's wand while he was busy with a robe fitting; > it is SO revealing of Draco Malfoy. Style is more important than > substance. What is the MOST important purchase a young wizard/witch > makes when going off to school? The wand. Does Draco want to be > bothered? No, getting his robes to look just right is more > important! We see this again and again with Malfoy. Wow, what a brilliant observation! I am more and more intrigued by the character of Draco. I really don't know how your observation fits in with my theory of his future (to summarize my earlier postings, I think he will fight against LV not because he will be redeemed but because he is nobody's slave [whereas his father is basically an LV lackey]). But I've taken the liberty of making a short list of other Draco actions that back up your statement: - His harping on Ron's poverty is often more based on appearances than substance (shoddy house, broken wand, sloppy robes). - He picks on Hermione's teeth, IIRC - The braggadocio about the Slytherin brooms, when he himself is a lousy Seeker - I even include the fact that he hangs around with the goons Crabbe and Goyle. They are undoubtedly idiots, which makes him appear all the wiser by default. Anyway, good observation! A Barkeep in Diagon Alley From tabouli at unite.com.au Thu Jan 24 02:57:01 2002 From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 13:57:01 +1100 Subject: The maligned Hagrid, kind vs intellectual vs interesting, Good/Evil Message-ID: <004701c1a483$0801eee0$4e0cdccb@price> No: HPFGUIDX 33987 Mahoney: > For example, I don't think that Hagrid was meant to be an example of institutional bigotry; rather I'm struck by how he reflects a certain type of colorful rural personality Kimberly: > Hagrid's had one heck of a sad life. Think of the problems that others have - he's got many of them all put together.< Very good essay, Kimberly... poor ol' Hagrid. My heart was wrung, even though I quite see all of Jenny and Cindy's objections to him. I'm fond enough of him myself. I feel about him much the same way Harry seems to - affection tempered with a philosophical acceptance of his faults. I've always put Hagrid in the "lovable oaf" literary category, which nicely encapsulates all his flaws and virtues. Kind but blundering, loyal yet naive, well-meaning but prone to getting both himself and his allies into disaster with the best of intentions (see the giant spiders). In my time-honoured tradition of separating what I like in a real person from what I like in a fictional character, I like him. He's depicted consistently and entertainingly. In real life, I'm not sure what I'd think of him, but I suspect I'd warm to his kindness and try to work around his irresponsibility (e.g. by not relying on him too much or giving him too many responsibilities!). Interesting that in the series, Dumbledore has no such qualms. If I were the big D, I don't know that I'd be putting Hagrid in charge of classes full of children. Presumably, like so many of D's other questionable deeds (most notably shunting Harry off to the Dreadful Dursleys), this is Character Building... bringing out the best in people through challenge and hardship. Does anyone else, like me, suspect that Character Building is, far more than education, Dumbledore's highest priority? Presumably this fits in with his "it is our choices that make us what we are" and his "making the right choice, not the easy choice" philosophy. Knowledge can help people identify the best choices, but it's more important to have the strength of character to choose them? Bonnie: > I have always valued kindness above intelligence - much to the chagrin of some of my more "intellectual" friends. And yet, when it comes to being there when you need them - the kinder, simpler folks win hands down over the intellectuals< Let's not forget that some intellectuals are kind too! I, to the chagrin of some of my more "conservative" friends, have a worrying tendency to value "being interesting" over a lot of characteristics that arguably make for more fulfilling friendships (like "being nice"?). Intelligence helps, but I don't find all intelligent people interesting! I think complex, intriguing people often make the most loyal and kind friends if you're prepared to put in the effort to get to know them properly and understand them, even though they can appear intimidating and even "unkind" on early impressions. As for HP characters, if I had to pick one who'd make an interesting, kind *and* intelligent friend in real life, it would probably be Dumbledore! Quirkiness is a fine thing, there should be more of it. Snape is fascinating, but I think even I might quail from his nasty streak... Hmm. All this analysis of Good and Evil, particularly the criticisms of some of the Aurors, reminds me irresistably of one of the questionnaires I used in my research... sample relevant question (from the Social Paradigm Belief Inventory, copyright Kramer et al 1992): a) Our country generally does what's right. This is because we have the moral imperative on our side when we make political and economic decisions. b) Our country sometimes does not do what's right. This is because questionable actions are sometimes necessary to bring about needed results. c) Our country can try to do what's right. This is because when principles and reality conflict, we can redefine them in exploring solutions which take both into account, but are not perfect. Substituting "the Good side" for "Our country", which option is the closest to what you believe? Which HP characters would hold which view? Is Fudge a (b) man, and Crouch senior an (a) man? Hmmm... Tabouli (who definitely spent too long at university...) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From golden_faile at yahoo.com Thu Jan 24 03:12:06 2002 From: golden_faile at yahoo.com (golden faile) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 19:12:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hagrid's Competence And Other Flaws In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020124031206.45202.qmail@web14610.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33988 > > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ftah3" > wrote: > > > Hagrid's characterization consistently shows an > individual who has > no clue that he's acting inappropriately, and my > assumption is that > he'd be utterly surprised and horrified to discover > that he's > considered a bad role model> I think he wants to be a good role model... I, however, don't think he'd be shocked to know that he is considered a bad one. He's told the kids several times that they shouldn't break the rules. I remeber him telling Harry off about poor judegement on a couple of occassions. >> He should have a clue that he's acting >> inappropriately. He doesn't >> know he shouldn't use magic? He doesn't know he >> shouldn't drink? He >> doesn't know he shouldn't give a child the tail of a >> pig? He doesn't >> know he shouldn't raise a baby dragon alone or at >> all? Oh, I'd say >>Hagrid knows about his own behavior. > > Okay... so Hagrid needs some work. He knows that these things are wrong, but I don't think he considers any of this harmful( and Dudley deserved that tail) or potentially dangerous behavior. On the subject of his teaching, I think he is competent in this area, he knows more about magical creatures than most, from what I've seen. The thing that is going to be Hagrid's downfall, is his love for dangerous creatures(Maybe it's the giant blood). Maybe Hagrid doesn't think before he leaps, but his hearts in the right place. Laila __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeing new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com From djdwjt at aol.com Thu Jan 24 03:35:15 2002 From: djdwjt at aol.com (elfundeb) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 03:35:15 -0000 Subject: Hagrid's Competence In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33989 > > > Which leads me to > the fact that he was denied the education that all other wizards > get, and thus a part of him was sort of `suspended' at the age at > which he was expelled from school. Kimberly, I agree with this point. In fact, I think one reason HRH have such a good relationship with Hagrid is the he is basically operating at their level. > The Buckbeak incident in PoA nearly broke my heart. His very first > class ever, he's finally been entrusted with something important, but > he knows he's not `properly' qualified. He wants to start off with a > bang and do something interesting, so he introduces them to Buckbeak > and his pals. He did everything right in that class, it's only > Malfoy's complete disregard for him that causes a problem. I disagree that Hagrid did everything right in his first lesson. Yes, he did give instructions on handling hippogriffs, but he didn't make sure everyone was paying attention. Then, rather than letting each person in the class take a turn that he could supervise, he let everyone try at once. This seems dangerous to do with an unpredictable creature such as a hippogriff that turned out to be capable of inflicting a deep gash that seems to have caused significant blood loss. Thus, while clearly Draco was primarily responsible for causing his own injury I cannot absolve Hagrid of contributory negligence. I know the POA presents Hagrid as having been unjustly accused, but the viewpoint we see is Harry's and he was very anxious for Hagrid to be a success. He also has Dumbledore's support, but Dumbledore is not disinterested because he hired the unqualified Hagrid in the first place. I think Hagrid was lucky not to have been held partially responsible. And, as others have pointed out, it is neither the first nor the last time he grossly underestimates the danger of the creatures he exposes the students to. It rather surprises me that he gets such unqualified support from the other characters; his main detractor seems to be Draco, and while Draco's outspoken contempt for Hagrid is disgusting, most of his comments about him are pretty much on target, in my view, including the one that earned him the slap from Hermione. In fact, I think the way he conducts his class, by only doing things that interest him without regard to his responsibility to teach something, and his running away and hiding in his tankard of mead whenever something goes wrong -- demonstrate how childish and undeveloped he is as a person. IMHO as a character he is ripe for fading away from the spotlight (or being killed off) because the Trio is about to outstrip him in maturity. I know this thread has gone way beyond Kimberly's post and I will echo Cindy and Jenny's well-made points. Debbie (acknowledging that perhaps JKR did not intend Hagrid's character to be analyzed by lawyers)> > From theennead at attbi.com Thu Jan 24 00:48:56 2002 From: theennead at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 00:48:56 -0000 Subject: Moody -- "Types"--Where Are the Bleeding Hearts? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33990 A bit of clarification, and some hopes of a cool-down. I worry that we're veering dangerously close to the border of off-topic-land here, but if possible, I would like to try to keep this discussion within the bounds of this board. I think that there are some interesting and important on-topic issues lurking somewhere just beneath the surface here, and it might be nice if we could try to raise them up a bit, while turning the heat 'way, *'way* down. First, though, some apologies. --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "btk6y" wrote: > > I could not disagree more with your post... not necessarily the > content, but the underlying tone inherent in it. Yes. It's obvious that my tone really rankled, and I apologize for causing offense. I didn't mean to come across as sneering or contemptuous towards law enforcement, but I'm getting the distinct impression that I did, and that this was what angered you. Again, apologies. You wrote: > What annoys me is that people who champion civil liberties > seem to without fail give the benefit of the doubt to those > that least deserve it, may that be Death Eaters, terrorists, > what have you. Okay. You are here making quite a few assumptions about my political biases and inclinations. In short, you've just presented an encapsulated summary of the negative stereotype of the "Bleeding-Heart Liberal." There is a certain justice to this, admittedly, as I myself pretty well did exsctly the same thing to Moody when I wrote: > He strikes me as the sort of person who would happily > strip away all of my civil liberties, given half the > chance, and I consider such men a serious threat to > civilized society. That was an equally harsh encapsulated summary of the negative stereotype of the "Law-and-Order Fascist," wasn't it. Yes. I suppose that it was. So, okay. Tit-for-tat, and turnabout is fair play, and all of that. I would like to point out, however, that while Moody is a fictional construct, whose tendencies and political inclinations are within the fair scope of discussion here, you and I are real people whose respective philosophies, while they cannot help but inform our views, really aren't. But there's an interesting issue here that might bear some examining. On another thread, one about Hagrid, Mahoney made a few comments about her feelings for characters based not so much on whether they're Good or Bad people, but rather on whether they're "Types" that she happens to like in real life. This is germaine because -- given that you admit that you pretty much agree with the *content* of my post, even down to its political elements -- what I suspect you must have read that angered you so much was: "Moody's a law-and-order type, and I just don't *like* people like that, so I don't like Moody." And so (being perhaps a law-and-order type yourself?), you quite reasonably took personal offense at this and retaliated with: "Oh yeah? Well, I don't like you bleeding-heart jerk-offs either. So there!" Am I off-base here? (Suddenly, I feel that I can finally understand why those SHIPping types can get so heated in *their* debates. I never really understood that before!) Anyway, again, sorry about that. I didn't mean to attack anyone personally, not even through analogy-by-stereotype. And for what it's worth, I don't dislike you. But getting back to the Potterverse, where *are* the bleeding heart liberals in canon? Have we actually seen any at all? Fudge is certainly a head-in-the-sand appeaser -- but he also allows his dementors to perform summary executions on accused criminals, which absolutely disqualifies him for the Bleeding Heart Club. Then we have the Pensieve mob who let off Ludo Bagman -- but their behavior is motivated more by a starry-eyed worship of sports heroes than by any bleeding-heart tendencies; we later see that they are more than capable of turning hard-line, even when faced with a screaming pleading teenager in the dock. Now, Lupin would initially seem to fit the profile well enough (he's so *sensitive,* don't you know, so...well, so pale and interesting) -- but when push comes to shove in the Shrieking Shack, he is revealed to be no bleeding-heart. And the same goes for Hermione, who otherwise would seem to be the primary candidate. Really, so far in the series, Dumbledore seems to me to be the closest thing we've got to the stereotypical bleeding-heart liberal -- and he's still not all that close. Dumbledore may not like the dementors, and he may approve of giving people second chances, but he's hardly a _softie_. So where *are* the Bleeding Hearts of the wizarding world? If they exist (and surely they do), then Rowling has not yet chosen to depict them within the books. But back to your objections to my feelings about Aurors... > The people that are out there, fighting FOR YOUR SAFETY > while you lie comfortably in your bed, however, are subject > to incredible scrutiny and mistrust. I do not think it unreasonable to subject people who have been granted special license to interrogate (even under torture, if they so choose)and to kill to a higher-than-ordinary degree of scrutiny. Do you? As you yourself say: > People who champion civil liberties DO serve a purpose because > if a watchful eye were not kept on law enforcement, a "1984"- > like world would soon develop, which is something that obviously > no one wants. And indeed, if Sirius is to be believed, wizarding society was very much in danger of becoming that sort of world in the last years of the war. Sirius goes so far as to say that some of the Aurors descended to the level of the Death Eaters, which I think we can both agree is pretty dire. And that's where the "mistrust" comes in. If I seem to mistrust Aurors, that is because there has been significant indication that, at least at one point in history, they behaved in a highly untrustworthy fashion. You then go on to say: > What bugs me to no end is that while you are watching law > enforcement, you refuse to give them the same benefit of > the doubt that you do those who readily and willingly > break the law to harm the public. I am going to continue to assume that we're talking about Aurors and the Potterverse here, although I kind of get the impression that we aren't. ;) I think that if you look back over my posts on this topic, you will find that I have, in fact, been more than willing to give the Aurors the benefit of the doubt. When Eric suggested that Frank Longbottom might have been "Judge Dredd on acid," for example, I disagreed with him, insisting that I refused to believe that Longbottom was a bad Auror. On the contrary, I defended the notion that he was a responsible Auror who did not abuse his power. Nor have I ever expressed any doubts that Moody really *did* try to avoid killing whenever he could, even though the only evidence we have for this is Sirius' claim. I don't think that I've at all withheld the benefit of the doubt from the Aurors. Nor can I think of anywhere where I have granted extraordinary benefit of the doubt to the Death Eaters. I've never tried to argue, for example, that Lucius Malfoy really *was* under the Imperiatus Curse (of course he wasn't!), or that maybe the Lestranges were framed, or that perhaps Voldemort is just this nice guy who had a bad childhood and has simply been terribly misunderstood. I've not made _any_ of those arguments, nor would I want to. So where do you see me granting more benefit of the doubt to the law-breakers than to the law-enforcers? > Thank God the magical world had someone like Moody to catch > Death Eaters, because if the Aurors ascribed to your philosophy, > Voldemort would have taken over even faster than he did. Which of my philosophies do you mean, precisely? The political philosophy, which holds that Aurors who descend to the level of Death Eaters are Seriously Bad News? Or the personal philosophy, which states: "I neither like nor trust the sort of men who torture students, refer to their enemies as 'scum' and 'filth,' show no signs of remorse over killing, approve of the use of dementors as prison guards, and advocate breaking faith with captives?" Because honestly, I can't see how either of those philosophies would prevent an Auror from the competent commission of his duties. -- Elkins [Mod note -- Elkins has done a great job relating this rather political discussion to the Wizarding World. Please remember that this list is for *canon* discussion (i.e. the books), and reference your posts appropriately, using canon as evidence. If you find yourself doing otherswise, please contact the Mods for advice at hpforgrownups-owner at yahoogroups.com. If this thread starts getting any more flamey than it is, the Mods will have to think about taking action. Thanks, --John, for the HPFGU Moderator Team.] From jbryson at richmond.infi.net Thu Jan 24 02:28:43 2002 From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 02:28:43 -0000 Subject: Wizard Economics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33991 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Alexander wrote: > > The only trouble that still remains is the foodstuff and > > fabrics. They are still most likely made by muggles and sold > > to Wizards for _muggle_ prices. But then they should be > > really expensive! > > > > They are not. It's hard to say, really. Whether Muggle goods are expensive or not depends on the exchange rate between Muggle and Wizard money. That, in turn depends on trade. We see one souce of Muggle money for the wizards -- Hermione's parents, paying her school expenses. Are there other sources of Muggle money? We don't know. In the other direction, we see Wizards paying Muggle money for camp sites at the Quiddich World Cup. So, tuition for Muggle-borns vs. Muggle campsites for Wizards is all we see. We have a BIG trade barrier in that the existance of the Wizard world is a secret from the Muggles. (other than Muggle parents of Hogwarts students. So, for trade, we need at least one Muggle who knows about wizards, probably many more. > > What have we got? That there ARE wizards who are conjuring > > all that wheat, salt and everything? I'm not sure conjured food would work in the Potterverse. Conjured stuff isn't permanant. OTOH, it would be calorie-free. Tex From zoehooch at yahoo.com Thu Jan 24 02:52:27 2002 From: zoehooch at yahoo.com (zoehooch) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 02:52:27 -0000 Subject: Hagrid's Competence And Other Flaws In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33992 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > Cindy wrote: > > Of all the characters we are meant to adore, Hagrid is the only one > who doesn't work for me. It's quite a shame. > > Cindy (not ruling out the possibility that Hagrid can be redeemed) I grant you, Hagrid is deeply flawed. But Dumbledore says that he would trust Hagrid with his life and indeed Harry's as well, as it's Hagrid he sends to fetch Harry from the house in Godric's Hollow. If he's good enough for Dumbledore, then he's plenty good enough for me. Zoe Hooch From pigwidgeon37 at yahoo.it Thu Jan 24 07:55:42 2002 From: pigwidgeon37 at yahoo.it (=?iso-8859-1?q?pigwidgeonthirtyseven?=) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 07:55:42 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Hagris Message-ID: <20020124075542.11323.qmail@web14707.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33993 "And how come those portraits seem to be alive?" "What'ya mean? All paintings move." "No, they don't. We have lots of paintings in our villa, among them a real Chagall, and none of them..." "And d'ya expect that something painted by a jackal will move? Now really..." --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Get personalised at My Yahoo!. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Edblanning at aol.com Thu Jan 24 10:52:35 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 05:52:35 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Sleepy Lupin/ Sneakoscope/ Uncomplicated JKR? Message-ID: <31.216af44c.29814173@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 33994 In a message dated 23/01/02 22:55:49 GMT Standard Time, jdumas at kingwoodcable.com writes: > hapaloca at aol.com wrote: > > >> I'm surprised by the number of people on these lists who are Lupin > "fans", because the Sneakoscope episode made me suspicious of him the first > time I read PoA. After re-reading the chapter, it seems Lupin would the > most logical "sneak". I know there is a question of the Sneakoscope's > reliability, but the timing might be foreshadowing. I just wonder if the > Sneakoscope going off was more of a clue of where Lupin's character is > headed, since I believe JKR was quoted somewhere saying that Lupin will be > in the 5th book.<< > Katze > I think JKR introduced the sneakoscope to cast a doubt on Lupin's > character, but we find out that Scabbers was the actual problem. > Scabbers was in the compartment that HRH and Lupin were in when they > were on their way to Hogwarts. I agree with Katze, but would add that since werewolves are regarded with such suspicion in the wizarding world, the Sneakoscope might well regard Lupin as untrustworthy. In fact, although I adore Lupin and have no doubts about him, I think Lupin himself would in a way regard himself as untrustworthy: he certainly has a problem with his lack of honesty to Dumbledore and his omitting to take the Wolfsbane potion with its dire consequences could also be taken as worthy of mistrust. Depends what you mean by untrustworthy, I suppose. Just another example of the complexity of JKR's characters and the difficulty of defining issues of good and bad in black and white. By the way, I can't resist throwing in this quote from yesterday's Daily Telegraph (UK broadsheet) apropos Philip Pullman winning the Whitbread prize: 'Adult read JK Rowling because she is not complicated; children read Philip Pullman because he is.' I was thinking of reading Pullman. Obviously more than my small brain can cope with. Better leave it to the kids! Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Edblanning at aol.com Thu Jan 24 11:16:11 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 06:16:11 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape-As-Dementor Theory/ Kissing Harry Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33995 In a message dated 22/01/02 01:13:58 GMT Standard Time, cindysphynx at home.com writes: > > Well, how about this? Snape isn't a direct descendant of a dementor > via marriage. Instead, Snape's mother was pregnant with him when she > was attacked by a dementor. She was unable to ward off the dementor, > and the dementor sucked out her soul, leaving her alive and still > gestating our little Severus. She continued to exist and Severus was > born. Because his mother was relieved of her soul while he was in > utero, Severus is part-dementor and has many of the characteristics > of a dementor, but not to the same degree as a real dementor (cold, > gliding, draining happiness from the air around them, infesting the > darkest places). > > So for instance (and this isn't in canon, so bear with me), perhaps > Snape has greasy hair because he cannot tolerate water. (Note that > there is a stone gargoyle fountain in Snape's classroom, but we never > see him touch water.) He can tolerate enough water to wipe his skin > clean, but taking a shower to wash his hair would finish him. > I love your theory, Cindy, but I don't get this dementors and water thing. I mean, why would you need that terribly difficult to perform Patronus spell, when all you'd need is to conjure a bucket of water or a nice rain cloud (and in fact IIRC they invaded the Quidditch pitch in the rain) - or perhaps their cloaks are impermeable. Now what about this one. Snape's mother, no, grandmother, was the Wicked Witch of the West : ) ....that would explain his apparent hydrophobia! >This backstory, in turn, explains why Snape did not hand Black to the >dementors in PoA when Snape had the chance. Deep down, Snape could >not be directly responsible for allowing dementors to do what they >did to his mother and suck out Black's soul, despite how deeply he >hates Black. I thought this was exactly what he intended to do: 'Up to the castle?' said Snape silkily. 'I don't think we need to go that far. All I have to do is call the Dementors once we get out of the Willow. They'll be very pleased to see you, Black...pleased enough to give you a little kiss, I daresay...' (goes on to threaten Lupin with similar fate) He was prevented from calling them by being unconscious. Which leads me to another puzzle: How did Fudge know that the Dementor had tried to kiss Harry? If Snape, as he claims, didn't come round until the Dementors were going back to their positions, the only other possible witness was Sirius, who also appears, although it is not specifically stated, to be unconscious at the time (lying motionless on the ground, pale as death). Even if he was conscious, did Fudge bother to question him? My impression is that Fudge got his account of events from Snape, Dumbledore is the one who bothers to get Sirius' account. Just wondering Eloise, who until proved wrong, prefers to go on believing that Snape is All Wizard! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From christi0469 at hotmail.com Thu Jan 24 12:30:58 2002 From: christi0469 at hotmail.com (christi0469) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 12:30:58 -0000 Subject: Wizard Economics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33996 > > It's hard to say, really. Whether Muggle goods are expensive or not > depends on the exchange rate between Muggle and Wizard money. > That, in turn depends on trade. We see one souce of Muggle money > for the wizards -- Hermione's parents, paying her school expenses. > Are there other sources of Muggle money? We don't know. In the > other direction, we see Wizards paying Muggle money for camp > sites at the Quiddich World Cup. So, tuition for Muggle-borns vs. > Muggle campsites for Wizards is all we see. > > Tex Hagrid has Mugggle money when he goes to pick Harry up in PS/SS to pay for the train and the underground. Mrs. Weasley would have to have Muggle money to pay for the taxis in Gof, and would probably need them for the stamps in GoF as well. Ron would have needed change for the pay phone in PoA, and Mr. Weasley had at one time bought a Ford Anglia, presumably with Muggle money. It seems that wizards do need Muggle money occasionally. Christi From lav at tut.by Thu Jan 24 09:51:56 2002 From: lav at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 11:51:56 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Fidelius & Dumbledore - Hagrid's Competence Message-ID: <423204699.20020124115156@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 33997 Greetings! > Cindy wrote to us about Fidelius, Sirius and Dumbledore: c> I think that Dumbledore doesn't have enough facts to know c> that Sirius (supposedly) betrayed the Potters yet. There c> are a few key facts Dumbledore doesn't know yet: What? Not enough facts? He knows enough to instruct Hagrid to go to Godric's Hollow and take Harry from ruins (hence Dumbledore knew about Potters dead, Harry alive and Voldemort disappeared). c> 1. Dumbledore doesn't know that the Fidelius Charm was c> ever cast. The Potters could have changed their minds, or c> were attacked before they cast the spell. Nope. Attack happened 1 _week_ after the spell was cast. Surely timing of casting was arranged and discussed (such things are better made ASAP). He definitely knew that Fidelius was cast and he knew Sirius was chosen to be the Secret Keeper (the persona of Secret Keeper was a subject of debate between Dumbledore and Potters). c> 2. Dumbledore doesn't know that the Charm was cast c> correctly. Also, as we recently discussed, there could be c> additional means to break the spell that we don't know c> about (Imperius Curse on the SecretKeeper). Do you mean that in 7 days after the spell has been cast _nobody_ did bother to check if it works? IMHO it's a _very_ optimistic approach... If Imperius was cast on Sirius Black then he is enemy nonetheless (though an unintentional one). In fact, either he is a traitor or he is under Imperius. In both cases, his appearance at Godric's Hollow is not a thing to be ignored. c> I don't think Dumbledore believed Sirius to be innocent c> at that early stage when Hagrid showed up, either. I c> think he came to that conclusion later once he had all c> the facts. He had all the facts then. No new facts were found after the attack. Even more. Sirius is either a traitor or under Imperius. Still, when Hagrid tells he will go and return the motorcycle to Sirius, Dumbledore (again) does not react at all! Of course, Sirius is already captured by MoM at that time, but Dumbledore still has no idea of that. Nah, if you want to explain Dumbledore's behavior by canon, you'll have to work real _hard_ here... :) And still one more question: where is the motorcycle? It was not returned to Sirius, so it's presumably in Hagrid's posession... Will it spring up later in the books? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Debbie wrote to us about Hagrid's Competence: e> I disagree that Hagrid did everything right in his first e> lesson. Yes, he did give instructions on handling e> hippogriffs, but he didn't make sure everyone was paying e> attention. Then, rather than letting each person in the e> class take a turn that he could supervise, he let e> everyone try at once. Let's look at it from the point of view of... well... Dumbledore. Indeed, what results did the lesson have? Draco has learnt that he should listen to the teacher even if he doesn't respect his personality. That is, teacher's knowledge is more important than his social status. Hagrid has learnt a lot about his own flaws. He never again repeats his mistake during both PoA and GoF. In fact, he has maturated and learnt something about responsibility for others. Definitely an excellent result for a single lesson. I know teachers who couldn't achieve the same during _years_ of education... Of course, from this PoV it's not Hagrid who is a teacher but Dumbledore. There had been a lot of debate some time ago about what Dumbledore do except eat pastries and talk speeches. Here's a perfect example of his mentoring. Indeed he learns not mundane knowledge, but skill of making correct decisions - IMHO a much more important skill in real life. > Tabouli wrote to us: t> Does anyone else, like me, suspect that Character t> Building is, far more than education, Dumbledore's t> highest priority? Presumably this fits in with his "it is t> our choices that make us what we are" and his "making the t> right choice, not the easy choice" philosophy. Knowledge t> can help people identify the best choices, but it's more t> important to have the strength of character to choose t> them? That's it. Not only suspected, but was sure it's true since 3rd book. I'm a bad English acronym inventor, so I leave it up to you to create one - I join in advance! :) Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, (Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed), still happy to throw weird ideas into the community. - In an ethically ambiguous situation decision must be made according to logical analysis. - In a logically contradictive situation most ethical decision is the most correct one. Sergey Pereslegin, "Ethics and the Strategion of Undirect Operation" From liana_l_s at yahoo.com Thu Jan 24 13:28:21 2002 From: liana_l_s at yahoo.com (liana_l_s) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 13:28:21 -0000 Subject: Pullman and Rowling (was Re: Sleepy Lupin/ Sneakoscope/ Uncomplicated JKR?) In-Reply-To: <31.216af44c.29814173@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 33998 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote: > In a message dated 23/01/02 22:55:49 GMT Standard Time, > jdumas at k... writes: > By the way, I can't resist throwing in this quote from yesterday's Daily > Telegraph (UK broadsheet) apropos Philip Pullman winning the Whitbread prize: > > 'Adult read JK Rowling because she is not complicated; children read Philip > Pullman because he is.' >From http://www.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/books/01/23/britain.whitbread.ap/index .html: "Pullman said he was grateful to Rowling for deflecting some of the criticism that might otherwise have been leveled against his books for their darker themes. "'I've been flying under the flak that she's created. People don't burn my books like they're burning poor old Harry,' Pullman said, referring to some parental disapproval of Rowling's use of witchcraft." I thought that was interesting - having read the His Dark Materials trilogy, if there wasn't any Harry Potter to make a big fuss about those books probably -would- be burned! Wonderful books. From didds at usa.net Thu Jan 24 13:31:17 2002 From: didds at usa.net (Ian Diddams) Date: 24 Jan 2002 13:31:17 GMT Subject: SHIP Re: [[HPforGrownups] Re: Ron, Harry....or Draco? Who do you think Hermione will fall for?] Message-ID: <20020124133117.6235.qmail@cpdvg100.netaddress.usa.net> No: HPFGUIDX 33999 "jchutney" wrote: > As for > Draco - no way! I could see him falling for Hermione (she's > brilliant and lovely and heroic) She's also a "MudBlood" ... and come to that of "no blood" whatsoever. Totally outside DM's canononical character. Malfoy would require a road to damascus style conversion tp contemplate Hermione surely? [Mod Note: Inappropriate advertisement removed. JW] From didds at usa.net Thu Jan 24 13:11:20 2002 From: didds at usa.net (Ian Diddams) Date: 24 Jan 2002 13:11:20 GMT Subject: [[HPforGrownups] Re: Hagrid's Competence And Other Flaws] Message-ID: <20020124131120.4327.qmail@cpdvg100.netaddress.usa.net> No: HPFGUIDX 34000 "cindysphynx" wrote: I'm really enjoying this nquisition into hagrid's character! I'd place myself in the pro-Hagrid camp, but am intrigued and interested in the anti-Hagrid arguments, and FWIW see entirely all the points made. The only thing I'd add is that JKR has shown to be very clever in her use of character portrayal and plot devices... the general derogatory tone (from some) about "mudblood" and "muggle born" and especially in CoS the pure-blood only concepts introduces/"discusses" the evils/dangers/concerns about ethnic cleansing and bigotry in general, without using the "real world bigotries" in front of children. i.e. it gets children/peoiple thinking about bigotry outisde the terms of reference in which they may already be tarnished. Hagrid - as somebody pointed out - is used as a vehicle to illustrate that sometimes our friends show these traits... how do we feel about that? How do we justify our friends weaknesses against our enemies' strengths? (Good use of Snape here...). FWIW AFAICS Hagrid has now outlived his purpose in the story-line... he could be a perfect candidate for the chop. As for the spiders thing, aside from an opportunity for Harry to learn the truth about Hagrid ref: CoS, this episode seems almost irrlevant... rather like the deathday party and the mirror of erised. That is, they _appear_ to be quite weak chapters/episodes on the face of it... they do serve a purpose (we learn the cos truth ref hagrid, H&R get to be in the wrong place to see the cat, we learn about Harry's desires) but other plot devices could have been used to acheive the same things. Especially Aragog and the Mirror (which really was fairly irrelevant). Unless of course more is to come from these episodes in future books.... [Mod note: Inappropriate advertisement in signature removed. JW] From cindysphynx at home.com Thu Jan 24 14:31:35 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 14:31:35 -0000 Subject: Snape-As-Dementor Theory/ Kissing Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34001 Eloise wrote: > I love your theory, Cindy, but I don't get this dementors and water thing. I > mean, why would you need that terribly difficult to perform Patronus spell, > when all you'd need is to conjure a bucket of water or a nice rain cloud > (and in fact IIRC they invaded the Quidditch pitch in the rain) - or perhaps > their cloaks are impermeable. > Oh, but conjuring water (real water, not magical water) is just way, way too difficult. It's even harder than conjuring a Patronus. Besides, as we all know, dementors always carry umbrellas. ;-) Eloise wrote (about Snape not giving Black to the dementors): > I thought this was exactly what he intended to do: OK, back to a serious discussion of canon. During one of my anti-Snape rants, someone (pigwidgeon?) kindly informed me that Snape had every opportunity to turn Black over to the dementors in PoA. Snape wakes up, finds Black, conjures a stretcher and takes Black . . . to the castle, not to the dementors. Snape could have taken Black to the dementors (or called the dementors). This, according to the pro-Snape crowd, means Snape is not pure evil incarnate. I try to shrug off that argument by saying that Snape didn't call the dementors because he knows dementors feed off of emotion, and they won't attack an unconscious person who isn't giving off emotions. Aside from the fact that I have to veer wildly away from canon to say that, nothing prevents Snape from reviving Black (or just waiting until Black woke up). Then I bob and weave and say things like Snape took Black back to the castle because he didn't have the magical strength to balance four stretchers while he hiked all over the grounds looking for dementors. This has the advantage of making Snape look magically impotent, but again, it enjoys no support in canon. So I am left with the idea that Snape showed mercy on Black because Dumbledore would have wanted him to. ::hangs head in defeat:: Eloise again: > Which leads me to another puzzle: > > How did Fudge know that the Dementor had tried to kiss Harry? Fudge clearly can communicate with the dementors. So Fudge had a conversation with the Chief Dementor, who ratted out the junior dementor who tried to kiss Fudge. The junior dementor has probably been busted down in rank and is a crossing guard or something. > Eloise, who until proved wrong, prefers to go on believing that Snape is All > Wizard! > Cindy (who thinks Snape probably is All Wizard, but is working on a theory that Snape is part Lethifold) From broken at pixicore.org Thu Jan 24 16:32:47 2002 From: broken at pixicore.org (broken at pixicore.org) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 13:32:47 -0300 Subject: You must all read this. Message-ID: <001001c1a4f4$c26292a0$a30eddc8@grupotv1.com.br> No: HPFGUIDX 34002 http://www.bettybowers.com/harrypotter.html *laughs* It's hilarious! Unless it's already been posted. In which case, I apologize :P Daniel http://www.pixicore.org/broken/ From blpurdom at yahoo.com Thu Jan 24 15:51:09 2002 From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 15:51:09 -0000 Subject: Sleepy Lupin/ Sneakoscope/ Uncomplicated JKR? In-Reply-To: <31.216af44c.29814173@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34003 hapaloca at a... wrote: I'm surprised by the number of people on these lists who are Lupin "fans", because the Sneakoscope episode made me suspicious of him the first time I read PoA. After re-reading the chapter, it seems Lupin would the most logical "sneak". I know there is a question of the Sneakoscope's reliability, but the timing might be foreshadowing. I just wonder if the Sneakoscope going off was more of a clue of where Lupin's character is headed, since I believe JKR was quoted somewhere saying that Lupin will be in the 5th book.<< jdumas at k... writes: I think JKR introduced the sneakoscope to cast a doubt on Lupin's character, but we find out that Scabbers was the actual problem. Scabbers was in the compartment that HRH and Lupin were in when they were on their way to Hogwarts. jdumas writes: I agree with Katze, but would add that since werewolves are regarded with such suspicion in the wizarding world, the Sneakoscope might well regard Lupin as untrustworthy. In fact, although I adore Lupin and have no doubts about him, I think Lupin himself would in a way regard himself as untrustworthy: he certainly has a problem with his lack of honesty to Dumbledore and his omitting to take the Wolfsbane potion with its dire consequences could also be taken as worthy of mistrust. Depends what you mean by untrustworthy, I suppose. Just another example of the complexity of JKR's characters and the difficulty of defining issues of good and bad in black and white. --------------------------------------------------------------------- I agree that the Sneakoscope reacting in the train compartment was misdirection, intended to make us suspect Lupin rather than Scabbers (actually, there wasn't anything to really make us suspect Scabbers-- when all is said and done, that really came out of the blue). I would like to add two points: 1) Sneakoscope observations Every time we see a Sneakoscope it seems to be reacting to someone, and yet most people seem to disregard it. Why? Why even have this if it is considered to be ineffective? I can't think of a single instance of our seeing a Sneakoscope when it isn't reacting perfectly correctly (although knowing that is usually hindsight). Of course, now that we're onto JKR as far as this goes, she can't use Sneakoscopes for red herrings any more (except it's not always obvious what the device is reacting to--again, who saw the Scabbers thing coming?). 2) Upcoming wolf problems I'm glad that Lupin is coming back, not because I'm a Lupin fan (I'm fairly neutral on Lupin) but because his character does, as noted above, give JKR opportunities to further illustrate the lack of black and white clarity in the world. A werewolf is by definition an evil creature which must be killed, yet, the other twenty-five days and nights of the lunar month, Remus Lupin is a perfectly nice, harmless wizard (unless you happen to be Peter Pettigrew). There seems to be potential for a number of bad things to happen in book five because of Lupin's presence. Four possible scenarios: a) Lupin bites someone and they become a werewolf (unlikely to be early in the book as it would necessitate Dumbledore packing him off again--if he's been appointed as a DADA teacher, that is, instead of simply being "around"); b) Lupin is being relied upon to do something important to the cause, but everyone--including Lupin himself--has forgotten to pay attention to the full moon, and he is "indisposed" when he is supposed to be performing the crucial act; c) Someone is killed in a way that seems to cry out "werewolf" and Lupin is automatically blamed because he was in the vicinity and no one believes a werewolf when he tries to offer an alibi (such as relaxing under his bed after taking Wolfsbane Potion); d) Someone attempts to poison or otherwise alter some Wolfsbane Potion Snape prepares for Lupin, both harming Lupin and again throwing doubts on Snape's loyalty to Dumbledore (since he still has his old grudge against the werewolf). JKR will, of course, do something totally different from these scenarios... Eloise wrote: By the way, I can't resist throwing in this quote from yesterday's Daily Telegraph (UK broadsheet) apropos Philip Pullman winning the Whitbread prize: 'Adult read JK Rowling because she is not complicated; children read Philip Pullman because he is.' I was thinking of reading Pullman. Obviously more than my small brain can cope with. Better leave it to the kids! --------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't know about that. I don't really think Pullman's "His Dark Materials" trilogy IS for kids (at least, not kids under 12 or 13). I also didn't know he was up for the Whitbread. I only knew about the Booker. (Has that been awarded yet?) Again, I don't know any children who are up to reading Pullman's trilogy. And, as noted in the comments above, Rowling is no slouch at putting complicated concepts into her work that challenge simplistic views of the world. I thought Pullman's trilogy was thought-provoking and the third book (The Amber Spyglass) particularly well done, but it was difficult to get into the first book, which rather plodded (it was rather bogged down with explanations of the world in which it took place, IMO) whereas JKR's explanations of the wizarding world are usually concise and descriptive at the same time and don't slow things down. In addition, her humor makes HP more enjoyable to read than His Dark Materials, which is utterly devoid of humor. I read a few interviews with Pullman and was surprised that he seems to have a puckish sense of humor about the reactions to his work (especially reactions from people of faith). His humor does not come forth in his work. I felt it was a bit of a chore to read the beginning of his trilogy and I kept on because I'd heard such good things about the third book (all true). I've never felt reading HP to be a chore; nothing but delight. --Barb Chapter 14 of the Last Temptation is up...Are you tempted? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HP_Psych http://schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb From btk6y at virginia.edu Thu Jan 24 16:16:04 2002 From: btk6y at virginia.edu (btk6y) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 16:16:04 -0000 Subject: Moody -- "Types"--Where Are the Bleeding Hearts? (loooong) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34004 First, let me thank you for your articulate, calm and well- reasoned post. I knew the post that I was sending was inflammatory and contained a lot of "you" stereotypes, and I knew that I probably should not have sent it (I am really not the hothead that I come across as in the post). I was under a bit of a time crunch, though, and thought that if nothing else it would start a dialogue... but I thank you for the reasoned and tempered response. So let's start off point-for-point (and I'll do my best to keep this relevant to Potterverse)... 1) I knew that I was making assumptions and stereotypes about your political beliefs while I was writing the post and really regretted doing so because that was what had annoyed me about your post (lumping law-enforcement, etc under the "Law-and-Order Fascist"... I do very much appreciate that you recognized the stereotype.). Only a lack of time prevented me from a more tempered response and I debated sending the post at all... but no more excuses and back to Potter... 2) I agree that there are no "bleeding-heart liberal" stereotypes in Potterlore and there is a reason for it. The time when Voldemort was in power was essentially a time of war, and it is a lot more difficult to justify that sort of stereotypical attitude in such dire times. JKR does an excellent job in acknowledging the dangers of ruthless law enforcement, but in a reasoned manner. Example- Crouch is clearly set as a "bad" example of power-hungry law enforcement, while Moody is set up as a "good" example. The KEY difference between the two is that Crouch's goals are not so much eradication of the Dark Side, but pursuit of personal power, while Moody is concerned solely with the eradication of the Dark Side and protecting the general populace. Now, in the real world, identifying the difference between these two types of people is problematic and one may not be able to discern what, exactly, is in a person's heart. But in the world of Potter, we are able to discern what is in a character's heart by JKR's writing and clues, and Crouch's pursuit of power and Moody's pursuit of safety is clear, I believe. By creating these two characters, she does a fantastic job of addressing a touchy issue. On one hand, with Crouch, she acknowledges the danger of a militarized state in the name of peace. However, with Moody she acknowledges that to fight evil, sometimes you have to get a little dirty yourself. Moody's tactics may be questionable, but his motives are clear and just, and they are SUCCESSFUL. This is not a case of the ends justifying the means, only one of practicality. You sometimes CANNOT bring hardened criminals to justice doing everything "by the book". More on Moody later... but because the world of Voldemort is basically a war-time era, JKR is not really able to introduce a believable "bleeding-heart" liberal stereotype because that viewpoint simply does not wash in a time of war. She succeeds in bringing attention to those issues in a more reasoned way, by juxtaposing Crouch and Moody. 3) You previously wrote: > I do not think it unreasonable to subject people who have been > granted special license to interrogate (even under torture, if > they so choose)and to kill to a higher-than-ordinary degree of > scrutiny. No argument here. >Nor have I ever expressed > any doubts that Moody really *did* try to avoid killing whenever > he could, even though the only evidence we have for this is > Sirius' claim. I don't think that I've at all withheld the > benefit of the doubt from the Aurors. > Nor can I think of anywhere where I have granted extraordinary > benefit of the doubt to the Death Eaters. I've never tried to > argue, for example, that Lucius Malfoy really *was* under the > Imperiatus Curse (of course he wasn't!), or that maybe the > Lestranges were framed, or that perhaps Voldemort is just this > nice guy who had a bad childhood and has simply been terribly > misunderstood. I've not made _any_ of those arguments, nor > would I want to. So where do you see me granting more benefit > of the doubt to the law-breakers than to the law-enforcers? See, this is the problem that I was trying to address in my last post, but it is a nebulous area. In the above quotation, you acknowledge Moody did not try to kill, Frank Longbottom was reasonable, Lucius Malfoy was not actually under the Imperius Curse, etc. I believe that any reasonable person would of course acknowledge the above because it is all as clear as day based on JKR's writing. You are a reasonable person, obviously, and I don't disagree with the *content* of your post. What I do disagree with is the tone of the post. You previously wrote: >I don't like Moody. >I really don't care for him at all. He strikes me as the >sort of person who would happily strip away all of my civil >liberties, given half the chance, and I consider such men a >serious threat to civilized society. This is the part that really set the tone for the entire post. I don't want to come across as attacking you, so let's just say that a writer for the Daily Prophet wrote the above quotation. Crouch is definitely the type of person who would rejoice in stripping away civil liberties and is a threat to civilized society, as JKR means him to be. However, Moody has spent his life fighting the bad guys for all the right reasons. He has lost his leg, his eye, and a large chunk of his nose. He never asks for thanks, or power, or riches. And what does he have to show for it? A writer for the Daily Prophet, who has never actually fought anyone from the Dark Side, believes Moody to be a threat to civilized society. Is that fair? In a perfect world Moody would be able to catch all the Death Eaters in totally legitimate way, but frankly speaking this is not a perfect world and to expect him to do that is completely out of touch with the reality of evil. This, then, goes back to my previous point about looking at motives, rather than actions, which is easier to do in Potter's world than in the real world. When I said that criminals are granted more benefit of the doubt than law-enforcement, what I meant was that criminals are always, always presumed innocent until proven guilty (which they obviously should be). However, there is no mechanism to acknowledge the fact that law-enforcement have their hands tied behind there back 99% of the time while criminals/Death Eaters do not, and if a well-meaning Auror uses questionable means to procure a Death Eater, then he is the bad guy. 4) You wrote: > Which of my philosophies do you mean, precisely? The political > philosophy, which holds that Aurors who descend to the level of > Death Eaters are Seriously Bad News? Of course not. >Or the personal philosophy, > which states: "I neither like nor trust the sort of men who > torture students, refer to their enemies as 'scum' and 'filth,' > show no signs of remorse over killing, approve of the use of > dementors as prison guards, and advocate breaking faith with > captives?" Yes, this I disagree with wholeheartedly. Believe it or not, Karkaroff is "scum" and "filth". We know that he helped Death Eaters torture those who would not submit to Voldemort. "Scum" and "filth" are probably hyperbole, but the fact remains that Karkaroff is a bad dude. Speaking of hyperbole, characterizing Moody/Crouch's treatment of Malfoy as torture is quite a stretch. The fact of the matter is that Malfoy attacked Harry, with the intent to injure, when Harry's back was turned, thus able to inflict the most disabling injury. Moody/Crouch's treatment did not injure Malfoy, just embarrassed him. Again, in a perfect world of logic and reason, should Moody/Crouch have turned Draco into a ferret and bounced him? Of course not. But what do you think kept Draco from attacking Harry again, a talk with Head of House or fear of Moody? Look, this is obviously a slippery slope here and we can't condone what Moody did. Even though we can argue Malfoy deserved it in this specific case, we can't allow teachers to do that to students across the board. But I don't think we have to classify Moody as someone that "tortures" students and forget all of the good he has done for the magical world. About breaking faith with prisoners, Moody was wrong about that- but not because that would mean Karkaroff was mistreated. Karkaroff deserved imprisonment for his crimes, but one cannot run a law enforcement organization if criminals cannot trust the police to hold up their end in a plea bargain, so he was wrong in a practical sense, but not in a moral sense. I could talk about the dementors also, but this post is already way too long. So that's my viewpoint in a pretty large nutshell. Although my previous post was not well-worded in many ways, I do still believe that this is a fundamental difference in philosophy about where you want to live on that continuum (rights vs. safety). My basic disagreement was that 1) you disliked Moody even though he gave his life to protecting the populace with no other designs for power, riches, etc... and also 2) you seem to expect everything- for the Death Eaters to all be caught and peace restored but for it to be done exactly right. Everyone wants that, of course, but sometimes that is just not reality and you have to choose. I place my faith in Moody to trust his heart and do what is right to keep the Potter-world safe. Bobby ps- I am actually not in law enforcment. From maryblue67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 24 16:18:22 2002 From: maryblue67 at yahoo.com (Maria) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 08:18:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: What Is Immortal? In-Reply-To: <1011826371.2573.84971.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20020124161822.40786.qmail@web11102.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 34005 Whirdy asked: In the PS, the Philsopher's Stone is described as a legendary substance with astonishing powers, including producing "the Elixir of Life, which will make the drinker immortal." How much do you have to drink and for how long? Now NF is 665 and PF is 658 and "they have enough Elixir stored to set their affairs in order and, yes, they will die," reports AD. For what i understand, the elixir of life doesn't give immortality just after one drink. What it does is to heal eveything, plus i think it also stops aging. Let's say you're wounded, you drink it, and you're fine. However, next time you're sick or hurt you have to drink it again. And for the aging, i don't know how often one would have to drink, but eventually you would. Just guessing Maria ===== Maryblue ---------------------------------------------------------- "Gravitation cannot be held responsible for people falling in love" - Eistein __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Thu Jan 24 16:24:00 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 16:24:00 -0000 Subject: Moody -- "Types"--Where Are the Bleeding Hearts? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34006 A very nice post, if I may say so! I wonder if I was a little at fault for this discussion by saying that Frank Longbottom somehow reminded me of Donald Rumsfeld. That seems to have been taken in two separate ways. :-) --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" wrote: > So, okay. Tit-for-tat, and turnabout is fair play, and all of > that. I would like to point out, however, that while Moody is > a fictional construct, whose tendencies and political inclinations > are within the fair scope of discussion here, you and I are real > people whose respective philosophies, while they cannot help but > inform our views, really aren't. Yes. That's why I TRY to pass over references to politics that creep into people's posts. I think one person a few days ago wrote something about current affairs that really bothered me, but, if you passed over that linkage, the points they made about the wizarding world were quite interesting. > But there's an interesting issue here that might bear some > examining. On another thread, one about Hagrid, Mahoney > made a few comments about her feelings for characters based > not so much on whether they're Good or Bad people, but rather > on whether they're "Types" that she happens to like in real life. I found that discussion illuminating as well, since I realized that I preferred "Snape" teachers to "Hagrid" teachers all through school, probably contributing to my feelings towards the two in fiction. On the other hand, the "would I want him/her as a next door neighbour?" style of literary analysis (as my Grade 10 English teacher called it) only goes so far. Prince Hal in Shakespeare's Henry IV, Parts I and II, and Henry V, comes across extremely likeably and Shakespeare almost forces you to endorse him, and yet, you would NOT want him as your next door neighbour or friend. So, on the principle that fiction must be separated from life, I've worked to suspend my original dislike of Hagrid. > Am I off-base here? (Suddenly, I feel that I can finally > understand why those SHIPping types can get so heated in *their* > debates. I never really understood that before!) Quite. I sometimes feel personally attacked when somewhere goes after a character in which I see a lot of myself. Characters to whom I've built a strong personal connection. Ron being castigated for his jealousy of those with fame and money really cuts to the quick with me. I was brought up in a large family with no money for clothes that weren't second-hand, and I was often jealous of classmates who had it so much "better". Like Ron, I went (by scholarship) to a high-class private school, and saw a lot of people who had it as well-off as Harry and Draco. So, even when people were very nice, I always felt like Ron must, looking at Harry's new stuff etc. (And, like Fred, George, and other Weasleys, most of my siblings were not concerned about such silly things.) Therefore, I feel like going into a rage when people say things like, "Ron's jealousy proves he's likely to betray Harry." I know it's not rational, but I feel it deep down, as if I was being accused of my schoodays jealousy leading to treason. > But getting back to the Potterverse, where *are* the bleeding > heart liberals in canon? Have we actually seen any at all? A good question. I agree with your summary that there are no such stereotypes among the characters, though I think Vernon Dursley complains about what we're calling "bleeding heart liberal" types, who'll never learn that the best way to deal with such people is capital punishment. I suppose that could be intrepreted as the book's support for the opposite position. I actually remember being quite shocked that the book would get so political there. I am opposed to capital punishment, and have been ever since, as a child, I was read Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" and was quite taken with Gandalf's speech to Frodo about "pity." (In Chapter 3: "The Shadow of the Past" in the book, and at the resting place in Moria in the movie.) So, I am not opposed to an author taking a position on an issue like that in a book. However, it was the practice of putting such a statement in the mouth of the ridiculed and stereotyped character that made me uncomfortable with it. I could have taken stubborn Percy or obsessed Crouch Sr. saying something like that (and indeed, they say much more serious things), but Vernon Dursley? All my sense of fairness cries out! It's probably the same thing I feel when I see supposedly "hilarious" articles like this posted to the list: http://www.bettybowers.com/harrypotter.html "If it were not for battalions of Baptists relentlessly brow-beating their children with Bible Study, Bible School, Vacation Bible School and Bible Camp, America's children would never have been inured to the implausible enough to swallow J. K. Rowling's far-fetched bunk in the first place." I'm not a Baptist, but my feeling about this sort of humour is the same as Vernon Dursley being the person selected to make the "argument" against capital punishment. Any thoughts on this? Eileen From broken at pixicore.org Thu Jan 24 17:44:25 2002 From: broken at pixicore.org (broken at pixicore.org) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 14:44:25 -0300 Subject: And another link... Message-ID: <003701c1a4fe$c49322b0$a30eddc8@grupotv1.com.br> No: HPFGUIDX 34007 http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20020124/us/police_boycott_potter_2.html *sigh* What's that? Separation of church and state? Nonsense! From blpurdom at yahoo.com Thu Jan 24 17:03:54 2002 From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 17:03:54 -0000 Subject: Hermione as bleeding Heart/Justice/Moody was really Crouch, Jr. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34008 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "btk6y" wrote: [snipped analysis of Crouch/Moody] > 2) I agree that there are no "bleeding-heart liberal" stereotypes > in Potterlore and there is a reason for it. The time when > Voldemort was in power was essentially a time of war, and it is a > lot more difficult to justify that sort of stereotypical attitude > in such dire times. I disagree that there are no "bleeding-heart liberal" stereotypes in the books. Hermione is very much playing this role when she conceives S.P.E.W. She is also, IMO shown to be very much out of step with wizarding society, however. Even the "Muggle-loving" Weasleys seem to be somewhat on the conservative side about many things. One wonders whether very many of the Muggle-born witches and wizards reflect Muggle attitudes of this sort, and whether this is another source of friction between "pureblood" magical folk and these relative "newcomers." Also, while it is easier to "sell" conservative attitudes during times of war, the wizarding world has been free of Voldemort for going on fourteen years. What excuse is there for continued entrenchment and conservatism? (Other than force of habit?) > You sometimes CANNOT bring hardened criminals to justice doing > everything "by the book". More on Moody later... but because the > world of Voldemort is basically a war-time era, JKR is not really > able to introduce a believable "bleeding-heart" liberal stereotype > because that viewpoint simply does not wash in a time of war. She > succeeds in bringing attention to those issues in a more reasoned > way, by juxtaposing Crouch and Moody. Indeed, we have yet to see a really extensive depiction of wizarding justice. We saw what we thought was a miscarriage of justice when Crouch sent his son to Azkaban (turned out to be perfectly right) and what seemed to be justice when Bagman was released (there are hints from Winky that he is far more sinister than he appeared, and the twins' opinions notwithstanding, possibly brighter than he seemed as well). We also see an episode that is common in the Muggle world: someone making a deal to get released, with no intimation that they were not completely in the wrong (Karkaroff naming names). The only other "justice" we know of is Sirius' being imprisoned without a trial--but it seemed that his deep-seated feelings of guilt for switching the Secret Keeper were as much to blame for this, as we never hear of him demanding a trial. He seems to have gone off willingly (he's said to be laughing madly). (original poster): > >I don't like Moody. > >I really don't care for him at all. He strikes me as the > >sort of person who would happily strip away all of my civil > >liberties, given half the chance, and I consider such men a > >serious threat to civilized society. I'm unclear as to how you came to this conclusion. Are you sure you're not basing this on the ersatz Moody, who was really Barty Jr.? > Even though we can argue Malfoy deserved it in this specific case, > we can't allow teachers to do that to students across the board. > But I don't think we have to classify Moody as someone > that "tortures" students and forget all of the good he has done > for the magical world. Again, it wasn't Moody who did this, it was Barty Crouch, Jr. Basing any analysis of Moody's character on GoF is specious in that we have no idea whether most people who knew Moody felt he was acting in character or whether they reckoned he was starting to get senile and erratic. --Barb From jchutney at yahoo.com Thu Jan 24 17:11:37 2002 From: jchutney at yahoo.com (jchutney) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 17:11:37 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Reminder re: SHIPping post requirements (was Ron, Harry....or Draco? Who do you think Hermione will In-Reply-To: <3C4EF78E.6040509@swbell.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34009 Penny & Bryce wrote: >>My response: I believe Hermione has *her* heart set on Harry, not .Ron (and certainly not Draco at this point).A summation of my evidence that I've argued ad nauseum many times before (chronologically, not prioritized): the hug she gives Harry at the end of the Potions Challenge in SS, the expensive broomstick servicing kit she buys him for his birthday in POA, her constant fretting & fussing over him, the time she spends with Harry during the Harry/Ron falling-out during GOF, her response to Harry's performance in the 1st Task ("Ooh, Harry, you were *amazing*, you really were!"), her reaction to Harry after the 2nd Task (too busy worrying about him to pay any attention to Krum), the fact that she talks about Harry so much & in such a way to elicit a jealous reaction from Krum, and the Kiss at the end of GoF. Er ... there's probably more, but those are the high points in short.>> Hi Penny! I always find the argument that Hermione has her heart set on Harry instead of Ron fascinating because I see it so differently. Your examples of hug post Potions, fretting & fussing, responses to Harry's performance after 2nd Task, even the kiss all seem to stem from deep friendship with no hint that it is romantic as opposed to platonic. I strongly disagree with your view that she was trying to elicit a jealous reaction from Krum. If being a Harry cheerleader means anything, one could argue that Ron also has romantic feelings for Harry. When he's not overcome by jealousy ;), Ron is just as passionate a champion of Harry's. Also, Harry & Hermione both have money - why wouldn't they give each other expensive gifts? Harry is very casual about getting the Ominculars for H&R. (Ron is obviously very touchy about money and would object to an expensive gift). I definitely think Hermione RESPECTS Harry more than she respects Ron. However, there is no real evidence that her feelings for him are romantic. Other reasons I don't think JKR has set up H/H (although of course, she may have a well planned change of course in BkV) are the things that are NOT there but (IMO) should be if H was set on H: Ron is NOT jealous of H/H. The alleged H/H relationship mentioned in Rita's article does not seem to affect him. Ron is jealous of everything about Harry EXCEPT for his relationship with Hermione. If something were there, wouldn't Ron notice it? Ron even suggests that Hermione take EITHER him or Harry to the Yule Ball. Ron is later angered by the Skeeter's portrayal of Hermione as a "scarlet" woman, toying with Harry & Viktor. There seems, once again, to be no evidence R is jealous of H/H. Post Yule Ball, Hermione yells at Ron that next time there's a ball he should ask her out before someone else does. If her heart were set on Harry, WHY would Hermione invite Ron to ask her out? That's just asking for trouble and incompatible with the Hermione we know. In addition, she seems quite jealous of Fleur in specific. Cho is grouped in with her tirade against pretty people. If Hermione's heart is set on Harry instead of Ron, why is she unable to clearly see Ron's tirades against Krum for what they are? If she were dispassionate, IMO, she would be able to recognize Ron's feelings and she would find a gentle way to let him down. Imagine if Neville or Dean reacted the same way Ron did? Wouldn't the jealousy be obvious to Hermione? IMO, the reason she cannot see the jealously clearly is because her feelings for Ron (and she probably does NOT want to have these feelings) cloud her judgment. She's clearly hurt that it takes Ron so long to see her as a "girl"; she's hurt when he alleges Viktor is only using her to get to Harry, etc. Finally, the most important person in the world to Harry is Ron. The Weasleys are his favorite family. Harry doesn't have romantic feelings for Hermione. Would he really choose Hermione over Ron? Perhaps JKR is setting up a Ron loves Hermione loves Harry loves Ron story (very Arthurian Legends!). Yet I can't see (at this point) Hermione trying to come between best friends any more than I can see Harry going after the girl Ron wants. It's just too soapy, and IMO, unworthy of JKR. jchutney From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Thu Jan 24 17:30:53 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 17:30:53 -0000 Subject: SHIP: Ron, Harry....or Draco? Who do you think Hermione will In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34010 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jchutney" wrote: > Post Yule Ball, Hermione yells at Ron that next time there's a ball > he should ask her out before someone else does. If her heart were > set on Harry, WHY would Hermione invite Ron to ask her out? That's > just asking for trouble and incompatible with the Hermione we know. And that's why I am firmly R/H. I've yet to see anyone come up with an argument to counteract this. I doubt Ron said, "I wanted to go out with you," more likely, "You should have gone out with someone from Gryffindor, instead of fraternizing with the enemy," but she answers back that next time there's a ball HE should ask her out. Now, that's either an implicit promise that next time there's a ball she'll accept him, or a very cruel thing to say to a good friend. Eileen From ftah3 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 24 17:42:14 2002 From: ftah3 at yahoo.com (ftah3) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 17:42:14 -0000 Subject: Moody was really Crouch, Jr. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34011 blpurdom wrote: > Basing any analysis of Moody's character on GoF is specious in that > we have no idea whether most people who knew Moody felt he was > acting in character or whether they reckoned he was starting to get > senile and erratic. I completely agree with this statement. The only time there is a comment on an inconsistency between Moody/Crouch v. Real Moody is at the end of GoF, when Dumbledore says that he knew the man wasn't the real thing because the Real Moody would never have spirited Harry away from Dumbledore's protection in such a perilous situation. In fact, all that we know which can be directly related to the Real Moody is: - from the beginning of GoF, when we discover through the Weasley's that Moody was a great auror who has become extremely paranoid and eccentric, and it's nothing of a suprise to hear that Moody heard a noise outside of his house and ran out and started hexing trash cans - from the Pensieve, which, as has been pointed out, showed Moody and others in a very intense war-time courtroom situation. He's described as being reluctant to use excessive force/kill; he's not above making harsh off-hand statements about breaking a prisoner's trust, which could be interpreted as sincere, or as a hard-ass-law- enforcement guy mouthing off. - from Dumbledore's statement as to what tipped him off to the fake Moody, i.e. that the Real Moody, regardless (it is implied) of eccentricity or paranoia, would never remove Harry from Dumbledore's protection in that situation. Attempting to base any other explication of the Real Moody's character on the actions of Fake Moody/others' reactions to Fake Moody's actions is, imho, fairly useless. At least, I don't think that any conclusions could be said to even approach a high level of likelihood. The reason for this is that we never, until the end of GoF, get a perspective on Moody from the only person who seems to have a fairly realistic understanding of Moody, i.e. Dumbledore. Everyone else is very much caught up by Moody's reputation, either as a present-day crackpot or as a past great auror, or even as a combination of both. For example, to say that since Moody/Crouch wasn't canned for excessively humiliating Draco Malfoy, this must mean that Dumbledore accepts that it is part of Real Moody's character to go about 'torturing' anyone who annoys him severely enough is only *one* possible explanation. Another explanation is that Dumbledore accepts that while Real Moody is still highly intelligent, insightful, and generally responsible, Real Moody *has* reached a level of eccentricity wherein one such instance of inappropriate use of magic to punish a student isn't surprising. Notice that Moody/Crouch doesn't do it again ~ could be that we weren't allowed to see the scene in which Dumbledore firmly, though maybe somewhat sympathetically, dresses down Moody/Crouch, telling him that he understands that Moody has a certain history, but that some things are in fact inappropriate and cannot be tolerated at Hogwarts. This second explanation does not indicate that Moody is a fascist pig with no respect for human decency, or even a wizard world parody of the 'bad cop.' Rather, it would indicate that Moody has lived through a lot, has some lately developed behavioral eccentricities, but is agreeable to changing his ways simply at a word from Dumbledore. Even when it comes to the text references which apply directly to Real Moody, the possible interpretations are numerous. But trying to interpret text references which apply to Real Moody via the actions of Moody/Crouch is an even *more* labyrinthine undertaking, and in my humble opinion quite nearly a moot point. Talking too much as usual thanks to an obsessive need to point out the three billion other possible ways to interpret any given piece of literary text but shutting up now, Mahoney From heidit at netbox.com Thu Jan 24 18:08:47 2002 From: heidit at netbox.com (heiditandy) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 18:08:47 -0000 Subject: Draco Draco Draco Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34012 > Speaking of hyperbole, characterizing > Moody/Crouch's treatment of > Malfoy as torture is quite a stretch. The fact of > the matter is that > Malfoy attacked Harry, with the intent to injure, > when Harry's back > was turned, thus able to inflict the most disabling > injury. > Moody/Crouch's treatment did not injure Malfoy, just > embarrassed > him. IIRC, he did injure him. Draco, at that point, was about a foot tall, and was hurled at least 8-9 feet in the air - for all we know, the ceiling might've been 12 feet - then slammed back into the ground. And was dragged off by Moody!Crouch holding his arm. How could it not hurt him? Turning him into a ferret and suspending him in midair would've been less-than-torture, but what Crouch did was assault. However, it has no bearing on Moody. And as a side note, many don't agree that Draco deserved it, pointing to his reasonably good performance at the 2nd year Dueling Club and again his aim where the curse bounced off Harry's outside Potions later in 4th year as evidene that He Missed On Purpose and was trying to get Harry's attention rather than actually curse him. A Barkeep wrote: > - The braggadocio about the Slytherin brooms, when he himself is a > lousy Seeker Lousy? LOUSY!?!? Not a bit. Third year, the only seeker who catches the Snitch before him is Harry. He beats Cedric, he beats Cho, and it's possible that if Harry's broom hadn't been better than his, he would've been able to get the Snitch in that match-for-the-cup. Why do people get this impression? Isn't it possible that he got on the team because he actually *is* a good enough seeker, and the brooms were an attempt by Lucius to make the team all faster - and thus, more likely to win? In other words, the purpose of the broom purchase was Glory To Slytherin House, not for Draco as an individual? And I agree with the person who said that Draco (or, to be precise, Hermione or Draco) would have to go through a sea change before finding the other to be intriguing on a romantic level. But that's happened in literature before... ``There is, I believe, in every disposition a tendency to some particular evil, a natural defect, which not even the best education can overcome.'' ``And your defect is a propensity to hate every body.'' ``And yours,'' he replied with a smile, ``is wilfully to misunderstand them.'' --Pride & Prejudice, Chapter XI of Volume I And of course... ``I cannot give you credit for any philosophy of the kind. Your retrospections must be so totally void of reproach, that the contentment arising from them is not of philosophy, but, what is much better, of innocence. But with me, it is not so. Painful recollections will intrude which cannot, which ought not, to be repelled. I have been a selfish being all my life, in practice, though not in principle. As a child I was taught what was right, but I was not taught to correct my temper. I was given good principles, but left to follow them in pride and conceit. Unfortunately an only son (for many years an only child), I was spoilt by my parents, who, though good themselves (my father, particularly, all that was benevolent and amiable), allowed, encouraged, almost taught me to be selfish and overbearing; to care for none beyond my own family circle; to think meanly of all the rest of the world; to wish at least to think meanly of their sense and worth compared with my own. Such I was, from eight to eight and twenty; and such I might still have been but for you, dearest, loveliest Elizabeth! What do I not owe you! You taught me a lesson, hard indeed at first, but most advantageous. By you, I was properly humbled. I came to you without a doubt of my reception. You shewed me how insufficient were all my pretensions to please a woman worthy of being pleased.'' --Pride & Prejudice, Chapter XVI of Volume III In other words, there's three books left. There are at least 2 and a half books in which Draco has the opportunity to face some demons, fight some battles, and see for himself if he wants to capitulate and become a wothless fingerpuppet of evil, or if he wants to, even for completely selfish reasons, choose otherwise. And as part of that choice-making process, I hope he takes a look at his prejudices, the way we've sort of seen Ron doing (at least re: Hagrid and Giants) and grows beyond them the way Mr Draco, I mean Mr Darcy did... (spelling mistake left intentionally). heidi Follow Me to FictionAlley.org Harry Potter Fanfics of all shapes, sizes and SHIPs http://www.fictionalley.org From pennylin at swbell.net Thu Jan 24 18:17:43 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny & Bryce) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 12:17:43 -0600 Subject: SHIP: Possibility Hermione has romantic feelings for Harry References: Message-ID: <3C504FC7.5000602@swbell.net> No: HPFGUIDX 34013 Hi -- jchutney wrote: > I always find the argument that Hermione has her heart set on Harry > instead of Ron fascinating because I see it so differently. Your > examples of hug post Potions, fretting & fussing, responses to > Harry's performance after 2nd Task, even the kiss all seem to stem > from deep friendship with no hint that it is romantic as opposed to > platonic. Oh, sure, it could be. There's *also* no evidence that she feels anything more than platonic friendship for Ron either though. :--) I strongly disagree with your view that she was trying to > elicit a jealous reaction from Krum. You misinterpreted my statement. I didn't mean that Hermione was *trying* to make Krum jealous of Harry. Quite the opposite. I think her actions/statements/conversation about Harry had that effect, and I daresay she would have been horrified to know about the Krum/Harry conversation. She either (a) has only platonic feelings for Harry, in which case she'd be embarassed that Krum interpreted it that she has romantic interest in Harry and raised the subject with Harry (ouch! how embarassing!) OR (b) does have some romantic interest in Harry, in which case she'd be REALLY embarassed that Krum recognized it & took it up with Harry. Also, Harry & Hermione both have > money - why wouldn't they give each other expensive gifts? I don't know that we have much evidence that Hermione has money. I suspect her family is reasonably well-off; they gave her what appears to be a nice sum of money to spend on her birthday gift in POA. But, other than that, I can't think of anything to indicate one way or another what the Granger's financial status might be. > Other reasons I don't think JKR has set up H/H I don't think JKR has set up H/H. I think she's setting up FITD ... a love triangle if you will (Ron likes Hermione, who likes Harry, who likes no one or someone *other than* Hermione). I am very very in favor of H/H as an eventual outcome, but I don't think JKR has "set up" H/H. I just don't think she's set up R/H or H/G either. > she may have a well planned change of course in BkV) are the things > that are NOT there but (IMO) should be if H was set on H: Ron is NOT > jealous of H/H. The alleged H/H relationship mentioned in Rita's > article does not seem to affect him. Ron is jealous of everything > about Harry EXCEPT for his relationship with Hermione. If something > were there, wouldn't Ron notice it? Ron even suggests that Hermione > take EITHER him or Harry to the Yule Ball. Ron is later angered by > the Skeeter's portrayal of Hermione as a "scarlet" woman, toying with > Harry & Viktor. There seems, once again, to be no evidence R is > jealous of H/H. Not yet! Hee, hee. Ron's pretty darn clueless in the whole romance sphere in GoF. You really think this is something that Ron would notice? He's barely reached the point of noticing that Hermione *is* a girl in fact .... let alone that she might have romantic feelings for someone of the opposite sex. I'm a full-fledged member of R.I.O.T.G.E.A.R. (look it up in the acronyms file!) so I don't think this argument has much sway. > > Post Yule Ball, Hermione yells at Ron that next time there's a ball > he should ask her out before someone else does. If her heart were > set on Harry, WHY would Hermione invite Ron to ask her out? Sigh. She's not necessarily inviting Ron to ask her out. She *might* be, but yes, there is another interpretation. What is the likely thing that Ron said to her before Harry poked his head into the common room? It probably was something along the lines of what he told her at the Ball (you're fraternizing with the enemy by going with Krum). Let's assume that's what he said: Ron: "You were fraternizing with the enemy by going to the ball with Krum!" [Enter Harry] Hermione: "Well if you don't like it, you know what the solution is, don't you?" Ron: "What?" Hermione: "Next time there's a ball ask me first instead of as a last resort!" So, the "it" is most likely the fact that she went to the Ball with a student not from Hogwarts. The "it" is not the fact that she had a date other than Ron; the "it" is the fact that she had a date with a Durmstrang student. She's angry & upset that he's badgering her about something that she sees as perfectly legit ... her attending the Ball with (and hanging around with/striking up a romantic relationship with) one of the foreign students. If you look at the overall context of the entire Yule Ball scene, you know several things: 1. Hermione was very offended by the fact that Ron explicitly said he wanted to go with the "prettiest" girl who'd go with him. 2. She was also offended that he waited until the last possible second & then *assumed* that she could/would go with him or Harry [note that he never actually asks her to be his date]. So, I take her remarks more to mean: I'm really angry that you're insinuating I'm giving Krum secret information or otherwise doing anything "wrong" by attending the Ball with Krum. And, besides, you wanted the "pretty girl," remember? Maybe if you had asked me sooner instead of as a last resort, I'd have gone with you. I don't her interpret her remarks as: "Ooh, Ron, I wish you'd asked me sooner, and next time there's a Ball be sure to ask me first, because I'll go with you." That makes no sense to me in the overall context of the situation. She was pissed off that he made the assumption that he could ask her at the last second ... and she was really pissed off that he said she had done something wrong by going with Krum. Any evidence that Hermione might not have already had a date set up with Krum at the time of the "prettiest girl who'll have you" conversation? I don't think so; I think it's possible she'd had that date set up for quite some time. I see no evidence that she was hoping Ron would ask her & accepted with Krum as it became evident Ron wasn't going to do so. *Besides* ... she's a teenage girl. Next time there's a Ball she may have a completely different boy in mind than Krum OR Ron. > In addition, she seems quite jealous of Fleur in specific. She *hates* Fleur and it's not specifically related to Ron's infatuation with Fleur. She's not jealous of her IMO. She disliked Fleur's haughty attitude from the second Fleur disembarked from the Beauxbatons carriage on the Hogwarts grounds. That was *before* Ron made a prat of himself over her. I think her dislike of Fleur is general, not specific (and possibly a red herring). > Cho is grouped in with her tirade against pretty people. Where? If Hermione's > heart is set on Harry instead of Ron, why is she unable to clearly > see Ron's tirades against Krum for what they are? She *does* see Ron's tirades against Krum for what they are! I have no doubt whatever that Hermione knows exactly what the nature of Ron's feelings are for her. This does *not* mean that she returns them though. That's the logic leap that puzzles me. Ron likes Hermione so R/H. Er ... no. She's clearly hurt > that it takes Ron so long to see her as a "girl"; she's hurt when he > alleges Viktor is only using her to get to Harry, etc. She's angry in the first instance. In the second, yes, she's hurt. This doesn't add any points to my Ron column btw. He's downright mean to Hermione at the Ball ... intentionally mean as a matter of fact. This does nothing to make me any more disposed toward the R/H pairing. > > Finally, the most important person in the world to Harry is Ron. The > Weasleys are his favorite family. Harry doesn't have romantic > feelings for Hermione. Would he really choose Hermione over Ron? Er ... so you're saying that Ron will always, always love Hermione, no matter what, and therefore there's no possible way that Harry & Hermione could ever get together, even years down the road, without alienating the entire Weasley clan? What does that say about the Weasleys, first of all? I'd like to think they are better people than that. Harry and Hermione (but esp. Harry) are both already part of the Weasley family in many ways. Neither needs to marry a Weasley to stay in the good graces of that loving family. But, really ... more importantly, why in the world do we suppose that Ron's first crush is likely to affect his life (as well as Harry & Hermione's) for the rest of their lives? It'd actually be fine with me if R/H did happen in Book 5 since I doubt it would last (all that bickering ... destined to fail IMO). Most H/H'ers favor it as a post-Hogwarts pairing. > Perhaps JKR is setting up a Ron loves Hermione loves Harry loves Ron > story (very Arthurian Legends!). Yet I can't see (at this point) > Hermione trying to come between best friends any more than I can see > Harry going after the girl Ron wants. It's just too soapy, and IMO, > unworthy of JKR. Ah, but who says Hermione would "go after" Harry? Maybe she's just pining away for him in secret (teenage girls do this *alot*), knowing that now isn't the right time? It still doesn't mean that she'll be eager to date Ron, if she doesn't have any romantic interest in him. Guess we'll have to wait & see, eh?!! Penny From ftah3 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 24 18:32:36 2002 From: ftah3 at yahoo.com (ftah3) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 18:32:36 -0000 Subject: Draco Draco Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34014 The following contains a thought which fought it's way out of my brain half-dressed. Sorry; I couldn't stop it! heidi wrote: > And I agree with the person who said that Draco (or, to be precise, > Hermione or Draco) would have to go through a sea change before > finding the other to be intriguing on a romantic level. > > But that's happened in literature before... [and then Heidi uses one of my favorite sea-change-containing literary romances ever, _Pride & Prejudice_, to illustrate her point.] > In other words, there's three books left. There are at least 2 and a > half books in which Draco has the opportunity to face some demons, > fight some battles, and see for himself if he wants to capitulate and > become a wothless fingerpuppet of evil, or if he wants to, even for > completely selfish reasons, choose otherwise. And as part of that > choice-making process, I hope he takes a look at his prejudices, the > way we've sort of seen Ron doing (at least re: Hagrid and Giants) and > grows beyond them the way Mr Draco, I mean Mr Darcy did... But...but...but...Mr. Darcy was The Hero of _Pride & Prejudice_, and Draco is NOT The Hero of the Harry Potter stories. It's true that Draco *could* drastically change in future books, but on my own behalf and only in a speculatory way, I don't think I'd believe it unless the change was given more page space than Draco, as the B-Plot nemesis, ought to get. Which, I suppose, is the reason that I don't think that Draco will undergo enough of a change to become the kind of person Hermione would fall for. Oddly enough, when I think of it that way, I have to admit that while I don't think it will happen in canon, it's altogether possible that a talented fanfic writer could devote countless pages to Draco as The Hero and make such a sea change plausible. I really like the term 'sea change' applied to characterization. And now my thoughts will go back in the house, put some clothes on, and come out later better able to make a coherent point. Mahoney thinking that the 'no coffee after noon' rule has got to go From Ryjedi at aol.com Thu Jan 24 19:23:03 2002 From: Ryjedi at aol.com (rycar007) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 19:23:03 -0000 Subject: What Is Immortal? In-Reply-To: <15c.74201e8.2980970d@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34015 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Whirdy at a... wrote: > In the PS, the Philsopher's Stone is described as a legendary substance with > astonishing powers, including producing "the Elixir of Life, which will make > the drinker immortal." > > How much do you have to drink and for how long? I don't know about canon, but most magical texts are purposefully vague on the exact properties of the Philosopher's Stone and the Elixer of Life, because obtaining them is not the point. Most people have the misconception that alchemy is a practice with the goal of obtaining wealth and immortality. Indeed, the failings of most alchemists stem from this belief. The point of obtaining a Philosopher's stone is to know that it works. Alchemy is less a science than a philosophy, the process is to learn that everything is made of the same stuff, and that anything, even turning lead into gold, is possible. Dumbledore's spell is reminicent of this, if you want the stone for its own sake, then it's impossible to make it. -Rycar From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Thu Jan 24 19:38:11 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 19:38:11 -0000 Subject: SHIP: Possibility Hermione has romantic feelings for Harry In-Reply-To: <3C504FC7.5000602@swbell.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34016 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Penny & Bryce wrote: > Let's > assume that's what he said: > > Ron: "You were fraternizing with the enemy by going to the ball with Krum!" > > [Enter Harry] > > Hermione: "Well if you don't like it, you know what the solution is, > don't you?" > Ron: "What?" > Hermione: "Next time there's a ball ask me first instead of as a last > resort!" AND > I have no > doubt whatever that Hermione knows exactly what the nature of Ron's > feelings are for her. I'm sure that's exactly what Ron and Hermione said. And I'm also sure that Hermione "knows exactly what the nature of Ron's feelings are for her." Put those together, and what have you got? 1. Hermione is a cruel insensitive girl who implies to Ron that she would go to a ball with him, knowing perfectly well what his feelings are, when she wouldn't. 2. Hermione does return some of the interest. I've always thought #2 was a more sensible answer. Eileen From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Thu Jan 24 19:41:52 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 19:41:52 -0000 Subject: Draco Draco Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34017 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ftah3" wrote: > [and then Heidi uses one of my favorite sea-change-containing > literary romances ever, _Pride & Prejudice_, to illustrate her point.] Though pairing Draco and Hermione, imho, would be like Pride and Prejudice with Wickham and Elizabeth. :-) > Oddly enough, when I think of it that way, I have to admit that while > I don't think it will happen in canon, it's altogether possible that > a talented fanfic writer could devote countless pages to Draco as The > Hero and make such a sea change plausible. True. But in Canon, the Harry POV has doomed a plausible Draco redemption story, I think. We never see the inner workings of Slytherin House, that would allow it to come about. > I really like the term 'sea change' applied to characterization. I've used "sea change" a lot over the years, but it comes to me now... "What does it technically mean?" Eileen From jchutney at yahoo.com Thu Jan 24 18:26:49 2002 From: jchutney at yahoo.com (jchutney) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 18:26:49 -0000 Subject: SHIP Re: [[HPforGrownups] Re: Ron, Harry....or Draco? Who do you think Hermione will fall for?] In-Reply-To: <20020124133117.6235.qmail@cpdvg100.netaddress.usa.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34018 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Ian Diddams wrote: > She's also a "MudBlood" ... and come to that of "no blood" whatsoever. Totally outside DM's canononical character. Malfoy would require a road to damascus style conversion tp contemplate Hermione surely?> Oh, I agree with you that his prejudice would get in the way. I was giving the original poster latitude in my reply by pointing out the other good qualities that might make Draco fall for Hermione. But I do think a D/H pairing is incredibly out of character for both but ESPECIALLY Hermione. IMO, Draco's objections to Hermione's are so *wrong* one would think he might eventually "see the light." Whereas, Hermione's objections to Draco are so *right* that I can't imagine a change in her opinion. If Draco were to end up with a "good" character, IMO, it would be Ginny. She's poor but still pureblood. And CoS shows us that Ginny can be vulnerable to bad boys (hello, Tom Riddle!). Still, even that pairing is quite a stretch. While I'd say D/H is impossible, D/G is merely improbable. From jchutney at yahoo.com Thu Jan 24 20:07:50 2002 From: jchutney at yahoo.com (jchutney) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 20:07:50 -0000 Subject: SHIP: R/H, H/H (was ADMIN...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34019 Penny & Bryce wrote: > Oh, sure, it could be. There's *also* no evidence that she feels anything more than platonic friendship for Ron either though. :--)> Wow, we see very different things! I guess that's why there's instant replay, IRL! LOL! > You misinterpreted my statement. I didn't mean that Hermione was *trying* to make Krum jealous of Harry. > OK > I don't know that we have much evidence that Hermione has money. I suspect her family is reasonably well off; they gave her what appears to be a nice sum of money to spend on her birthday gift in POA. But, other than that, I can't think of anything to indicate one way or another what the Granger's financial status might be.> Her parents are both dentists. IN MY EXPERIENCE (and the UK is probably different), 2 dentists with 1 child (no mention of siblings) would be considered wealthy. However, I should not have assumed UK dentists are like US dentists. >I don't think JKR has set up H/H. I think she's setting up FITD ... a love triangle if you will (Ron likes Hermione, who likes Harry, who likes no one or someone *other than* Hermione). I am very very in favor of H/H as an eventual outcome, but I don't think JKR has "set up" H/H. I just don't think she's set up R/H or H/G either.> I just find it odd that JKR hasn't (IMO) even dropped hints of H/H if they are meant to be post Bk7. And I do think, at the very least, JKR has set-up hints of R/H and H/G. I've already discussed R/H. With H/G, there is the physical similarity to James-Lily, the fact that they were both "touched" by Voldemort, Ginny's longstanding (especially for a teen!) crush. In no way, I am saying H/G WILL or SHOULD get together. I am only saying that JKR has dropped a few hints that they MIGHT be. >Not yet! Hee, hee. Ron's pretty darn clueless in the whole romance sphere in GoF. You really think this is something that Ron would notice? He's barely reached the point of noticing that Hermione *is* a girl in fact .... let alone that she might have romantic feelings for someone of the opposite sex. I'm a full-fledged member of R.I.O.T.G.E.A.R. (look it up in the acronyms file!) so I don't think this argument has much sway.> We see Ron differently. I don't think he's an idiot. I think he lets his many strong and conflicting emotions cloud his judgment. Like you, I have a high opinion of Harry& Hermione, and I don't think they would stay friends with him if he were totatlyy thick. And yes, I think Ron's jealousy of Harry is so strong (NOT an attractive quality) that he would pick up on Hermione's preference for Harry. > Sigh. She's not necessarily inviting Ron to ask her out. She *might* be, but yes, there is another interpretation. What is the likely thing that Ron said to her before Harry poked his head into the common room? It probably was something along the lines of what he told her at the Ball (you're fraternizing with the enemy by going with Krum). Let's assume that's what he said: Ron: "You were fraternizing with the enemy by going to the ball with Krum!" [Enter Harry] Hermione: "Well if you don't like it, you know what the solution is, don't you?" Ron: "What?" Hermione: "Next time there's a ball ask me first instead of as a last resort!" So, the "it" is most likely the fact that she went to the Ball with a student not from Hogwarts. The "it" is not the fact that she had a date other than Ron; the "it" is the fact that she had a date with a Durmstrang student. She's angry & upset that he's badgering her about something that she sees as perfectly legit ... her attending the Ball with (and hanging around with/striking up a romantic relationship with) one of the foreign students.> LOL! You should be a defense lawyer! I addressed ONLY what we know to be true. Hermione invited Ron to ask her out. You supplied an unsubstantiated context for why she would ask him to do so EVEN though she really does NOT want him to? Our opinions of Hermione diverge here. I don't think Hermione is as controlled by her emotions as Ron is. Even in PoA, when Hermione hit Draco, she seemed to be making a logical choice! LOL! Also, if the real issue addressed her is Hermione's disloyalty to Gryffindor, than why doesn't Ron get on her for not going on with Neville? >"Ooh, Ron, I wish you'd asked me sooner, and next time there's a Ball be sure to ask me first, because I'll go with you." That makes no sense to me in the overall context of the situation. She was pissed off that he made the assumption that he could ask her at the last second ... and she was really pissed off that he said she had done something wrong by going with Krum.> Oh, I so don't see Hermione as some heartsick schoolgirl swooning over her true love. She's too smart for that! J No doubt, she wants to throttle him half the time. However, why should she invite him to ask her out if she intends to turn him down? Such a thing is totally out of character for Hermione, who prizes honesty and kindness. IA that she was pissed off at Ron's assumptions and attacks. I ALSO think there may have been other things fueling her anger. It's so hard to tell because it's all Harry's POV. < *Besides* ... she's a teenage girl. Next time there's a Ball she may have a completely different boy in mind than Krum OR Ron. > Hmm True but I see Hermione as far more mature and steady than the average girl. However, you are right. Neville could be the one! >> Cho is grouped in with her tirade against pretty people.>> >Where?> In GoF page 253 H says to Harry & Ron re: Cho & Fleur : "When you've both put your eyes back in," said Hermione briskly, "you'll be able to see who's just arrived." I assumed that Hermione saw Cho as a pretty person. It's not direct, but it seems to be the case. Hermione is not specific about Cho, which makes me think she's not jealous of her. >She *does* see Ron's tirades against Krum for what they are! I have no doubt whatever that Hermione knows exactly what the nature of Ron's feelings are for her. This does *not* mean that she returns them though. That's the logic leap that puzzles me. Ron likes Hermione so R/H. Er ... no.> I am not saying R likes H so H should like R. Not at all. I am saying H likes R, in spite of herself! Of course, he's not worthy of her! LOL! However, if she really were clear about Ron's feelings, wouldn't she find a way to defuse them, etc? A situation where one best friend has unrequited romantic feelings for another is very tricky and could easily end the friendship. If H were clear about R's feeling and if they were unwelcome to her, surely she would try and dispassionate and kind way to let him down. >This does not add any points to my Ron column btw. He's downright mean to Hermione at the Ball ... intentionally mean as a matter of fact. This does nothing to make me any more disposed toward the R/H pairing.> THIS is (IMO) the REAL reason there are so many H/Hers. Personally, I believe JKR is setting up H/R and is H/R "shipper". I could be wrong, but the evidence just points that way, to me. Yet there are many H/Hers, even though Harry has a crush on Cho and is desired by Ginny. I think the H/Hers base their shipping on 2 big issues. #1 Ron does not deserve Hermione. I can't argue with that. He doesn't. LOL! But just because he doesn't deserve her, doesn't mean he won't get her;). #2 Harry needs a witch worthy of him. I agree that Hermione is far better than Ginny or Cho. However, just because she's the best, doesn't mean he'll fall for her. > Er ... so you're saying that Ron will always, always love Hermione, no matter what, and therefore there's no possible way that Harry & Hermione could ever get together, even years down the road, without alienating the entire Weasley clan? What does that say about the Weasleys, first of all? I'd like to think they are better people than that. Harry and Hermione (but esp. Harry) are both already part of the Weasley family in many ways. Neither needs to marry a Weasley to stay in the good graces of that loving family. But, really ... more importantly, why in the world do we suppose that Ron's first crush is likely to affect his life > I guess I don't see Ron's feelings for Hermione ending. I am in college but I still love a former boyfriend from High School. Just because it doesn't work out, it doesn't mean feelings end. In addition, I think teens are capable of real love. Moreover, the point about Ron & the Weasleys is that going after someone your friend desires IS bad form. In my circle, friendships are sacred. If Ron was totally over Hermione, I suppose he might not care .I just can't see that at this moment. > Ah, but who says Hermione would "go after" Harry? Maybe she's just pining away for him in secret (teenage girls do this *alot*), knowing that now isn't the right time? It still doesn't mean that she'll be eager to date Ron, if she doesn't have any romantic interest in him.> OK. This is Harry Potter we're talking about! It took him a year and half to approach Cho! If Hermione likes him, she had better go after him, cause Harry's way too shy to go after a girl! If Hermione decides to pine in secret (and that's ooc IMO), she'll be in a nursing home before H/H happens! J >Guess we'll have to wait & see, eh?!!> Agreed! jchutney From pennylin at swbell.net Thu Jan 24 21:13:11 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny & Bryce) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 15:13:11 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: SHIP: Possibility Hermione has romantic feelings References: Message-ID: <3C5078E7.3010402@swbell.net> No: HPFGUIDX 34020 Hi -- lucky_kari wrote: > I'm sure that's exactly what Ron and Hermione said. And I'm also sure > that Hermione "knows exactly what the nature of Ron's feelings are for > her." Put those together, and what have you got? > > 1. Hermione is a cruel insensitive girl who implies to Ron that she > would go to a ball with him, knowing perfectly well what his feelings > are, when she wouldn't. > 2. Hermione does return some of the interest. OR 3. Hermione, offended because her friend assumes that he can just use her as a last-ditch date when he can't get a "pretty girl" and then even more offended when said friend questions her ethics in choosing another date, throws off some remarks in the heat of an argument. Maybe she would have phrased her remarks differently if they'd been having a cool, calm conversation. OR 4. Hermione, who has a bit of romantic interest in more than one boy (gasp! Can teenage girls do *that*?!), sends off some mixed signals. You may interpret her remark as an indicator that she *would* accept his invitation of a date at some point in the future, but I don't think it absolutely follows that she would. They were *arguing* -- she was angry. I think she was just saying, "Look, you insensitive bonehead clout, maybe next time you ought to get your act together a little earlier & don't just make assumptions that your good old friend Hermione won't have other plans. Ask me as your first choice, not as a last resort, and then, well, then maybe we'll see. If I don't have another date, then I'll consider it." I also don't think it's a given that you must label Hermione as cruel & insensitive if she said something in the heat of an argument that might not be dead-on accurate. All she's said is: "Hey, maybe you ought to ask me first next time if you've got a problem with me attending Balls with foreign students." > I've always thought #2 was a more sensible answer. It might be the more sensible answer. It might be the right answer. But it's not the *only* answer. :--) Penny From cindysphynx at home.com Thu Jan 24 21:25:51 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 21:25:51 -0000 Subject: Moody was really Crouch, Jr. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34021 Mahoney wrote: > The only time there is a > comment on an inconsistency between Moody/Crouch v. Real Moody is at > the end of GoF, when Dumbledore says that he knew the man wasn't the > real thing because the Real Moody would never have spirited Harry > away from Dumbledore's protection in such a perilous situation. In > fact, all that we know which can be directly related to the Real > Moody is: > > Attempting to base any other explication of the Real Moody's > character on the actions of Fake Moody/others' reactions to Fake > Moody's actions is, imho, fairly useless. At least, I don't think > that any conclusions could be said to even approach a high level of > likelihood. We can't be completely sure about much, that's true. It seems to me, however, that one can discern a few things about Moody's character based on the notion that certain of his actions must not be too far out of character or Dumbledore (or someone else) might have become suspicious. One example would be Moody's searching the offices of other teachers. Snape and Sirius both seem to think that Moody would do something like that, even absent orders from Dumbledore. I think we can be fairly sure about the depth of Moody's hostility toward Snape, too, as Snape isn't surprised by it. I'd also say that Real Moody must not be very interested in how others perceive him. His entrance into and introduction in the Great Hall drew whispers instead of applause, and he didn't seem at all concerned. Now, to go way out on a limb, I'd venture a guess that Real Moody harbors no ill feelings toward Giants. The Aurors battled the Giants, and we know that Real Moody doesn't let go of grudges easily (calling Karkaroff scum and such in the Pensieve). If no one was suspicious when Fake Moody was willing to go for a drink with Hagrid, then perhaps Real Moody isn't hostile to giants, either. Yeah, I know. It's a reach. Cindy (hoping Real Moody isn't excessively jumpy in OoP, and hoping he is exactly like Fake Moody) From pennylin at swbell.net Thu Jan 24 21:40:52 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny & Bryce) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 15:40:52 -0600 Subject: SHIP: R/H, H/H References: Message-ID: <3C507F64.8060007@swbell.net> No: HPFGUIDX 34022 Hi -- jchutney wrote: > > I just find it odd that JKR hasn't (IMO) even dropped hints of H/H > if they are meant to be post Bk7. And I do think, at the very least, > JKR has set-up hints of R/H and H/G. I've already discussed R/H. > With H/G, there is the physical similarity to James-Lily, the fact > that they were both "touched" by Voldemort, Ginny's longstanding > (especially for a teen!) crush. In no way, I am saying H/G WILL or > SHOULD get together. I am only saying that JKR has dropped a few > hints that they MIGHT be. Well, my interpretation is that these "hints" are, at the moment, of 2 one-sided crushes, both held by the 2 youngest Weasleys. Sure, Ginny has a crush on Harry. Whoop-de-doo. All teenagers have crushes; it's quite rare in real life for someone to hook up permanently with their first real crush though. > > LOL! You should be a defense lawyer! I am. A lawyer that is. I addressed ONLY what we know > to be true. Hermione invited Ron to ask her out. You supplied an > unsubstantiated context for why she would ask him to do so EVEN > though she really does NOT want him to? Unsubstantiated context? No, the context is substantiated. It's clear that Ron said, in the presence of Hermione & to her great irritation, that he wanted to go to the Ball with the "prettiest girl who'd have him." Hermione left the room in a huff, and IMO, this is because her feminist sensibilities were disturbed by Ron's remarks. He then said some cruel & nasty things to her at the Ball; his remarks were so mean and off-base that they made Harry uncomfortable enough to speak up. That *is* the context of their post-Ball argument. Our opinions of Hermione > diverge here. I don't think Hermione is as controlled by her > emotions as Ron is. Even in PoA, when Hermione hit Draco, she seemed > to be making a logical choice! LOL! I guess our opinions do diverge as I didn't see her using logic when she punched Draco, and I see little evidence of cool-headed logic in her retorts to Ron during their argument. Also, if the real issue > addressed her is Hermione's disloyalty to Gryffindor, than why > doesn't Ron get on her for not going on with Neville? Ron's motives aren't in doubt. I don't think it *was* her supposed disloyalty to Hogwarts that prompted Ron's remarks. I think it was quite clearly romantic jealousy. > Oh, I so don't see Hermione as some heartsick schoolgirl swooning > over her true love. She's too smart for that! J No doubt, she > wants to throttle him half the time. However, why should she invite > him to ask her out if she intends to turn him down? When she made her remark in an argument, the "next Ball" isn't exactly around the corner. Even if she *was* inviting him to ask her out & was interested in dating him *at that time,* who's to say she still would be by the time of the "next" Ball? I'm not saying that Hermione was deliberately cruel. I think she'd been hurt by Ron's remarks and they *were* arguing. She wouldn't have been thinking dispassionately at all. It also might not have been clear to her what the real reason was (Ron's interest in her) until after her head had cleared after their argument. Maybe she went back up to her room and thought "Oh, dear. Oh, no." :::shrugs::: It's possible. If H were clear about > R's feeling and if they were unwelcome to her, surely she would try > and dispassionate and kind way to let him down. And maybe she will. In OOP. :--) > > THIS is (IMO) the REAL reason there are so many H/Hers. Personally, I > believe JKR is setting up H/R and is H/R "shipper". I could be wrong, > but the evidence just points that way, to me. Yet there are many > H/Hers, even though Harry has a crush on Cho and is desired by > Ginny. I think the H/Hers base their shipping on 2 big issues. #1 > Ron does not deserve Hermione. I can't argue with that. He doesn't. > LOL! But just because he doesn't deserve her, doesn't mean he > won't get her;). #2 Harry needs a witch worthy of him. I agree that > Hermione is far better than Ginny or Cho. However, just because > she's the best, doesn't mean he'll fall for her. That's a big over-simplification of the H/H position at large. I could make some big over-reaching generalizations about the R/H'ers and the H/G'ers, but I'll refrain. I don't like Ron, too true. But many who sail my ship *do* like Ron and their shipping preference is not based on any dislike of Ron. I think it's best to not make sweeping generalizations. > > I guess I don't see Ron's feelings for Hermione ending. I am in > college but I still love a former boyfriend from High School. Just > because it doesn't work out, it doesn't mean feelings end. In > addition, I think teens are capable of real love. It would be a sweeping generalization for me to say that teens aren't capable of real love or that all romantic feelings always end. BUT, speaking from the vantage point of my mid-30s, I can tell you that things do look different as the years wear on. While one might always look at an old flame in a different way than a long-time purely platonic friend, people (most people) are capable of moving on with their lives. I rather think Ron would fall into that category. He's only 15! JKR said, when asked if Harry would date Hermione or Ginny [in the 4th book]: "No, but he's only 14... he has plenty of time to change his mind." This suggests to me that she isn't operating with a worldview that a first love is a permanent love in all cases or that all the teenaged relationships will end up in marriage. Penny (who really needs to do something *productive* & stop responding to shipping posts ....) From meboriqua at aol.com Thu Jan 24 21:41:29 2002 From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 21:41:29 -0000 Subject: Hagrid's Competence In-Reply-To: <423204699.20020124115156@tut.by> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34023 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Alexander wrote: > Let's look at it from the point of view of... well... > Dumbledore. Indeed, what results did the lesson have? > Hagrid has learnt a lot about his own flaws. He never > again repeats his mistake during both PoA and GoF. In fact, > he has maturated and learnt something about responsibility > for others.> Are you kidding? Hagrid continues to make very similar mistakes in GoF, but before then, he wastes the rest of the school year for his third years in PoA because after the Buckbeak incident, Hagrid pretty much stops teaching altogether. In GoF, he goes right back to the same old same old: he sets up his students with the Blast-Ended Skrewts, not knowing what the Skrewts are capable of, and possibly after having, uh, developed them illegally. Hagrid was interested in the Skrewts, so he added them to the curriculum. His students end up having to run away from them for fear of getting burned, dragged along the ground, or who knows what else. Tsk, tsk, Hagrid. --jenny from ravenclaw *********************************** From btk6y at virginia.edu Thu Jan 24 22:34:06 2002 From: btk6y at virginia.edu (btk6y) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 22:34:06 -0000 Subject: Draco Draco Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34024 > IIRC, he did injure him. Draco, at that point, was about a foot tall, > and was hurled at least 8-9 feet in the air - for all we know, the > ceiling might've been 12 feet - then slammed back into the ground. > And was dragged off by Moody!Crouch holding his arm. How could it not hurt him? There is absolutely no concrete evidence in the books to suggest that Draco was injured in anyway after the ferret-bouncing incident. If he was, don't you think he would have insisted on going to the infirmary instead of going with Moody to see Snape? Remember, this is the same Draco that faked the severity of his arm injury from Buckbeak to get Hagrid canned. Don't you think he would have done the same to Moody if he were hurt in the slightest way? If he was hurt in the slightest bit I am confident he would have exaggerated his injury, but my feeling is that he was so embarrassed after the incident, it didn't even occur to him to fake an injury because he wasn't hurt at all. >And as a side note, many don't >agree that Draco deserved it, pointing to his reasonably good >performance at the 2nd year Dueling Club and again his aim where the >curse bounced off Harry's outside Potions later in 4th year as >evidene that He Missed On Purpose and was trying to get Harry's >attention rather than actually curse him. Again, this is pure conjecture. JKR gives you no concrete reason at all to believe that Draco missed on purpose. The only reason that you cite for him missing on purpose is his good aim at the Dueling Club in Year 2. But Harry had not just insulted his mother and caused him to be angry at the start of the dueling club. I submit that the reason Draco missed is that his anger at Harry for insulting his mother caused him to draw his wand and fire to quickly. Think which reason is more in tune with Draco's character as portrayed by JKR. Has she given you any reason thus far to believe that Draco would show mercy on Harry by not attacking him from behind? Is there anything in Draco's character to convince you he was trying to just "get Harry's attention" rather than inflict injury? Keep in mind, this is a boy who was thrilled when the Basilisk nearly killed 3 or 4 students in year 2 and shows no remorse for the death of Cedric. I would submit that Draco has no concept of right or wrong and it is much more consistent with his character that he attacked Harry from behind rather than just "trying to get his attention." Bobby From m.bockermann at t-online.de Thu Jan 24 23:00:04 2002 From: m.bockermann at t-online.de (m.bockermann at t-online.de) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 00:00:04 +0100 Subject: Lupin (was Sleeping Lupin) References: <1011888833.1108.64175.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <003201c1a530$d8dc1600$6cf89b3e@oemcomputer> No: HPFGUIDX 34025 Barb wrote: >>There seems to be potential for a number of bad things to happen in book five because of Lupin's presence. JKR will, of course, do something totally different from these scenarios... Yes, I can see that Lupin being a werewolf *will* create problems. But maybe he can be a part of the solution, too? Sorry, if this has been discussed before, but... In traditional lore, a werewolf can often be healed by killing or exorcizing the werewolf on top of the chain: by killing/exorcising the one that "infected" him, or the one that infected him, or... So who made Lupin into a werewolf, anyway? We only know that he was still very young. Maybe well find out sometime in the next three books. And how likely is it, that this master werewolf is not somehow connected to the DEs? So maybe by uncovering DEs, we can find a cure for Lupin. An interesting scenario might present the exorcism variation: if the master werewolf is killed before he can be exorcized, the werewolfs that were infected by him will never be able to be healed. What, if something makes it necessary to kill that master werewolf for some reason, for example self defense? If there is any merit to this (and I admit I might be waaaayy of) who is a possible candidate as the werewolf who converted Lupin? I dont think it would be Voldemort - there is nothing in canon that I can see supporting this. But somebody did it. Any ideas who could be the one? Barbara Jebenstreit From aromano at indiana.edu Thu Jan 24 23:45:20 2002 From: aromano at indiana.edu (Aja) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 18:45:20 -0500 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Draco Draco Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34026 Wheee! Here we are again on my favorite topic of conversation! And Heidi, my goddess, I was in the *middle* of typing a private email where I mentioned the love-hate aspects of Draco SHIPS in comparison with Pride and Prejudice, my favorite book, when lo and behold, your post arrived and you did just that on-list! I'm still beaming. Now, to specifics: On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, btk6y wrote: > There is absolutely no concrete evidence in the books to suggest that > Draco was injured in anyway after the ferret-bouncing incident. If > he was, don't you think he would have insisted on going to the > infirmary instead of going with Moody to see Snape? Remember, this > is the same Draco that faked the severity of his arm injury from > Buckbeak to get Hagrid canned. Don't you think he would have done > the same to Moody if he were hurt in the slightest way? Absolutely not. Not only does he has more to fear from Mad-Eye, who more than one person believes to be off his rocker anyway--but he's also in a completely different situation in this scene than the Buckbeak incident. In that scene he was already doing his best to attract attention--he deliberately intended to sabotage the class and ham it up to make Hagrid look bad. He considers Hagrid incompetent as a wizard, and has no respect for his abilities. Moody, however, is more than capable as a wizard--and Draco, instead of having the upper hand, as he did in COMC class, is completely vulnerable. There's also the fact that he's an (arguably) more mature 14-year-old. You've just been turned into a ferret in front of all your classmates and whammed about a bit on a ceiling. You're already terrified. Of course you run away in fright, but after you've recovered, and remembered that you're a Malfoy, and Malfoy's don't have weaknesses, do you want word to leak out that you instantly scrambled for the infirmary? Malfoy probably *was* bruised and sore for several days, but it's not like him to suffer a loss of dignity and then not try and salvage it as best he could. You could argue that by keeping quiet and acting as if he weren't hurt, this is what he was doing. > I submit that the reason Draco missed is that his anger at Harry for > insulting his mother caused him to draw his wand and fire to quickly. > Think which reason is more in tune with Draco's character as portrayed > by JKR. Has she given you any reason thus far to believe that Draco > would show mercy on Harry by not attacking him from behind? JKR has already shown a habit of revealing people's intentions, appearances, and actions to be anything what they seem. She did it with Snape in Book 1, Ginny (to a degree) in Book 2, with Sirius in 3, and finally Moody in 4. This is a *major* component of her style--and it doesn't help that seen through Harry's POV people are often judgmentally portrayed until we learn something new and startling about them that presents their former conduct in a different light. I wouldn't be at all surprised if future illuminations about Malfoy enable us to re-evaluate his actions throughout the series. > Is there anything in Draco's character to convince you he was trying to > just "get Harry's attention" rather than inflict injury? Yes. His warning Hermione at the Quidditch Cup that the mob was after muggles. I see no ostensible reason for doing that other than not wanting to see real harm come to his classmate and chief rival. Also, there's the fact that it's never Malfoy who whips out his wand first--it's usually Ron, egged on by an insult. Malfoy had no direct hand in Buckbeaak's execution. That was mostly his father. In essence--when you come right down to it, Malfoy's all talk. I don't think he's truly evil because I don't think he has the guts to do the dirty work. :) > Keep in mind, this is a boy who was thrilled when the Basilisk nearly > killed 3 or 4 students in year 2 and shows no remorse for the death of > Cedric. Showing and feeling are entirely different matters. Harry's never cried over Cedric's death--you could take that to mean he shows no remorse as well. I'm arguing a thin logic here, but the logic you're using is based on what we've *seen* of Malfoy, which has to date been totally through Harry's eyes. And Harry, as we have seen frequently, is not always astute in his judgments. > I would submit that Draco has no concept of right or wrong and it is > much more consistent with his character that he attacked Harry from > behind rather than just "trying to get his attention." I think he has *some* concept, but it's probably rather warped one based on the logic of power/wealth/ancestry=good, poverty/muggles/weakness=bad. Once these assumptions get skewed (and I hope/believe they will), he'll have some maturing to do, and then, I believe, Draco Malfoy's character may have some surprises for us all. Aja (who's thought an awful lot about this) "Harry does seem to spend a lot of time being suddenly cut off from help by silly plot devices." --Franzi From heidi.h.tandy.c92 at alumni.upenn.edu Thu Jan 24 23:02:40 2002 From: heidi.h.tandy.c92 at alumni.upenn.edu (heidi tandy) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 15:02:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Draco Draco Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020124230240.70135.qmail@web9504.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 34027 Quickly, as I am running out... --- btk6y wrote: > There is absolutely no concrete evidence in the > books to suggest that > Draco was injured in anyway after the > ferret-bouncing incident. Yes, there is. "He got to his feet, wincing." Expression of pain = evidence that he was in pain. Later... "Malfoy flushed with anger, but apparently the memory of Moodys punishment was still sufficiently painful to stop him from retorting." Sufficiently painful. Could mean emotionally, could mean physically. But I lean towards *both*. He wouldn't be in pain if he wasn't at least a bit injured. And of course, in PoA, he was injured - he was bleeding all over the place after Buckbeak gashed him, so it's obvious that he'd be taken to the infirmiry. I agree that he was probably very embarassed, but we also know from FBAWTFT that when someone is transfigured into an animal, the have the consciousness of that animal, so I doubt that Draco was completely clear on what had just happened to him. > If > he was, don't you think he would have insisted on > going to the > infirmary instead of going with Moody to see Snape? > Remember, this > is the same Draco that faked the severity of his arm > injury from > Buckbeak to get Hagrid canned. Don't you think he > would have done > the same to Moody if he were hurt in the slightest > way? IMHO, no. He's freaked enough by Moody later in the term that the mention of Moody is enough to make him go "pale and jump... backward, looking wildly around for Moody, [who] was still up at the staff table, finishing his stew." This is one teacher he's not getting cosy with, or talking back to. > > >And as a side note, many don't > >agree that Draco deserved it, pointing to his > reasonably good > >performance at the 2nd year Dueling Club and again > his aim where the > >curse bounced off Harry's outside Potions later in > 4th year as > >evidene that He Missed On Purpose and was trying to > get Harry's > >attention rather than actually curse him. > > Again, this is pure conjecture. I don't deny it. But it is conjecture with evidentiary support, and it's a perfectly reasonable conjecture. Most of our conclusions about the books are, since the canon is still incredibly open. Nothing's set in stone, but we are moving through the mire of possibilities. > Has she given you any reason thus far to > believe that Draco > would show mercy on Harry by not attacking him from > behind? Is there > anything in Draco's character to convince you he was > trying to > just "get Harry's attention" rather than inflict > injury? Well, he didn't turn Harry, Ron and Hermione over to the death eaters at the World Cup; in fact he told them to get out of the way. And he waits until Harry is ready before throwing a curse at him when they fight outside Potions class. So, well, yeah. > Keep in > mind, this is a boy who was thrilled when the > Basilisk nearly killed > 3 or 4 students in year 2 and shows no remorse for > the death of > Cedric. Well, he *did* stand and toast Cedric at the leaving feast, although he didn't stand for Harry. His comments on the train leave much to be desired in the realm of tact, but they were accurate. Diggory was the first person killed by Voldemort after his return. His phrasing was pathetic, but there was nothing inaccurate in what he was saying. And I don';t think it has anything to do wiht remorse. What has *he* to be remorseful for, regarding Cedric? Nothing. He certainly wasn't involved with it, the way Harry was... unwittingly, of course, but still. > I would submit that Draco has no concept of > right or wrong I think his Right and Wrong are jumbled, because just as I quoted Darcy's speech before, being left to follow the principles taught by one's parents in pride and conceit can mess anyone up - but not in an unmodifyable manner. At least not at this point in Draco's life. heidi http://www.fictionalley.org __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com From cindysphynx at home.com Fri Jan 25 00:27:20 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 00:27:20 -0000 Subject: Fidelius & Dumbledore In-Reply-To: <423204699.20020124115156@tut.by> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34028 Alexander wrote (about what Dumbledore knew and when he knew it): > What? Not enough facts? > He knows enough to instruct Hagrid to go to Godric's > Hollow and take Harry from ruins (hence Dumbledore knew > about Potters dead, Harry alive and Voldemort disappeared). Yes, clearly in Ch. 1 of PS/SS, Dumbledore knows the Potters are dead and Voldemort has disappeared. That's not what I'm referring to when I say Dumbledore didn't have all the facts yet. More to follow. Cindy wrote: > c> 1. Dumbledore doesn't know that the Fidelius Charm was > c> ever cast. The Potters could have changed their minds, or > c> were attacked before they cast the spell. > Alexander responded: > Nope. Attack happened 1 _week_ after the spell was cast. > Surely timing of casting was arranged and discussed (such > things are better made ASAP). > He definitely knew that Fidelius was cast and he knew > Sirius was chosen to be the Secret Keeper (the persona of > Secret Keeper was a subject of debate between Dumbledore and > Potters). I think you're taking a pretty big leap there. Yes, Dumbledore knows the *plan* is for the spell to be cast. There is nothing in canon that states that (on the night of the events in question) Dumbledore knew it had been cast one week earlier. You're assuming that someone (say, the Potters) communciated to Dumbledore that the spell had been cast, but omitted the fact that the secretkeeper had been changed. For all we know, the Potters consult with Dumbledore, then go off and do this spell. So Dumbledore wouldn't know whether they followed the plan of which they advised him. And as we later learn, they didn't follow the plan; they changed the secretkeeper. Cindy again: > c> 2. Dumbledore doesn't know that the Charm was cast > c> correctly. Also, as we recently discussed, there could be > c> additional means to break the spell that we don't know > c> about (Imperius Curse on the SecretKeeper). > Alexander wrote: > Do you mean that in 7 days after the spell has been cast > _nobody_ did bother to check if it works? IMHO it's a _very_ > optimistic approach... > If Imperius was cast on Sirius Black then he is enemy > nonetheless (though an unintentional one). In fact, either > he is a traitor or he is under Imperius. In both cases, his > appearance at Godric's Hollow is not a thing to be ignored. Eh, well, both of us are speculating now, no? It is certainly speculation to say that someone would have checked to see if the Charm had been cast properly. How do we know that this is possible? We do know that the spell is "immensely complex," which suggests that it can be botched. The other reason I think Dumbledore might think Sirius was innocent that night (and therefore not react visibly to Hagrid's statement about Sirius) is that Sirius *acted" innocent. Voldemort had fallen, and Dumbledore knew Sirius knew Voldemort had fallen. Sirius did not flee. Instead, he appeared at the scene of the crime. If Sirius were guilty, he would have fled like other DEs. That fact alone would be enough to make Dumbledore pause before reacting to the news that Sirius encountered Hagrid that night. Also, Dumbledore doesn't seem like the kind of fellow who just reacts to things. He is in the presence of McGonnagall and Hagrid. Since Dumbledore doesn't have all the facts (IMHO), I think it is reasonable that he would hold his tongue until he had a chance to check out exactly what happened. Cindy From love2write_11098 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 25 01:19:23 2002 From: love2write_11098 at yahoo.com (love2write_11098) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 01:19:23 -0000 Subject: SHIP: R/H, H/H In-Reply-To: <3C507F64.8060007@swbell.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34029 Hey everyone. Just thought I'd poke my head out of lurkdom and see what was going on in the ever-popular shipping debate at HP4GU. > jchutney wrote: > > THIS is (IMO) the REAL reason there are so many H/Hers. Personally, I > > believe JKR is setting up H/R and is H/R "shipper". I could be wrong, > > but the evidence just points that way, to me. I have a tiny problem with that statement (that JKR is an H/R shipper), and it comes from the fact that in an interview prior to the publication of GoF, JKR said very clearly that in the fourth book the kids all fall for the *wrong* people. To me this says Harry for Cho, Hermione for Krum (or maybe just Krum for Hermione), and Ron for Hermione. If JKR were truly an R/H shipper, she would not refer to them as "wrong" for each other, imho. But then, I'm a post-Hogwarts H/H shipper. I think falling in love before the age of twenty sucks and should be avoided at all costs; unfortunately, I think only one character even has it remotely in the cards to avoid that typical but annoying fate, and that's Harry. Stacy From meboriqua at aol.com Fri Jan 25 01:42:23 2002 From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 01:42:23 -0000 Subject: Draco Draco Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34030 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "btk6y" wrote: > Keep in mind, this is a boy who was thrilled when the Basilisk nearly killed 3 or 4 students in year 2 and shows no remorse for the death of Cedric.> Aaaah - do you spend a lot of time with teenagers? I do. I teach high school in the South Bronx and let me tell you, my students laugh at things I find appalling. One of my students said he thought it was funny when he first saw the footage of the people running for their lives from WTC as it was coming down. This same student freely admitted he would cry if he ever came face to face with a ghost, which proved to me that his comments were not purely cold-blooded. What is my point, you ask? Well, it is an easy way out for kids (and plenty of adults, actually) to laugh at things they find uncomfortable, upsetting, threatening or confusing. Draco feels so completely protected and above it all, he has no concept, IMO, of feeling for others. Heidi is right - why should Draco feel remorse for Cedric's death? In Draco's mind, it was probably "cool", as his father has well taught him that the power of Voldemort is magnificent indeed. Draco's comments kind of remind me of the kid who says to her parent "I hate you! I wish you were dead!" but doesn't really understand what the reality of that wish would be. I'll bet Draco doesn't talk quite so smugly about ferrets or the Forbidden Forest; those are things he's has first hand negative experiences with. --jenny from ravenclaw ************************* From cmf_usc at yahoo.com Fri Jan 25 01:35:08 2002 From: cmf_usc at yahoo.com (cmf_usc) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 01:35:08 -0000 Subject: Hagrid's Competence/Characters disappointing Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34031 Commenting (& worrying) about Hagrid?-and characters letting DD down-- Jenny from Ravenclaw wrote-- <> Unfortunately, I have to agree with Jenny. I just have this feeling that Hagrid's going to meet his end in OotP. First, because of everything Jenny said; secondly, I think his death would provide some interesting tension for the trio. HRH would all feel deeply about this (and IIRC, R & He haven't really had to examine death so personally yet). And Harry would probably pull away from them (some combination of *everyone I love is in danger* and *Voldemort used my blood to come back so it's my fault*) Now, I don't actually dislike Hagrid. Like others have said, I think we're supposed to see him as somehow *not quite grown up* because of his past. During SS, though, I was pretty disturbed by the Norbert incident. (And yes, I'm still bothered by the Karakoff incident). But for the most part, his love & support of Harry overcomes all that for me After PoA, I started seeing a pattern?-characters who can't stand the thought of letting DD down. I think this is why Hagrid let the kids get rid of Norbert for him (which, IMHO, is not as bad as Lupin not telling DD that Sirius was Animagus--& had intimate knowledge of the secret passages.) Both characters feel like DD trusted them when others wouldn't I think that with this pattern, JKR is setting us up for a time when Harry lets DD down (or maybe just feels like he has). So far, I think he's only gotten praise.... Will Harry evade the truth like these other (adult!) characters? Or will he have the courage to face up to it? Any thoughts/predictions? Caroline (who doesn't actively dislike Hagrid, but still hopes he will be the "death that is terrible to write") From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jan 25 01:48:22 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 01:48:22 -0000 Subject: Hagrid's Competence In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34032 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jenny_ravenclaw" wrote: In GoF, he goes right back to the > same old same old: he sets up his students with the Blast-Ended Skrewts, not knowing what the Skrewts are capable of, and possibly after having, uh, developed them illegally. Hagrid was interested in the Skrewts, so he added them to the curriculum.<< The fact that a skrewt was used in the Third Task suggests to me that Hagrid must have had permission from the Ministry of Magic to breed the creatures and to allow his class to study them. He couldn't admit it to Draco or Rita because it was to be kept secret for the Tournament: a different matter from the dragons, which were a secret, but not *his* secret. (It would be an unfair advantage for Harry, but Hagrid couldn't have known that any fourth years would be contestants) So he is developing some discretion, but Rita takes advantage of his silence to insinuate that he must have broken the law. >>His students end up having to run away from them for fear of getting burned, dragged along > the ground, or who knows what else. Tsk, tsk, Hagrid<< It is an elective class. Apparently those who deal with Magical Creatures are expected to develop a high tolerance for injury: Charley Weasley sports burns on his arms and Hagrid's predecessor Professor Kettleburn had "remaining limbs." Hagrid does improve significantly after he returns to teaching after the Skeeter article. I like to think he got some coaching from Madame Maxime. Pippin From igenite_olwyn at yahoo.com Fri Jan 25 01:01:06 2002 From: igenite_olwyn at yahoo.com (Olwyn) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 01:01:06 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lupin (was Sleeping Lupin) References: <1011888833.1108.64175.m12@yahoogroups.com> <003201c1a530$d8dc1600$6cf89b3e@oemcomputer> Message-ID: <001901c1a53b$c6b3a500$0200a8c0@Nshare> No: HPFGUIDX 34033 Barbara wrote: >>In traditional lore, a werewolf can often be healed by killing or exorcizing the werewolf on top of the chain: by killing/exorcising the one that "infected" him, or the one that infected him, or...<< I might be getting confused here, but isn't it vampires that can be cured by killing the 'Master', not werewolves? I always thought they were the silver bullet 'monsters'. Anyways, I like your idea about him having been bitten by a DE, but if he was bitten while he was young, and before he went to Hogwarts (didnt they plant the Whomping Willow for him), then surely it would have been before the DE's were formed so to speak, since he went to Hogwarts at the same time as TR/LV. Olwyn (Who probably isnt being coherent thanks to a broken finger and pain meds) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ancarett at hotmail.com Fri Jan 25 02:10:23 2002 From: ancarett at hotmail.com (ancarett) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 02:10:23 -0000 Subject: SHIP: R/H, H/H In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34034 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "love2write_11098" wrote: > I have a tiny problem with that statement (that JKR is an H/R > shipper), and it comes from the fact that in an interview prior to > the publication of GoF, JKR said very clearly that in the fourth book > the kids all fall for the *wrong* people. To me this says Harry for > Cho, Hermione for Krum (or maybe just Krum for Hermione), and Ron for > Hermione. If JKR were truly an R/H shipper, she would not refer to > them as "wrong" for each other, imho. I always thought that Ron's wrong love in this book was for Fleur. Remember his ludicrous behaviour at the banquet? There are several scenes in the book where Ron exhibits all the signs of a painful infatuation with Fleur. O, I'll also take this post to make my greetings to the list. I'm a mother of two (both of whom adore Harry Potter) and a long time media/SF/Fantasy fan-type. Thanks for having such an interesting discussion list! I'm quite enjoying myself already. -- Ancarett (http://www.ancarett.com) From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com Fri Jan 25 02:36:03 2002 From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 20:36:03 -0600 Subject: Lupin & Snape's age, Snape's DE adventure, werewolves (was: Re: Lupin (was Sleeping Lupin)) References: <1011888833.1108.64175.m12@yahoogroups.com> <003201c1a530$d8dc1600$6cf89b3e@oemcomputer> <001901c1a53b$c6b3a500$0200a8c0@Nshare> Message-ID: <3C50C493.BBF6D264@kingwoodcable.com> No: HPFGUIDX 34035 Olwyn wrote: > I might be getting confused here, but isn't it vampires that can be cured by killing the 'Master', not werewolves? > > I always thought they were the silver bullet 'monsters'. I'm in the same boat Olwyn. I thought werewolves could only return to be fully human when they died. And to kill a werewolf you had to use a silver object. I'm not sure though... > > Anyways, I like your idea about him having been bitten by a DE, but if he was bitten while he was young, and before he went to Hogwarts (didnt they plant the Whomping Willow for him), then surely it would have been before the DE's were formed so to speak, since he went to Hogwarts at the same time as TR/LV. TR/LV went to Hogwarts before the Mauraders. I think it would actually be likely that the DE's had been established while Lupin was at school. I say this because Snape must've joined up with them shortly after Hogwarts. Harry is now 15 Snape is 35 - 37 (lets use 37) Snape & the Mauraders graduate at age 17 Harry was attacked a 1 Given the difference in age between Snape and Harry, Harry must've been born when Snape was 22. So that leaves 6 years after graduation and before Harry's attack for Snape to join the DE's and then come back to D's side before he loses his powers. -Katze From blpurdom at yahoo.com Fri Jan 25 02:43:44 2002 From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 02:43:44 -0000 Subject: The Rise of Voldemort In-Reply-To: <001901c1a53b$c6b3a500$0200a8c0@Nshare> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34036 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Olwyn" wrote: > Anyways, I like your idea about him [Lupin] having been bitten by > a DE, but if he was bitten while he was young, and before he went > to Hogwarts (didnt they plant the Whomping Willow for him), then > surely it would have been before the DE's were formed so to speak, > since he went to Hogwarts at the same time as TR/LV. If by TR/LV you mean Tom Riddle/Lord Voldemort, the answer is no. Tom Riddle was sixteen in 1943, or about fifty years earlier than the end of Chamber of Secrets (1993). Lupin went to school with the other Marauders--James, Sirius and Peter--during the 1970s. Since Voldemort's rise to power occurred around 1970, if the Marauders were born sometime between and 1959 and 1961, they would have started school 1970-1972, part of which is after Voldmort's "rise." We also only know that this is when he came into prominence; he could have been gathering power and followers for years, so Death Eaters could actually have existed since the mid-1960s or even earlier, but it's possible that they and Voldemort weren't on the Ministry's radar yet. --Barb From christi0469 at hotmail.com Fri Jan 25 02:44:26 2002 From: christi0469 at hotmail.com (christi0469) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 02:44:26 -0000 Subject: SHIP: R/H, H/H (was ADMIN...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34037 >> jchutney > Oh, I so don't see Hermione as some heartsick schoolgirl swooning > over her true love. She's too smart for that! J No doubt, she > wants to throttle him half the time. However, why should she invite > him to ask her out if she intends to turn him down? Such a thing is > totally out of character for Hermione, who prizes honesty and > kindness. IA that she was pissed off at Ron's assumptions and > attacks. I ALSO think there may have been other things fueling her > anger. It's so hard to tell because it's all Harry's POV. Hermione is extremely smart and generally acts in a logical manner, but this does not exempt her from having emotions and sometimes letting them get the better of her. We know that she cries, which is normal but not exactly logical behavior. When I read this scene I did not get the feeling that she making any kind of offer to accept a future "date" from Ron. He made her mad when he made the "we don't want to end up with a pair of trolls" comment and then confirms to her that he wants to take the prettiest girl who will have him no matter what kind of person she is. Then he pouts through the ball and acts like Hermione is betraying Harry by going with Krum, completely ignoring Harry's protests that it doesn't bother him. IMO Hermione is justifiably angry with Ron when this exchange takes place, and is verbally trying to knock some sense into him, not inviting him to ask her out. >> In GoF page 253 H says to Harry & Ron re: Cho & Fleur : "When > you've both put your eyes back in," said Hermione > briskly, "you'll be able to see who's just arrived." I though this comment was aimed at both boys, and did not indicate an interest in one more than the other. > I guess I don't see Ron's feelings for Hermione ending. I am in > college but I still love a former boyfriend from High School. Just > because it doesn't work out, it doesn't mean feelings end. In > addition, I think teens are capable of real love. Moreover, the > point about Ron & the Weasleys is that going after someone your > friend desires IS bad form. In my circle, friendships are sacred. If > Ron was totally over Hermione, I suppose he might not care .I just > can't see that at this moment. I think 14/15 year olds are too young to decide on lifemates. Teens may be capable of true love, but that does not mean that all relationships formed in teen years are lasting. My experience at high school was that romatic relationships formed and disolved on a fairly regular basis. Ron seems to have only recently realized what kind of feelings he might have for Hermione based on Ron's "Hermione, Neville's right-you are a girl....". Whatever feelings he may have for her are not clearly formed yet IMHO. > OK. This is Harry Potter we're talking about! It took him a year > and half to approach Cho! If Hermione likes him, she had better go > after him, cause Harry's way too shy to go after a girl! If Hermione > decides to pine in secret (and that's ooc IMO), she'll be in a > nursing home before H/H happens! J This may be true if Harry stays his 14 year-old self for the rest of his life, which I don't see as highly likely. It's true that he did not approach Cho for more than a year, but he did gather up the courage to ask her to the ball. After she turned him down he gathered up his courage once again to ask Parvati. He also asked Lavander to go with Ron, and when she was unavailable asked Parvati if she knew anyone who was willing to go with Ron. I think Harry will be brave enough to approach girls when the inclination to do so becomes strong enough I honestly cannot decide which ship is the most likely based on canon evidence. All I got from Harry's POV is that Ron is noticing that he has some sort of romantic feeling for Hermione. Harry of course has (or had) an unsubstantiated crush on Cho. Hermione is hard to read, she could have feelings for either boy, both boys, or neither boy based on her actions. I have to agree with the assessment that we will just have to wait and see what happens. Christi From cindysphynx at home.com Fri Jan 25 02:45:18 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 02:45:18 -0000 Subject: More Flaws, More Popular? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34038 I hope the answer to this question won't turn out to be really dumb and obvious, but here it is anyway. We've been discussing adult characters and their flaws and the mistakes they've made. Several of the most beloved characters have made hideous errors in judgment or tactics. Hagrid's errors and flaws are numerous, as we recently discussed. Sirius erred in hatching that secretkeeper plan and in setting Snape up to be killed by a werewolf. Snape erred in becoming a DE and being closed-minded in the Shrieking Shack. Lupin (who has the shortest rap sheet) erred in not telling Dumbledore that Sirius was an animagus with knowledge of a secret passage into the castle. In fact, each of these four characters has committed errors serious enough that someone could have been killed or very badly injured. Nevertheless, I suspect that if you took a poll, one of those four characters (Lupin, Snape, Black and Hagrid) would be the favorite adult character of a great percentage of members of this list. There are, however, characters who haven't made any big mistakes that we know of. One is McGonagall; another is Dumbledore. Neither of these characters is among my favorites. They have been in all four books, and they have had a lot of interaction with Harry. So why is it that wise Dumbledore and competent McGonagall seem to stir less passion for me and possibly for others? Cindy From richasi at azlance.com Fri Jan 25 03:19:33 2002 From: richasi at azlance.com (Richasi) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 22:19:33 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] More Flaws, More Popular? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000301c1a54f$1c5645e0$e6d51b18@cfl.rr.com> No: HPFGUIDX 34039 > From: cindysphynx [mailto:cindysphynx at home.com] > books, and they have had a lot of interaction with Harry. So why is > it that wise Dumbledore and competent McGonagall seem to stir less > passion for me and possibly for others? Perhaps, like many of us, we are drawn to the character that does have flaws because we see parts of ourselves in them. Or, we see the flawed character to be more real than those that do not have flaws. They seem more human to us that those characters that are perfect. A work certainly wouldn't be interesting to read if the character didn't have any flaws to explore. There'd be no "character" to the work, no depth. That's not to say Dumbledore and McGonagall don't have depth but we don't really see all that much of them to know their flaws, if they do have any. So to us, they seem less important or less like us. Just my .02 :) Richasi From enigmaticerin at aol.com Fri Jan 25 03:42:55 2002 From: enigmaticerin at aol.com (enigmaticerin at aol.com) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 22:42:55 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Healing Lupin Message-ID: <39.216efa96.29822e3f@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 34040 Hi y'all, long-time lurker de-lurking to discuss my favorite character.... > Barbara wrote: > > >>In traditional lore, a werewolf can often be healed by killing or > exorcizing > the werewolf on top of the chain: by killing/exorcising the one that > "infected" him, or the one that infected him, or...<< Personally, I really don't think that Lupin is going to be "cured" of his lycanthropy. lf there was a charm or a ritual or whatnot that had been proven effective, I assume *someone* would have tried it at some point in the 30 some-odd years Remus has been a werewolf. Especially during his years at Hogwarts. If there were a cure, or even possible cures, I assume that James, Sirius & Peter would have spent the better part of their time working on that, rather than becoming Animagi. Lupin's character is very much an illustration of disability-based discrimination, it would seem almost like a cop-out if JK were to have him be curable, no matter how complex the cure might be. As much as it pains me to say so, I think Lupin is more likely to die than be cured before the end of the series. ~Erin aka Alizarin, cause I know there are several Erins on this list ;) I still can't believe I'm de-lurking, it's been over 3 months.... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From theennead at attbi.com Fri Jan 25 03:43:26 2002 From: theennead at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 03:43:26 -0000 Subject: Moody -- "Types"--Where Are the Bleeding Hearts? (loooong) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34041 Hi, Bobby. I'm glad we're still on speaking terms. You wrote: > 1) I knew that I was making assumptions and stereotypes > about your political beliefs while I was writing the post > and really regretted doing so because that was what had > annoyed me about your post (lumping law-enforcement, etc > under the "Law-and-Order Fascist"... I do very much > appreciate that you recognized the stereotype). Well, my characterization of Moody there *was* bigoted and offensive, and your retaliation in kind *did* prove a highly effective means of leading me to recognize that fact. The rebuke was warranted, and while the tone may have been a bit flamey for the prevailing standards of this particular forum, it did have its desired effect. I'm accustomed to a much harsher mode of debate than that found here, actually, and can take a _lot_ without flinching. So I wouldn't feel too regretful, if I were you (although for the sake of the Mods, we should definitely try to keep it genteel in the future, and not scare too many horses). In short: no harm, no foul. On to the topics... On the lack of depiction of "bleeding-hearts" in canon, Bobby wrote: > I agree that there are no "bleeding-heart liberal" > stereotypes in Potterlore and there is a reason for > it....because the world of Voldemort is basically a > war-time era, JKR is not really able to introduce a > believable "bleeding-heart" liberal stereotype because > that viewpoint simply does not wash in a time of war. I disagree. Regardless of what one may think of the philosophical or political _merit_ of continuing to maintain a hard-line "bleeding- heart" stance in a time of war (and we should absolutely *not* start debating that issue here!), the fact remains that there are always a good number of people who do. Their numbers tend to drop dramatically during war-time, admittedly, but they are always still in evidence, often quite noticeably so. Also, as Barb points out, Pensieve flashbacks aside, the story is no longer really taking place during war-time. (Well...okay, maybe from here on in it will be, but it has not been up to this point in the series.) It's taking place twelve or thirteen years *after* the last of the hostilities. Ample time for for the bleeding-hearts to crawl out from the woodwork, brush themselves off, and get cracking on making the world unsafe for humanity. ;) Although I suppose that Rowling _has_ given us Fudge-as-appeaser, who I think serves many of the same functions, although wholly in a negative sense. I just find the absence of bleeding-heart types a curious ommission from the world-as-presented, and one that leaves me with a decidedly (while admittedlly utterly personal and highly subjective) creepy feeling about the wizarding world as a whole. Barb wrote: > I disagree that there are no "bleeding-heart liberal" > stereotypes in the books. Hermione is very much playing > this role when she conceives S.P.E.W. I agree that Hermione generally fulfills this function. In my original message, however, I disqualified her from membership in the Bleeding Heart Club on the basis of her refusal to attempt to intervene on Pettigrew's behalf in the Shrieking Shack scene of PoA. She *is* sufficiently tender-hearted (or sufficiently squeamish, depending on how you wish to interpret such matters) to turn away so that she need not witness his death, but she does not speak up on his behalf, and she recoils from him when he appeals to her personally for intercession. Nor is this mere timidity: before Hermione becomes convinced of Pettigrew's guilt, she is quite vocal in raising her objections to Sirius and Remus' accusations, and she even goes out of her way to address the (at that point in the series, terribly intimidating) Sirius Black by name in order to force his engagement in the debate (one of my all-time *favorite* Hermione moments, BTW). Once convinced of Pettigrew's guilt, however, she abruptly abandons her advocacy. Of course, I do realize that this is largely a matter of literary necessity. In order for the scene to work, both aesthetically and thematically, Harry absolutely *must* stand as Pettigrew's last and only hope of clemency. But all the same, I always find myself feeling weirdly disappointed in Hermione there. I like to think that she would have spoken up in favor of mercy, if only the dictates of thematic necessity had not prevented her from doing so. Barb continues: > She [Hermione] is also, IMO shown to be very much > out of step with wizarding society, however. Even > the "Muggle-loving" Weasleys seem to be somewhat on > the conservative side about many things. One wonders > whether very many of the Muggle-born witches and > wizards reflect Muggle attitudes of this sort, and > whether this is another source of friction between > 'pureblood' magical folk and these relative 'newcomers.' I know that I've certainly been making this assumption about the wizarding world and its political frictions. The wizarding world as a whole is deeply concerned with keeping itself *isolated* from Muggles; the pureblood extremists' chosen idiom focuses on issues of purity and corruption. It's not too hard to imagine how these two concepts could combine and become intertwined with one another, thus leading even decent folk into some disturbingly shady territory when they start contemplating the strange and upsetting Muggle attitudes that "those people" have started bringing in. As for the Weasleys seeming fairly conservative, though, I would like to point out that although Arthur Weasley is indeed a "Muggle- lover," he is also a government official, and so not all that likely to hold views ranging too far outside of the bounds of conservative wizarding culture. He is a liberal (and his career advancement has been held back because of it), but he is still within the mainstream. I suspect that you might find far more radical attitudes in those pureblood wizards who work in, say, the music industry, or in retail. (How might the Weird Sisters' booking agents, assuming that they are purebloods, feel about House Elf Liberation? Or the proprietor of one of Diagon Alley's smaller bookshops?) Barb wrote: > Also, while it is easier to "sell" conservative attitudes > during times of war, the wizarding world has been free > of Voldemort for going on fourteen years. What excuse > is there for continued entrenchment and conservatism? > (Other than force of habit?) I know that I myself said much the same thing above, but I would point out that fourteen years is not really all that long a time when it comes to recovering from the degree of cultural trauma that Voldemort's reign of terror would seem to have inflicted. They can't even say his *name,* for heaven's sake! The culture is clearly still deeply scarred, and I don't think that's unreasonable: fourteen years is nothing, really. It's not even a full generation. It's a blink of the eye. I still think there would be bleeding-hearts, though. RE: Crouch and Moody, Bobby wrote: > Crouch is clearly set as a "bad" example of power-hungry law > enforcement, while Moody is set up as a "good" example.... > By creating these two characters, she does a fantastic job > of addressing a touchy issue. On one hand, with Crouch, she > acknowledges the danger of a militarized state in the name of > peace. However, with Moody she acknowledges that to fight > evil, sometimes you have to get a little dirty yourself. I can accept this reading, although it is not my own. I didn't perceive Crouch and Moody as juxtaposed in quite the way you describe, and although I think that you make a very good case for it, it doesn't quite work for me. Crouch struck me as far more strictly juxtaposed against Fudge in GoF, while Moody seemed to me to be held up more against Sirius' unnamed "Bad Aurors" than against Crouch himself. But it's an interesting reading, and certainly food for thought; and I absolutely agree with you that both characters serve to force the reader to think about the ends-means difficulties of times of war. I would argue, however, that both Crouch and Moody are deliberately ambiguous characters -- I don't perceive Crouch to be painted nearly as black as you imply, nor Moody nearly so white -- and that both of them speak to the ethical perils and temptations and slippery slopes of the dilemma of ends and means. On which subject, a quick quibble... > Moody's tactics may be questionable, but his motives are clear > and just, and they are SUCCESSFUL. This is not a case of the > ends justifying the means, only one of practicality. But that's exactly what a case of "ends justifying the means" *is!* To "use questionable tactics in the service of just motives" is a perfect example of "using the ends to justify the means." In fact, it is one of the *classic* examples. How do you see a difference between this and "mere practicality?" However. This is really a moot point, as far as I'm concerned, as we have no evidence at all to suggest that Moody has ever once used questionable tactics, or bent the rules of engagement, or failed to do things "by the book." Maybe he has, maybe he hasn't. On this subject, canon is silent. Canon does, however, suggest that his tactics are not all that questionable -- or, at least, that he was not as prone to using questionable tactics as a number of his colleagues were. But what makes Moody an ambiguous character to my mind really has nothing to do with any suspicions of malfeasance or questionable tactics (no matter how justified). It has everything to do with the state of his psyche, and with how I suspect that this state might lead him to behave toward others. It is quite clear, I think, that Moody is a *scarred* individual, internally as well as physically. Sirius as good as says so, when he talks about Moody's paranoia being unsurprising "given what he's seen," and even the many characters who are personally fond of him readily acknowledge that his experiences have left him erratic and prone to violence. And the one glimpse we get of the "real Moody" in the Pensieve scene also shows us that he has been calloused -- or, if you prefer, "hardened." All of the things I've cited elsewhere in defense of my personal problems with the character -- his sneering at fallen enemies, his lack of any evident remorse over killing, his blase attitude toward the dementors -- they all attest to this fact. Moody is paranoid, he is prone to violence, and he is callous. Is that his fault? No, of course not. Is it reasonable for someone with his life experiences to have become that way over time? Yes, of course it is. Did he get that way in the service of admirable and heroic goals? Yes, he did. Does any of that make me feel any more comfortable with him, or mitigate my sense that this fellow is not someone I altogether trust? No. It does not. Moody's an ambiguous character, IMO, not because of anything he has ever done, necessarily, but because of who he has become -- and because of what that might mean in terms of his future behavior. To put it unkindly, he is damaged. That's not his fault at all: he sustained that damage most honorably indeed. But the damage is still there, and it strikes me as the particular *kind* of emotional damage which is more than likely to manifest itself in ways that are both dangerous and harmful. Even paranoids have enemies, true, and if you're going to be hunting down Dark Wizards for a living, you had better develop some fairly thick callouses, or you will very quickly be dead. But that doesn't mean that paranoia and callousness are *good* for people. They're not. They don't make people behave well. All too often, they combine to make people behave very badly indeed. So when I wrote the paragraph that offended you so badly, when I wrote that I considered Moody "the sort of person who would happily strip away all of my civil liberties, given half the chance," this may have been harsh, and it may have been unjust; it may have been a conclusion reached on the basis of rather scanty evidence -- we have, after all, seen precious little of Moody himself so far in canon. And it may not have given him very much in the way of benefit of the doubt. But it *was* an assumption based on observations of his behavior in the one scene in which he appears, and on what may be deduced about him from other characters' statements about him, and I don't think that it was an especially irrational one. Everything that we have seen and heard about this character so far has to my mind combined to paint a rather disturbing picture: a picture of a man who holds what I consider to be some highly dubious and potentially harmful character traits. If Moody shows up in the fifth book and reveals himself to be completely different than the sketchy portrait I've got of him so far, then all to the good. But in the meantime, I draw my conclusions based on what we've been offered. > However, Moody has spent his life fighting the bad guys > for all the right reasons. He has lost his leg, his eye, > and a large chunk of his nose. He never asks for thanks, > or power, or riches. And what does he have to show for > it? A writer for the Daily Prophet, who has never actually > fought anyone from the Dark Side, believes Moody to be a > threat to civilized society. Is that fair? No, of course it isn't fair, if you mean "fair" in the sense of "people getting their just reward." But that doesn't mean that it is not *true.* Truth is often horribly unfair that way. Look. I certainly hope that you're right about Moody, that emotionally scarred and troubled though he may be, he would nonetheless never allow his paranoia, or his callousness, or his ruthlessness, or his propensity for violence to lead him into any unethical behavior, or to cause him to act with a disregard for the rights of others. I really do. But if we're going to talk about our willingness to look unflinchingly at the nature of evil, then I think we must acknowledge that people who share Moody's character traits often *do* exhibit just such a disregard, and all too often in ways that end up harming innocent people. Finally, I'd like to draw (once again!) a distinction between a personal liking for a character *as a person,* and approval of a character on moral, ethical, or political grounds. There is a big difference between considering someone a good person and actually *liking* him. There is an even bigger difference between approving of someone's actions and considering him a person you might want to invite to dinner. >From what we have seen of Moody so far, I do not like him as a person. His behavior in the Pensieve scene raises my hackles. Even understanding that he must be particularly frustrated by the situation -- I'm sure that I would feel pretty cranky as well, if I'd spent six months of my life risking life and limb to apprehend a criminal, only to have him walk free after a plea bargain -- I still don't care for his attitude. He strikes me as callous and unpleasant, and as someone whose company I would personally not enjoy at all. I don't like hearing people say things like "throw him back to the dementors," and it genuinely offends me when I hear *anyone* referred to as "filth" or as "scum." These are things that just really do bother me. But this is a personal reaction, a matter of "liking," and while it obviously has philosophical underpinnings, at the end of the day it is really less a matter of philosophy than of plain old compatibility. So when I write, say, that I've got a problem with people who refer to their enemies as "filth" and "scum," and then Bobby replies: > Believe it or not, Karkaroff is "scum" and "filth". Well, all I can really manage by way of reply is to laugh uneasily and say: "Well...yes. I suppose that he is, rather. But that's still no reason to SAY so, is it?" No, but seriously. Karkaroff is, IMO, quite possibly Rowling's least sympathetic character to date. Just about the only nice thing I can think to say about him is that he did, at least, seem to suffer from a brief moment of inner turmoil right before he fingered Snape to the ministry. That's about it, really. But, you know, I *still* didn't like the way Moody was talking about him. It really rubbed me the wrong way. > My basic disagreement was that 1) you disliked Moody even though > he gave his life to protecting the populace with no other designs > for power, riches, etc... Yes, but am I really obligated to like him because of that? I mean, to respect him? Okay. To admire him? Perhaps. To feel grateful to him? Certainly. But to *like* him? I don't really see why I should be obligated to like him. Many people do heroic things without becoming in the least bit likeable. --- Elkins From john at walton.vu Fri Jan 25 04:20:24 2002 From: john at walton.vu (John Walton) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 04:20:24 +0000 Subject: ADMIN: Posting News Articles In-Reply-To: <189.255310f.298235a3@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34043 Folks, please remember that all announcements, whether of merchandise, news, fanfics, websites *or whatever* MUST go to HPFGU-Announcements. We keep the main list for canon discussion only because of our high traffic. Please follow this simple guideline. LEGAL NOTE: It is actually an abuse of copyright to copy and paste entire articles into email. In order to prevent HPFGU being sued, please don't do this. Quote a couple of paragraphs (which is "fair use") and enclose the URL link. Remember: 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 Thanks, --John, Your Magical Moderator With Rock #47 and Keeper of Gandalf's Moth. __________________________________ The HPforGrownups Moderator Team MagicalMods at yahoogroups.com Please read our Admin Files, particularly the VFAQ and Netiquette files! www.hpfgu.org.uk/admin From mrgrrrargh at aol.com Fri Jan 25 04:24:28 2002 From: mrgrrrargh at aol.com (mrgrrrargh at aol.com) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 23:24:28 EST Subject: Popular flaws/Lupin's Cure? Message-ID: <15e.7aa0f03.298237fc@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 34044 Cindy: Personally Dumbledore is one of my fave adults (as are McGonnagall and Lupin). > So why is > it that wise Dumbledore and competent McGonagall seem to stir less > passion for me and possibly for others? Olwyn: Uh, wasn't Lupin at Hogwarts in the same days as Lily/James/Sirius/Snape/etc, who were well after LV's school days? > since he went to Hogwarts at the same time as TR/LV. Barbara Jebenstreit: Personally, I wonder if Lupin will be cured. Wasn't JKR's mom the foundation of Lupin's character. Her MS (if I have the disease correct) killed her and I wouldn't be surprised if Lupin is the "incredibly painful" death which JKR has written. 'Course I could be wrong and JKR decides to heal Lupin as a form of resolving issues she still has. > In traditional lore, a werewolf can often be healed by killing or exorcizing > the werewolf on top of the chain: by killing/exorcising the one that > "infected" him, or the one that infected him, or... > -Spy Game Fan [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rachrobins at hotmail.com Fri Jan 25 04:47:03 2002 From: rachrobins at hotmail.com (tangawarra1) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 04:47:03 -0000 Subject: polyjuice potion (was: Moody was really Crouch, Jr.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34045 Original poster (unknown): > > > >I don't like Moody. > > > >I really don't care for him at all. He strikes me as the > > > >sort of person who would happily strip away all of my civil > > > >liberties, given half the chance, and I consider such men a > > > >serious threat to civilized society. --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "blpurdom" wrote: > > I'm unclear as to how you came to this conclusion. Are you sure > > you're not basing this on the ersatz Moody, who was really Barty > >Jr.? I couldn't agree more! We do not know the real moody yet. We know Barty Crouch Jnr's estimation of moody and that is all. We know from CoS that polyjuice potion only affects the drinker's physical appearance from the numerous times Ron and Harry catch themselves out, realising they had said things to malfoy in the slytherin common room that Crabbe and Goyle just would never have uttered. Crouch Jnr admits (under veritaserum anyway) that he kept moody alive in order to have a point of reference, so dumbledore would not suspect the switch (and the obvious necessity of requiring Moody's hair to make 10 months worth of polyjuice I'm sure). We know a little of the "real" moody from the accounts of Dumbledore, Sirius, Diggory and Arthur Weasley but I hope to see the real moody in book 5 and make up my mind about his character then. rachel From igenite_olwyn at yahoo.com Fri Jan 25 12:43:05 2002 From: igenite_olwyn at yahoo.com (Olwyn) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 12:43:05 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lupin & Snape's age, Snape's DE adventure, werewolves (was: Re: Lupin (was Sleeping Lupin)) References: <1011888833.1108.64175.m12@yahoogroups.com> <003201c1a530$d8dc1600$6cf89b3e@oemcomputer> <001901c1a53b$c6b3a500$0200a8c0@Nshare> <3C50C493.BBF6D264@kingwoodcable.com> Message-ID: <006401c1a59d$d77e1f20$0200a8c0@Nshare> No: HPFGUIDX 34046 A couple of you replied to me that: >>TR/LV went to Hogwarts before the Mauraders.<< Doh! You're right. My brain obviously wasn't working properly at the time I wrote that. :) I agree with Katze though that its likely the DEs were formed while while the Maurauders were at school, although it does make me wonder what Voldy was up to in the mean time. :) Olly - of the broken finger. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Fri Jan 25 15:20:37 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 15:20:37 -0000 Subject: SHIP: Possibility Hermione has romantic feelings In-Reply-To: <3C5078E7.3010402@swbell.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34047 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Penny & Bryce wrote: > lucky_kari wrote: > > 1. Hermione is a cruel insensitive girl who implies to Ron that she > > would go to a ball with him, knowing perfectly well what his feelings > > are, when she wouldn't. > > 2. Hermione does return some of the interest. > > OR > > 3. Hermione, offended because her friend assumes that he can just use > her as a last-ditch date when he can't get a "pretty girl" and then even > more offended when said friend questions her ethics in choosing another > date, throws off some remarks in the heat of an argument. Maybe she > would have phrased her remarks differently if they'd been having a cool, > calm conversation. This is just a slightly different rephrasing of #1. I've seen no evidence to show that Hermione is cruel and insensitive in the heat of argument, or otherwise, anywhere in the books. It's what of the things I find attractive about her personality. > 4. Hermione, who has a bit of romantic interest in more than one boy > (gasp! Can teenage girls do *that*?!), sends off some mixed signals. And this is just #2 all over again. Surely, the fact that she does seem to have some feelings in return for Ron does not mean she will marry him! But I've noticed that H/H shippers refuse to even acknowledge that such feelings exist in this scene. > You may interpret her remark as an indicator that she *would* accept his > invitation of a date at some point in the future, but I don't think it > absolutely follows that she would. No, I don't think it absolutely follows that she would, but it implies it, with words like "You know what the solution is." Now, if it wasn't Hermione (if it was me who had said it, for example), I'd put it down to, "They were arguing. She got a jab in at him," but, as I mentioned before, the thing which is so attractive about Hermione is she doesn't act like that. She exemplifies charity in a non-goody-two-shoes manner. Eileen From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Fri Jan 25 15:37:40 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 15:37:40 -0000 Subject: SHIP: R/H, H/H In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34048 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "love2write_11098" wrote: > I have a tiny problem with that statement (that JKR is an H/R > shipper), and it comes from the fact that in an interview prior to > the publication of GoF, JKR said very clearly that in the fourth book > the kids all fall for the *wrong* people. To me this says Harry for > Cho, Hermione for Krum (or maybe just Krum for Hermione), and Ron for > Hermione. If JKR were truly an R/H shipper, she would not refer to > them as "wrong" for each other, imho. Ron for Fleur, imho. BTW, does anyone have a copy of that interview. I've heard it (in several variations) but I've never seen it, and it would be VERY interesting. > But then, I'm a post-Hogwarts H/H shipper. I think falling in love > before the age of twenty sucks and should be avoided at all costs; In real life, I agree. In literature, things are a little different. :-) OTOH, the children of the wizarding world grow up much faster than ours. I believe I posted awhile ago that they are expected by around 18 years old to have taken up the position of 30 year olds in our society. I wouldn't be surprised if marriages were earlier (just as in our own past), and people met their spouses while they were still teen-agers. So far, we've seen at least two marriages that came out of Hogwarts. Eileen PS /me, who wonders if Percy will ever marry Penelope From lee_hillman at urmc.rochester.edu Fri Jan 25 15:59:31 2002 From: lee_hillman at urmc.rochester.edu (Hillman, Lee) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 10:59:31 -0500 Subject: SHIP R/H, H/H Message-ID: <95774A6A6036D411AFEA00D0B73C864303B057A8@exmc3.urmc.rochester.edu> No: HPFGUIDX 34049 Gwen once again takes on the role of a local fisherman out for a pleasure cruise, at night, through eel-infested waters.... In a conversation between JChutney and Penny, they wrote: > >> Cho is grouped in with her tirade against pretty people.>> > >Where?> > In GoF page 253 H says to Harry & Ron re: Cho & Fleur : "When > you've both put your eyes back in," said Hermione > briskly, "you'll be able to see who's just arrived." > > I assumed that Hermione saw Cho as a pretty person. It's not direct, > but it seems to be the case. Hermione is not specific about Cho, > which makes me think she's not jealous of her. > I just reread this scene yesterday while looking for something else. I think Hermione is reacting here to both of them, being teenage boys. Given what we know about Hermione, her objection may as well be to the propensity of her hormone-laden friends to begin ogling women and treating them as objects. At this point, she might have had the same reaction had she come upon them reading Penthouse. (Grow up, you're not looking beyond the surface, etc., etc.) However, later on when Ron is speaking about the pretty girls vs. the trolls, I think it is natural for Hermione to compound their fixation on looks with a bit of insecurity about her own. I.E., why don't they notice her? I agree that Hermione already has accepted Krum's invitation at this point, so either Ron or Harry suddenly asking her to go would still be a moot point, as she already has made a commitment (and evidently she was not waiting for either one of them if she accepted Krum). But the *logical* argument that she can't accept from either of them is not mutually exclusive from the *emotional* desire for validation from them for noticing her. Hermione--all the kids in their year--is at an age when feeling awkward and unattractive are practically par for the course, especially when one is bookish, regarded as plain by classmates ("Stunningly pretty? Her!"), and easily stung by personal comments (think how often she cries over a personal insult. Yes, she's developing a thicker skin, but that takes years and some inner confidence, believe me--and something can still prick below the surface even much later as an adult). Hermione needs some building up now and then, just like anyone else. For example, she has no reason to doubt her academic abilities, yet she is terrified she will fail (her boggart). Knowing she is strong in academics does not equate necessarily to being a person with high self-esteem. Especially when it comes to being attractive. So it's no surprise to me that she is a little hurt and offended by the boys not immediately assuring her that she is not, in fact, a troll. When Ron does say something, it is so backhanded and unflattering that it's no wonder she's upset. If I were Hermione, I would be only too pleased to be able to honestly say, "I'm going with someone else (so there!)." Back to jchutney: > I am not saying R likes H so H should like R. Not at all. I am saying > H likes R, in spite of herself! Of course, he's not worthy of her! > #1 Ron does not deserve Hermione. I can't argue with that. He doesn't. > LOL! But just because he doesn't deserve her, doesn't mean he > won't get her;). #2 Harry needs a witch worthy of him. I agree that > Hermione is far better than Ginny or Cho. However, just because > she's the best, doesn't mean he'll fall for her. I think you've hit on something important here. Yes, I agree with Penny that you made some broad generalizations about shippers' motivations, and that that's a no-no, but I do think there is some validity in your canon-based points. Human beings, rightly or wrongly, frequently are attracted to the kind of person who is exactly the worst match. In message 29544, I said: "I think her interaction with Ron, particularly her frustration when he doesn't perform up to her par on either academic issues or questions of their mystery-solving, is indicative of a desire to see Ron be something he isn't. Or at least, isn't yet. I think her anger at him and her hurt reactions to his teasing (especially about Viktor) are clues that she does Like him, but is perhaps waiting for him to grow up and realize it. And personally, I believe it would be a disaster if they did get together. Hermione is doing something that, unfortunately, many intelligent, otherwise sensible young (and not so young) women do: banking on potential, not reality." I have seen intelligent, attractive, powerful women sublimate themselves for a petty, immature, jealous guy more times than I can count. I've been guilty of it myself--twice, in fact, and got badly burned both times. I still haven't figured out exactly why otherwise really savvy women do this--I think perhaps it has something to do with the need to be all things--smart and sensitive, successful and nurturing, confident and self-effacing/humble.... But I think it's a common mistake, and especially with young girls, to feel connection to someone who is really "beneath" them. (Before the CRABs start throwing rotten veggies, wait! I like Ron, really. Bear with me here.) They compromise. They try to change or reform or groom their chosen partners (which only results in resentment and a host of other problems) into the ideal. They take the raw material they like and try to mold it into perfection. I see this tendency in Hermione, and it happens more with Ron than with Harry, so I fear that turning him into her ideal may well be her intent. It adequately explains to me why she is disappointed when he falls short of the mark. In that sense, I think she likes "the wrong [person]," to paraphrase JKR. Now, to be fair, in that same post I also listed the reasons I thought she might like Harry as well, including that she does occasionally hold him to very high standards *just like Ron,* and furthermore I gave my reasons why I think ultimately, none of them will wind up with any of them. Also, for all those CRABs out there, I want to remind you I really like Ron. I think he's a cool kid. But I think he has a lot of growing up to do, still, and I don't think he'll ever really measure up to the tall order Hermione has constructed. I do think he's on his way to becoming a fine man--I just think Hermione is expecting way too much right now. And that's perfectly natural, too. The White Knight just takes a really long time to find. In terms of the second point, about Harry: again, I think he thinks of Hermione as a friend, and that that connection is much more important to him than as a girlfriend, or even a friend-who-is-a-girl. It's natural for boys his age to ogle pretty girls like Cho. Actually, if he's going to have a crush, Cho was a good candidate, since she's never once depicted as being condescending or mean to him in the books. My jury is still out about whether he and Hermione would make a good match, because I think the friendship far overshadows any romantic feelings he might eventually have. So in that sense, I'm not sure that Hermione is "the best," as you put it, but I do agree that, like I outlined for Hermione, men are not immune to choosing partners who aren't good for them. JChutney went on: > LOL! However, if she really were clear about Ron's feelings, > wouldn't she find a way to defuse them, etc? A situation where one > best friend has unrequited romantic feelings for another is very > tricky and could easily end the friendship. If H were clear about > R's feeling and if they were unwelcome to her, surely she would try > and dispassionate and kind way to let him down. I think this is a good argument that perhaps Hermione isn't sure how she feels about Ron. I think she likes him, as I said (even Likes him), but that she herself acknowledges that there are aspects of Ron that she finds lacking. Should she decide they should just be friends? Should she take the risk and try something more? Should she tell him to back off, while she figures things out? These are all tough calls--I'm not surprised that at 14/15, even with her intelligence and relative maturity, she's reluctant to have this conversation. Heck, I know women who are reluctant to have that conversation at twice her age! Again, in some sense, I think that to all three of them, the friendship is more important than romantic feelings, and that eventually they will acknowledge that while they love each other, they are not "in love" with each other. (I base this on experiences in small classes of tightly knit circles of friends who had been together in small classes of tightly knit circles of friends for at least as long as the kids have been.) Yes, they both (or all) may have lingering attractions for one another, but again, human emotions are messy. It's very possible to be attracted to someone long after you either know that it's not going to work or realize that it's a bad idea or even hate the person's guts. It becomes easier to live with in time. And right now, they're all confused kids. In other words, this is a long-winded way of saying I agree in part with both jchutney and Penny. Gwen From hollydaze at btinternet.com Fri Jan 25 19:43:21 2002 From: hollydaze at btinternet.com (Hollydaze) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 19:43:21 -0000 Subject: Number of teachers? (WAS children responsibility) References: <1214851382.20020123002047@tut.by> Message-ID: <020e01c1a5d8$8bdfbf20$509801d5@j0dhe> No: HPFGUIDX 34050 Alexander Lomski wrote: only 12 professors,1 director and 1 Filch to control them Is there any "agreement" on what the number of teachers at Hogwarts is. I mean have HPfGU agree on a number bracket? It's just that there is one comment that bugs me about the number of teachers (and yes it is related to the number of pupils!!) In book four when HRH are trying to work out who should be in the "gap" at the teachers table they name some of the teachers. When they reach professor Sinistra, they say that it is "Professor Sinistra of the Astronomy Department" that would imply to me that there is more than on Astronomy teacher, otherwise you can't really call it a Department. We have departments at our school ad the smallest one is the Business studies departments (which only teachers years 10 upwards) with 3 teachers. Also there are a lot of references to the "Charms Corridor" and other "Subject Corridors". We have these in our school too. The Language corridor is a corridor of 5 classrooms, and the English corridor has 7 plus the Resources room, the English office, the Head of English's office and a storeroom. This implies to me that there are a few more teachers than we know about and at least two or three classrooms for subjects such as charms, transfiguration, DADA and potions (which seem to me to be like the core subjects Maths, English and Science, in that you take them right through from the 1st year, plus they are the ones we hear most about, possibly implying they have them more often than other subjects _don't hold me to this I am not at all certain even though I have been trying to work out the timetables since Christmas!!). One other thing that implies that there are more teachers is the list (in the same place as the above quote) in book 4. "Tiny little professor Flitwick, the Charms teacher, was sitting on a large pile of cushions beside professor Sprout, the Herbology teacher, whose hat was askew over her flyaway grey hair. She was talking to Professor Sinistra of the Astronomy department. On Professor Sinistra's other side was the Sallow faced, hook nosed, greasy hair Potions master, Snape - Harry's least favourite person at Hogwarts.....On Snape's other side was an empty seat, which Harry Guessed was Professor McGonagall's. Next to it, and in the very centre of the Table, sat Professor Dumbledore, the Headmaster" To make things easier to understand we will say Harry is reading of these names from Left to right. Dumbledore is sitting in the Middle of the table. So if all these people are sitting on D's *Left*, who is sitting on the *right* side. We know that McGongall comes in and sits in the Empty chair next to D on his *left side* and Hagrid could possibly come in and sit on the *right* side (no empty chairs are mentioned on the *left side*), Moody comes in and sits next to D so he must be in the chair next to D on the *right side*. But who else? Ok there are Hooch and Vector but that is only two other people, there are 5 people sitting on D's *Left* so for him to be in the middle there must be 5 people sitting on his right. So far we have one as Moody is the only one we know for certain, we don't know where Hagrid sits down (it is likely that it is the rights side but not certain) and we can only presume that Hooch and Vector are there, plus there are the un-named Muggle Studies and Ancient Runes teachers, which would bring us to 6 (already one more than the *left* so who equals them up on the *left* side?). Is Binns going to be there, he is a teacher, that would equal them up. Trelawney says at Christmas in book 3 that she very rarely comes down into the main school and I find it unlikely that Harry would not have mentioned her if she had been there, mainly as she played an important part in book 3 (and also will in book 4) and I always saw this scene as JK re-introducing the main teachers to the readers (new and old). Is it likely that Pomfrey and Pince would be there as Filch probably isn't, from the fact that D says that Filch is banning new objects and surely if Filch was there D would invite him to tell the students?. Is it also likely that there are some teachers that are sitting on the "outskirts" of the table that Harry doesn't mention? as there are already two (one on each side) that aren't mentioned in the list. This gives us: Snape (known) McGongall (known) Flitwick (known) Moody (Arrives later) Sinistra (Known) Binns (Possible) Hooch (Possible) Sprout (Known) Hagrid (Arrives before the sorting) Trelawney (Unlikely) Vector (Possible) Unknown (Possible) Unknown (Possible) Plus Dumbledore in the middle (6 on each side) Is it really possible that 13 teachers (12 in reality as Hooch only seems to teach in the first year, how exactly do you carry on Flying lessons after one year, what else is there to learn? You can only practise.) I just don't see how it is possible for the 12 teachers we have to teach that number of pupils (even if it is as low as 280 - 10 per house per year) unless they are ALL double house classes, and with no breaks, as that would be 20 per class and so 14 simultaneous classes which is already more than the number of teachers we have! And we know that Harry's year Gryffindors only seem to have Potions and Herbology with another house, it is likely that this is similar with other houses, especially if it is true that Ravenclaw don't have any lessons with other houses. There may also be other subjects that are introduced (either at year 3, O.W.L. or N.E.W.T level that we haven't been told about and so a couple more teachers, but this also introduced more classes as well!) Please point out if I have completely missed something obvious. HOLLYDAZE!!! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From andrew_macian at yahoo.com Fri Jan 25 19:56:39 2002 From: andrew_macian at yahoo.com (Andrew MacIan) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 11:56:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Number of teachers? (WAS children responsibility) In-Reply-To: <020e01c1a5d8$8bdfbf20$509801d5@j0dhe> Message-ID: <20020125195639.43792.qmail@web9501.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 34051 Greetings from Andrew! A small, specific comment.... --- Hollydaze wrote: {snip} > Is it really possible that 13 teachers (12 in > reality as Hooch only seems to teach in the first > year, how exactly do you carry on Flying lessons > after one year, what else is there to learn? You can > only practise.) {snip} If we accept that Hooch is the Hogwarts equivalent of the school's riding mistress, I would then proffer that the analogy indicates that there would be at least three, and possibly seven, years of 'riding' lessons given. The classical horsemastership course runs through the early days of getting one's horse/broom to respond, through what-ever form of dressage that might be taught. Add to this the various skills needed for Quidditch (flying polo/rugger, anyone?) and you have quite the lesson plan that would take a fair amount of time, 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!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com From gingerorlando at hotmail.com Fri Jan 25 16:36:48 2002 From: gingerorlando at hotmail.com (katrionabowman) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 16:36:48 -0000 Subject: SHIP: R/H, H/H & our trio's escapades In-Reply-To: <3C507F64.8060007@swbell.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34052 Just to throw something into the mix here: I've read most of the shipping posts with a "wait and see" attitude. However, the thought occurred to me this morning that Harry getting involved with anyone other then Hermione (e.g. Ginny, Cho, or some yet undiscovered other) would fundamentally alter the dynamic of our trio. Unless romantic interest for any of the three was limited to canoodling in the common room in spare non-narrative furthering moments, it would seem that any climactic narrative closure in future novels would have to include Harry, Ron, Hermione plus the boyfriend/girlfriend in question. Which to me, is rather like adding an extra member to The Famous Five or The Secret Seven (groups of novels by English author Enid Blyton, where said schoolchildren have jolly japes and solve mysteries during the school hols). Such an addition goes against JKR's portrayal so far of the trio getting into cahoots and proving a potent DADA force to be reckoned with when combining their individual skills (although, GoF was much more centred on Harry's singular success - so perhaps here JKR is foreshadowing the removal of the trio's dependence on each other and thus paving the way for an alteration in the trio's relationship dynamic?). If JKR is intent on maintaining the trio however, then I would personally say that - if a romantic element is going to play a major part in the series' conclusion - Harry, as the chief protagonist, will end up with Hermione. Much as it pains me to say so! KT in Seattle From devin.smither at yale.edu Fri Jan 25 17:29:47 2002 From: devin.smither at yale.edu (uilnslcoap) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 17:29:47 -0000 Subject: polyjuice potion (was: Moody was really Crouch, Jr.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34053 Rachel wrote: >I couldn't agree more! We do not know the real moody yet. We know > Barty Crouch Jnr's estimation of moody and that is all. Hey everyone, first-time writer. Let me start by saying I'm glad to have found a forum for the thoughts running around like caged animals in my head, and thanks to the people who started this wonderful board. Now, I have to disagree with the argument that we know precious little about the real Moody. I think we know a great deal about him, though we may be slightly off on a few issues. If we take Crouch Jr.'s performance as Moody, up until after the third task/Harry and Voldemort's encounter, as excellent, then we are clued in greatly to what Moody is like. The question is, why take his performance as excellent? It's obvious. DUMBLEDORE, he who sees all (practically), knows all (just about), and fears nothing (almost), probably one of the most difficult people in the world to hoodwink, was fooled by Crouch Jr. Crouch tripped at the goal line and gave the game away when he took Harry off the field, but up until then, he had been fooling people who had had (yes, "had had" is correct) contact with Moody for years. Therefore, he was giving a great impression of what the real Moody's actions would be like in the situations he was thrown into. One could counter that Crouch probably did not have much personal contact with Dumbledore, et al., during the school year, but I think that's unlikely. Staff meetings, the occasional Dumbledore interview to discuss the current goings-on on the Dark Side (Where is Voldemort? Where is Pettigrew? What do we know about the current activities of the Death Eaters?), and other such encounters probably gave Crouch plenty of opportunity to give himself away. Yet, he did not, and so he must have been doing the best imaginable Moody impression. One might be able to argue that Crouch's actions as Moody when he was alone with Harry might not have been in-line, but his actions and words in class (teaching students about pretty dangerous magic), and in public (turning Draco into a ferret) were probably completely lined up with what the real Moody's would have been. Therefore, I think we have at least a decent idea of what Moody is like. I agree with certain people on this board who dislike Moody's character (or at least his devil-may-care attitude with civil liberties and the rights of the condemned). Both his actions in the past (the Pensieve) and Crouch Jr.'s actions, which we can take to be pretty Moody-like, send a shiver up my spine. Such a person may forsake one person's justice when he views the ultimate goal worthy of such an action, and that is reprehensible. Still, we haven't REALLY seen him, so I may open my mind when he shows up in future books. Before I leave off on this topic, even though I know it's probably been addressed somewhere before, I cannot for the life of me understand why Crouch as Moody would teach Harry how to break the Imperius Curse (or at least give him opportunities to learn how since it seems to be a possibly un-learnable skill, more something one empirically has as a gift). Or at least, having done so, why he wouldn't let Voldemort know that Harry could break the curse. Could someone reference where this has been discussed or start talking about it? Thanks everybody. See you later. Devin From ftah3 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 25 18:42:53 2002 From: ftah3 at yahoo.com (ftah3) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 18:42:53 -0000 Subject: SHIP: Possibility Hermione has romantic feelings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34054 Eileen wrote: > > > 1. Hermione is a cruel insensitive girl who implies to Ron that > she > > > would go to a ball with him, knowing perfectly well what his > feelings > > > are, when she wouldn't. Penny offered: > > OR > > > > 3. Hermione, offended because her friend assumes that he can just > use > > her as a last-ditch date when he can't get a "pretty girl" and then > even > > more offended when said friend questions her ethics in choosing > another > > date, throws off some remarks in the heat of an argument. Maybe she > > would have phrased her remarks differently if they'd been having a > cool, > > calm conversation. Eileen replied: > This is just a slightly different rephrasing of #1. No, not really, because the implied cruelty of #1 imho hinges on Hermione knowing Ron *likes* her, as a potential girlfriend, and on not having any intention at all of ever going with him. On the other hand, given #3, the idea could be that Hermione is having a tiff with a *friend* who hurt her feelings because, even though (she assumes) he doesn't like her as a potential girlfriend, he could at least have been nice enough to notice that she was legit date material. So she throws off that remark as simply making a point to a friend. Additionally, she may be tossing it out off the cuff, but again as friends, she may be thinking that in the future she *would* go with Ron, presuming her only other choices continue to be people she is less close to or people she only marginally likes. Does that make sense? And as for taking a jab at her friend ~ I don't think this paints her as cruel etc, either. Nor is it out of character for her. She takes shots at Harry & Ron when the situations warrant, i.e. when they're being dense or unthoughtful. She's not much of a shy rose.... Mahoney who did think there were mutual-like undertones between Hermy & Ron in that GoF scene upon first reading, but can see the argument either way From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Fri Jan 25 15:48:35 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 15:48:35 -0000 Subject: Karkaroff's hesitation WAS(Re: Moody -- "Types"--Where Are the) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34055 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" wrote: > No, but seriously. Karkaroff is, IMO, quite possibly Rowling's least > sympathetic character to date. Just about the only nice thing > I can think to say about him is that he did, at least, seem to suffer > from a brief moment of inner turmoil right before he fingered Snape > to the ministry. That's about it, really. Hmmmm.... and I read that as. "Let me think. What else have I got? Is it time to play the Snape card?" I don't think he had even a BRIEF moment of inner turmoil. Eileen From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Fri Jan 25 20:42:11 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 20:42:11 -0000 Subject: SHIP: R/H, H/H & our trio's escapades In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34056 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "katrionabowman" wrote: > If JKR is intent on maintaining the trio however, then I would > personally say that - if a romantic element is going to play a major > part in the series' conclusion - Harry, as the chief protagonist, > will end up with Hermione. I understand that the girlfriend who appears from nowhere would upset things, but why is it Harry who needs to get involved in a romance? Wouldn't this argument also support a Ron-Hermione pairing? And, isn't Ginny already part of the picture, unlike Cho Chang, with a defined relationship to the trio? Eileen PS I don't think Harry's going to end up with anyone, though. :-) I'm rooting for Hermione/Ron, Neville/Ginny. From love2write_11098 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 25 19:57:21 2002 From: love2write_11098 at yahoo.com (love2write_11098) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 19:57:21 -0000 Subject: SHIP: R/H, H/H In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34057 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lucky_kari" wrote: > Ron for Fleur, imho. BTW, does anyone have a copy of that interview. > I've heard it (in several variations) but I've never seen it, and it > would be VERY interesting. Okay, you win. I forgot about our friendly neighborhood veela. Silly me. > > But then, I'm a post-Hogwarts H/H shipper. I think falling in love > > before the age of twenty sucks and should be avoided at all costs; > > In real life, I agree. In literature, things are a little > different. :-) OTOH, the children of the wizarding world grow up much > faster than ours. I believe I posted awhile ago that they are expected > by around 18 years old to have taken up the position of 30 year olds > in our society. I wouldn't be surprised if marriages were earlier > (just as in our own past), and people met their spouses while they > were still teen-agers. So far, we've seen at least two marriages that > came out of Hogwarts. True, very true. I think that wizarding teenagers/young adults are deprived of a valuable experience by not having the option of higher education. How can they possibly learn everything they need to learn in just seven years? Perhaps there are internships or something that provide what college provides in the Muggle world: a chance to become a mature, responsible adult and still have the support (emotional, financial, practical) of one's family. As for marriages out of Hogwarts, there does seem to be a very high rate. I wonder what the wizarding divorce rate is? Stacy From theennead at attbi.com Fri Jan 25 09:10:55 2002 From: theennead at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 09:10:55 -0000 Subject: What Does It Mean To "Like" A Character? -- "Types" -- Hagrid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34058 Some thoughts here on the various ways in which it is possible to "like" characters: as characters (Do we enjoy reading about them? Do we enjoy the narrative function they fulfill?), or as people (Do we identify with them? Do we consider them to be "good people?" Do we think that we would enjoy their company in real life?) Also, a bit of Hagrid, a bit of Moody, and a few words on what happens when an author seems to be speaking out in opposition to the reader's own deeply-held political or philosophical beliefs. -- A while back, I wrote: > I like to think that we're supposed to notice this > unsavory evidence of Hagrid's, that this is Rowling's > way of showing the subversive power of insitutionalized > bigotry. Mahoney responded by expressing her distaste for trying to second- guess Authorial Intent, particularly hortatory Authorial Intent, or "message," and stated that she far prefers to read characters as characters, rather than as talking heads. She wrote: > I don't think that Hagrid was meant to be an example > of institutionalized bigotry; rather I'm struck by > how he reflects a certain type of colorful rural > personality. The thing is that I quite agree with Mahoney here: I, too, dislike "message" and would far prefer not to spend too much of my time or mental energy trying to second-guess authorial intent. The above was very badly phrased. What I suppose that I was really trying to express there was something more along the lines of: "I really hope that when Hagrid says these awful things, he's only saying them because he is *Hagrid* -- a sweet, well-meaning, but not always terribly thoughtful member of a far-from-utopian society -- and not because he is actually serving as the author's mouthpiece." That I find myself thinking such things at all, of course, reveals a certain lack of trust in the author on my part. But the fact is that I *don't* altogether trust Rowling -- and from the discussions here, I gather that this is not all that unusual an ambivalence. Which brings us to the question of how readers respond when an author whose work they enjoy suddenly seems to be attacking closely-held beliefs. Eileen wrote (about the scene at the beginning of PoA in which the unpleasant Vernon Dursley goes on a rant about those darned bleeding- heart types who object to capital punishment): > I actually remember being quite shocked that the > book would get so political there....I am opposed to > capital punishment...However, it was the practice of > putting such a statement in the mouth of the ridiculed > and stereotyped character that made me uncomfortable > with it. I could have taken stubborn Percy or > obsessed Crouch Sr. saying something like that (and > indeed, they say much more serious things), but > Vernon Dursley? All my sense of fairness cries out! LOL! You have an extraordinarily well-developed sense of fair play, Eileen. I'm sincerely impressed. But one thing that we Americans (I'm assuming here -- please don't hurt me if I'm wrong!) might want to keep in mind about that scene is that capital punishment has not been a legal penalty for murder in Great Britain for quite a number of years now. So while it is still a political issue of sorts (there are people in Britain who advocate the resumption of the death penalty), it's hardly the flaming-hot, red-button, "let's-not-go-there-if-we-want-to-avoid-a-screaming- argument" sort of topic that it can be here in the US. Sirius Black *cannot* be legally executed for the crime of murder under British Muggle law, so Vernon ranting and raving about how he ought to be is more humorous, IMO, than it is blatantly political. However, I see your point. It is awkward, to say the least, when a political hot topic intrudes without warning in a work of fiction, worse still if the author happens to disagree with you, and worse *still* if she chooses to express her disapproval by placing your beliefs in the mouth of a character who is not only generally portrayed as Wrong About Everything Under the Sun, but is also an object of mockery and disdain. Rowling hasn't done that to me yet, but other authors certainly have, and there's no question about it: it can hurt, and it can anger. Unfortunately, it's also hard to avoid -- and the further from the mainstream your deepest-held beliefs happen to be, the less avoidable it becomes. The best remedy that I'm aware of is simply to learn to swallow the indignation and read on. (Although throwing the book across the room can also prove gratifying, in its way.) (Just develop thick skin. Right. Sage advice. And yet...and yet...and yet I can still remember with unpleasant vividness just how horribly angry and resentful I felt towards C.S. Lewis over this sort of thing when reading the Narnia books as a child. It's *visceral,* my memory of that anger. Physical. And that was nearly thirty *years* ago, for heaven's sake! It's weird, that. And surely not altogether healthy. Just a moment -- must pop a sedative. There. Ah. Better.) --- On the subject of Hagrid's flaws, Mahoney conceded that Hagrid does have a lot of them. In the end, though, her feelings about him seem pretty-well summarized by the statement: > I like Hagrid, gargantuan flaws and all. While Cindy said: > He is clearly someone we are meant to love deeply. > So why does JKR keep having Hagrid do these awful > (IMO) things? Hmmm. Well, personally, I find Hagrid both flawed and loveable, if also often irritating. But it's curious, isn't it? Why is it that Mahoney likes Hagrid (in spite of his flaws), while Cindy cannot bring herself to do so (in spite of the fact that she considers it clear that the reader is "meant" to like him)? This interests me in part because so much of the discussion here seems to center on the use of canonical citation to evaluate the HP characters on *moral* grounds. Evidence is presented to support or condemn characters ethically, or philosophically, or even spiritually. I strongly suspect, though, that more often than not what is really at issue is simple personal affection. We like some characters and dislike others in very much the same way, and for very much the same reasons, that we like or dislike real people; and as in real life, our reasons rarely have all that much to do with moral virtue. People generally don't choose their friends based on a strict weighing of their moral flaws against their strengths of character. (Surely we all know virtuous people whom we just can't stand to be around?) Attachments are far more often, it seems to me, formed on the basis of things like sense of humour, and temperamental compatability, and shared interests, and even shared dislikes than they are on any strict accounting of moral virtues. What worries me, I think, is that I suspect that all too often, we form our judgements about the characters based on these sorts of factors first, and only *then* go searching for evidence of their moral wrongdoings, or their hidden virtues. It's only human, I suppose: we readily forgive the people we like for precisely the same behavior that we roundly condemn in the people we loathe; my friend's Endearing Little Foible is my enemy's Horrible Great Sin. For an example of this phenomenon, I might cite my own vehement condemnation of Moody for using nasty language to describe Karkaroff in the Pensieve scene of GoF, while noting my own utter lack of dismay over Sirius' use of similarly unkind and degrading language to refer to Pettigrew in PoA. And you know what? Even *writing* this, I find myself feeling this overwhelming urge to qualify ("Yes, but you see, Sirius has far more *personal* reason to call Pettigrew 'filth' than Moody does to refer to Karkaroff that way, and Sirius has suffered so *badly,* the poor dear, and...and...") All of which has some validity, IMO. But is the reason I want to say it *really* because it "has validity?" Or is it simply that I *like* Sirius, while I don't like Moody, and so Sirius gets leeway from me, while I'm willing to cut Moody not a single lousy break? I honestly don't know. But I rather suspect that it's the latter. For another recent example of this phenomenon, Cindy wrote about Hagrid: > Indeed, I'm unhappy with Hagrid's behavior in another > important scene. Karkaroff spits at Dumbledore's > feet, which is not nice, of course. Hagrid, who > is bigger and stronger, responds with a fair amount > of violence by slamming Karkaroff into a tree. The > reader is apparently supposed to be impressed with > Hagrid's loyalty to Dumbledore. Ok, I get it. > I still don't like this scene, though. I found this very funny when I read it, largely because it appeared on the very same day that, elsewhere, Cindy had defended Moody (or, rather, Crouch/Moody) to me for his behavior during the Bouncing Ferret Incident -- a scenario that seemed to me to share many of the same dynamics. In both scenarios, the actor is responding with an excessive degree of force to a not-very-nice action taken by a not-terribly- sympathetic antagonist character. In both scenarios, the attacker is *vastly* more powerful than his victim. In both scenarios, by the time the act of violence takes place, the victim is really no longer in any way a threat to the person who is supposedly being "defended against." (Karkaroff, while rude, was never really any physical threat to Dumbledore in the first place; Draco, while angry, was certainly not going to continue to fire off curses at Harry once a teacher had arrived on the scene.) Although in neither scenario does the victim of the violence suffer any permanent damage, in both cases, the degree of violence used *was* sufficient to cause real injury (a subject which has been under some debate, I know, but I am firmly of the opinion, that being bounced onto a floor from ten feet in the air while in the form of a ferret would leave bruises at the very *least;* frankly, I'm surprised that Draco didn't break any bones). And in both scenarios, the reader is supposed to be impressed (at least, with Crouch/Moody, until we learn better) with the actor's loyalty to one of the protagonists -- Dumbledore in Hagrid's case, Harry in the case of Crouch/Moody. Now admittedly, the two situations are not *identical.* But they are sufficiently analagous that I feel compelled to ask: Cindy, do you think that your willingness to forgive Moody for Bouncing Ferret might not have quite a bit to do with the fact that you just plain *like* the guy, and so find yourself willing to cut him more slack than you're willing to cut for somebody you don't like, ie Hagrid? --- Of course, sometimes when we say that we "like" a character, we just mean that we enjoy reading about them. Often the characters we like the most are the ones that we *dislike* the most: the characters we love to hate. So Mahoney writes: > I love both characters [Hagrid and Snape] because they > are interesting and surprising; I feel affectionate > toward Hagrid despite his flaws, but I happily loathe > Snape in spite of his positive qualities. Mahoney likes both Hagrid and Snape as characters; she likes Hagrid as a person, while disliking Snape as a person. Or so it would seem. But then she writes: > On the other hand, if I were to meet them both, in > reality, I would have a difficult time accepting > Hagrid's loveable qualities...while I would probably > cut Snape a huge break... Now *this* I find absolutely fascinating! Mahoney, do you think that you might be able to explain why you think that Hagrid and Snape's positions reverse themselves, once you imagine yourself meeting them in person? I can think of a couple of reasons why this might be. There's the filter of Harry's POV, and the bias that this casts on all of the characters while we are reading the books. Is this what accounts for it? Or is it more a matter of the idiosyncracies of personal contact? ("I love Hagrid in print, but loud voices really just make me crazy, and he's so prone to bellowing...") Or is there some other factor at work, which I've not considered? Or is it, perhaps, a matter of personal identification? It seems to me that this is yet another way in which someone might "like" a character: through personal identification and empathy, which is not at all the same thing as wanting to spend time with someone, or even particularly liking them in a personal sense. (I may be unusually self-loathing, but I often do not enjoy the company of people who remind me too strongly of myself -- especially when they remind me of my less savory characteristics. But because I am at heart a masochist, I absolutely love *reading* about characters who remind me of my less savory characteristics.) So what role might empathy and identification play in what we mean when we say that we "like" a character? Eileen wrote: > I sometimes feel personally attacked when somewhere > goes after a character in which I see a lot of myself. > Characters to whom I've built a strong personal > connection.... She explains her reasons for identifying strongly with Ron, and then writes: > I feel like going into a rage when people say things > like, "Ron's jealousy proves he's likely to betray > Harry." I know it's not rational, but I feel it deep > down, as if I was being accused of my schoodays jealousy > leading to treason. I can certainly understand that! So, Eileen, do you like Ron? In the sense of thinking that you'd get on well with him in real life? In the sense of enjoying reading about him? In the sense of feeling personal affection for him? All or neither or only some of the above? ---- Finally, a brief note on teaching styles: Eileen wrote: > I found that discussion illuminating as well, since I > realized that I preferred "Snape" teachers to "Hagrid" > teachers all through school, probably contributing to my > feelings towards the two in fiction. Mahoney concurs: > ....(And actually, I would probably seek out Snape to > challenge me as a teacher...) To which I can only say: Wow. You guys really are *brave.* I had a Snapesque mathematics professor once. Thirty minutes before every class, my stomach would begin to ache. Ten minutes before class, I would start to cry. And then after every class, I would have to go be violently sick. After Every Class. Not an experience I *ever* want to repeat. Then, the most Hagrid-like teacher I ever had, *I* made cry once. So I suppose that it all came out even. In the end. More or less. With a big whomping heap of karmic "You Got Yours, You Rotten Kid" tacked on the end, that is. -- Elkins From jchutney at yahoo.com Fri Jan 25 19:24:04 2002 From: jchutney at yahoo.com (jchutney) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 19:24:04 -0000 Subject: More Flaws, More Popular? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34059 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > In fact, each of these four characters has committed errors serious > enough that someone could have been killed or very badly injured. > Nevertheless, I suspect that if you took a poll, one of those four > characters (Lupin, Snape, Black and Hagrid) would be the favorite > adult character of a great percentage of members of this list. > > There are, however, characters who haven't made any big mistakes that > we know of. One is McGonagall; another is Dumbledore. Neither of > these characters is among my favorites. They have been in all four > books, and they have had a lot of interaction with Harry. So why is > it that wise Dumbledore and competent McGonagall seem to stir less > passion for me and possibly for others?> This reminds me of Henry James' famous edict about the relationship of plot to character (they are the same thing). Minerva and Dumbledore are great but if everyone were like them, we'd have no story! LOL! It seems to me that the "whiter" or "blacker" a character the less interesting. It's the "grey" like Sirius and Snape that provoke discussion (so, is he good OR bad?) and of course, "greys" keep readers guessing. We have no idea what Snape will do next. The one time we all went crazy for Dumbledore was in analyzing his "grey" moment (gleam of triumph). Could Dumbledore actually be NOT all good? Stop the presses! From moongirlk at yahoo.com Fri Jan 25 21:13:50 2002 From: moongirlk at yahoo.com (moongirlk) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 21:13:50 -0000 Subject: SHIP: R/H, H/H In-Reply-To: <3C507F64.8060007@swbell.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34060 Just a couple of quick things because I can't help myself. --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Penny & Bryce wrote: jchutney: > Our opinions of Hermione > > diverge here. I don't think Hermione is as controlled by her > > emotions as Ron is. Even in PoA, when Hermione hit Draco, she seemed > > to be making a logical choice! LOL! > Penny: > I guess our opinions do diverge as I didn't see her using logic when she > punched Draco, and I see little evidence of cool-headed logic in her > retorts to Ron during their argument. > > When she made her remark in an argument, the "next Ball" isn't exactly > around the corner. Even if she *was* inviting him to ask her out & was > interested in dating him *at that time,* who's to say she still would be > by the time of the "next" Ball? I think we'd all agree that people have the capacity to change their minds, but that's not at all relevant to the point at hand, which is whether or not Hermione meant what she said *at the time that she made the statement*. I have too high of an opinion of her kindness *and* her self- possession (she keeps her cool when she's facing death by poison or fire in PS/SS; I don't think it's deserted her here) to think that even in the heat of the moment she would knowingly say something that could have no other result than to hurt a friend, even if he has been hurtful to her. I think she'd choose to be the bigger person - she's proven to me that she's more thoughtful than Ron is at this age, and I'm one of the biggest Ron-lovers on the list. Maybe I'm just gullible enough that I think too highly of everyone, not just Ron. > It also might not have been clear to > her what the real reason was (Ron's interest in her) until after her > head had cleared after their argument. Maybe she went back up to her > room and thought "Oh, dear. Oh, no." :::shrugs::: It's possible. This is possible, but unlikely in light of Harry's thought-comment at the end of the fight, and it completely contradicts your own previous statement that you were sure that she *did* know how he feels. I buy it as possible, but clearly neither of us believes it to be true. > If H were clear about > > R's feeling and if they were unwelcome to her, surely she would try > > and dispassionate and kind way to let him down. > > And maybe she will. In OOP. :--) I look forward to finding out - it will be interesting to see how all of the characters interactions progress and how JKR deals with the SHIP situation in the context of the much more important stuff she's got going on. Anticipation is fun when you've got others to spar with in speculation! kimberly From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com Fri Jan 25 22:30:01 2002 From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 16:30:01 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: SHIP: R/H, H/H References: Message-ID: <3C51DC69.EAD959F1@kingwoodcable.com> No: HPFGUIDX 34061 lucky_kari wrote: > Ron for Fleur, imho. BTW, does anyone have a copy of that interview. > I've heard it (in several variations) but I've never seen it, and it > would be VERY interesting. Here's the excerpt from the interview... sammyohyeah asks: Is it just me, or was something going on between Ron and Hermione during the last half of GOF? I love your books, btw, and two of them I've read stright through cover to cover in under 24 hours. jkrowling_bn: well done on the reading speed! jkrowling_bn: yes, something's 'going on'... jkrowling_bn: but Ron doesn't realise it yet... jkrowling_bn: typical boy And here's the link to the interview: http://www.yahooligans.com/content/chat/jkrowlingchat.html -KAtze From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Fri Jan 25 19:55:30 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 19:55:30 -0000 Subject: Healing Lupin In-Reply-To: <39.216efa96.29822e3f@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34062 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., enigmaticerin at a... wrote: > Hi y'all, long-time lurker de-lurking to discuss my favorite > Personally, I really don't think that Lupin is going to be "cured" of his lycanthropy. lf there was a charm or a ritual or whatnot that had been proven effective, I assume *someone* would have tried it at some point in the 30 some-odd years Remus has been a werewolf. Especially during his years at Hogwarts. If there were a cure, or even possible cures, I assume that James, Sirius & Peter would have spent the better part of their time working on that, rather than becoming Animagi. Lupin's character is very much an illustration of disability-based discrimination, it would seem almost like a cop-out if JK were to have him be curable, no matter how complex the cure might be. As much as it pains me to say so, I think Lupin is more likely to die than be cured before the end of the series. > > ~Erin aka Alizarin, cause I know there are several Erins on this list ;) > I still can't believe I'm de-lurking, it's been over 3 months.... -------------- De-Lurking is GOOD! Anyway, let me say that I agree with most of what you've said. I seriously hope that there is no cure in sight for lycanthropy (sp?) in the Potter Universe, since it would mean that a very important lesson we can draw form the books would be robed of all it's weight, as would be a major opportunity of making great allys. In the first place, we've been told repeatedly that animals are not bad (just animals), and that once the wolfbane potion is taken and rationality restored a werewolf is just as good (or as bad) as his human personality will allow him to be. That means that, just like giants could be in Harry's side, so could werewolves and any other living creature capable of concious thought. I haven't seen anyone waving the flag "lets convert the centaurs", since we all agree that they're not sick (just half-horse), and I'm sure it comes out to be an advantage (specially when fleeing form Voldie with an eleven-year-old in your arms!). Which leads me to the next point: if Lupin could likewise work with his problem until it became a major advantage, he would be a force to reckon. To put it with a little of (borrowed) humour form discworld: [situation: thieves just got out from a stick-up robbery and are confronted by a sweet-looking policeman accompanied by a werewolf (in wolf form)] 'He's not even drawn his sword!' hissed the most stupid of the three-strong gang. 'He doesn't need to, he's got a loaded wolf' (Feet of Clay, Terry Pratchett) The only thing I disagree of what you've said is Lupin's death. If one of the three LPPW left was to die, I'd imagine Sirius is the one to do so (being godfather and protector and all), but I dont think any of them is going to die (not even wormtail, he's got the looks of a traitor who's going to be a traitor once more and help the good guys in the end, so they feel obligated and pardon his miserable life). I stated some time back that the "painfull death" will be Ron, but I'll leave that for another thread (or you can read my comments two weeks back or so). Okay, so I like wolves AND people who can change into wolves. That's one of the reasons I call myself Grey Wolf. Anyway, Hope that helps Grey Wolf (He who has been studying hard for his exams, and has been away for a while) From pennylin at swbell.net Fri Jan 25 22:26:59 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny & Bryce) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 16:26:59 -0600 Subject: SHIP: Possibility Hermione has romantic feelings References: Message-ID: <3C51DBB3.9090009@swbell.net> No: HPFGUIDX 34063 Hi -- Eileen said: > > > 1. Hermione is a cruel insensitive girl who implies to Ron that > she > > > would go to a ball with him, knowing perfectly well what his > feelings > > > are, when she wouldn't. > > > 2. Hermione does return some of the interest. I added: > > > > OR > > > > 3. Hermione, offended because her friend assumes that he can just > use > > her as a last-ditch date when he can't get a "pretty girl" and then > even > > more offended when said friend questions her ethics in choosing > another > > date, throws off some remarks in the heat of an argument. Maybe she > > would have phrased her remarks differently if they'd been having a > cool, > > calm conversation. Eileen responded with: > > This is just a slightly different rephrasing of #1. No, cruel & insensitive = calculating; thrown off in the emotional heat of an argument is *not* calculating. #1 is the argument that (a) Hermione knew at the time of the argument how Ron felt about her, and (b) made a calculated decision in the course of an argument to hurt Ron by implying that she would accept a date with him. I find #1 highly doubtful, but #2 is not the only remaining possibility. #3 assumes that Hermione said something in the course of an argument that she might not have said in a cool, calm conversation OR that she some things in an argument without prior knowledge of Ron's feelings for her (or both). >> 4. Hermione, who has a bit of romantic interest in more than one > boy >> (gasp! Can teenage girls do *that*?!), sends off some mixed > signals. > And this is just #2 all over again. No, #2 is, I think, an argument that Hermione Likes Ron and is inviting him to ask her out (wanted it all along) & has no romantic feelings for any other males. I'm saying that even if she *was* implying that she'd like him to ask her out, this doesn't mean that she *doesn't* have romantic feelings for Harry or Krum for that matter (or isn't confused about which boy, if any, she might prefer). But I've noticed that H/H shippers refuse to even > acknowledge that such feelings exist in this scene. I lean toward the interpretation that Hermione was angry & she was having an argument with Ron. I also agree with Christi that she was not necessarily inviting Ron to ask her out. But, the possibility is there that she does have feelings for Ron & was inviting him to ask her out. I just don't believe that's as strong an argument, that's all. Doesn't mean I can't see it as a plausible argument at all. But, my take is that the preponderence of evidence in the series as a whole so far weighs in favor of Hermione having romantic interest in Harry, not Ron. Eileen, in another post, said: > OTOH, the children of the wizarding world grow up much > faster than ours. I believe I posted awhile ago that they are expected > by around 18 years old to have taken up the position of 30 year olds > in our society. I wouldn't be surprised if marriages were earlier > (just as in our own past), and people met their spouses while they > were still teen-agers. So far, we've seen at least two marriages that > came out of Hogwarts. We know that James & Lily both attended Hogwarts & were presumably the same class year based on Hagrid's remark that they were Head Boy & Head Girl in their time. But, do we know that they dated at Hogwarts? Maybe they only knew each other at Hogwarts & hooked up later on. We don't even know for sure *when* they married. We do know that Molly & Arthur had some romantic relationship at Hogwarts, but do we know that they never dated anyone else or that they married straight away after leaving Hogwarts? I'm curious where people have this idea that marriages are young in the wizarding world, and I'd be especially interested in any canon evidence for Eileen's statement above that, in the wizarding world, 18 yr olds are expected to take up the societal position of 30 yr olds. Is this based on something in canon or just supposition or opinion? kt said, though it pains her to say it: >> If JKR is intent on maintaining the trio however, then I would >> personally say that - if a romantic element is going to play a > major >> part in the series' conclusion - Harry, as the chief protagonist, >> will end up with Hermione. Ah, Katy, why does it pain you to say it? You can reply offlist. :--) Eileen responded with: > > I understand that the girlfriend who appears from nowhere would upset > things, but why is it Harry who needs to get involved in a romance? > Wouldn't this argument also support a Ron-Hermione pairing? And, > isn't Ginny already part of the picture, unlike Cho Chang, with a > defined relationship to the trio? As best I can tell, Ginny's relationship to the Trio is that of an annoying younger sister who is actively excluded from their activities. I would think she's about on even footing with a complete outsider frankly. Gwen said: > "I think her interaction with Ron, particularly her frustration when he > doesn't perform > up to her par on either academic issues or questions of their > mystery-solving, is indicative of a desire to see Ron be something he isn't. > Or at least, isn't yet. I think her anger at him and her hurt reactions to > his teasing (especially about Viktor) are clues that she does Like him, but > is perhaps waiting for him to grow up and realize it. And personally, I > believe it would be a disaster if they did get together. Hermione is doing > something that, unfortunately, many intelligent, otherwise sensible young > (and not so young) women do: banking on potential, not reality." I can definitely see this; it is a funny trend, isn't it? I think *if* Hermione does Like Ron or ends up Liking Ron, it would be a disaster, and this is one of the reasons why. I don't see how Ron could ever live up to her expectations .... which is not to say that he's *not* good enough for her. It just means that I think she probably has some high expectations and would be frustrated by Ron's inability to meet them, which would lead to more bickering & arguing, endless cycle of unhappiness & messy icky relationship. :--) IMO of course. > Again, in some sense, I think that to all three of them, > the friendship is more important than romantic feelings, and that eventually > they will acknowledge that while they love each other, they are not "in > love" with each other. (I base this on experiences in small classes of > tightly knit circles of friends who had been together in small classes of > tightly knit circles of friends for at least as long as the kids have been.) > Yes, they both (or all) may have lingering attractions for one another, but > again, human emotions are messy. It's very possible to be attracted to > someone long after you either know that it's not going to work or realize > that it's a bad idea or even hate the person's guts. It becomes easier to > live with in time. And right now, they're all confused kids. I think it would be perfectly plausible for this to be the end result for the end of the canon years. But it isn't that far-fetched for close friends to eventually turn to romance when both parties are adults & have sampled the waters some. I favor post-Hogwarts H/H because I think they are suited and I can believe in that relationship .... but it makes much more sense to me as a relationship that grows with time & bonding & after exploration of other options. It does not make sense to me that because Ron had an obvious crush on Hermione when they were 15 yrs old, that H/H is precluded forevermore on the grounds that it isn't cool to go after a friend's love interest. People grow up, and I fully expect our Trio to do the same. Unless R/H happens & *lasts*, there's no reason why Hermione couldn't hook up with Harry later on. Penny From ladjables at yahoo.com Fri Jan 25 19:50:31 2002 From: ladjables at yahoo.com (ladjables) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 19:50:31 -0000 Subject: SHIP: Some R/H questions Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34064 To all R/H, H/H shippers, I've been browsing through the SHIP posts, and correct me if I'm wrong, but there seems to be an underlying notion that Ron doesn't deserve Hermione(meant facetiously?), but it has me flummoxed. I've never been a shipper really, but as of Goblet of Fire, I thought JKR established some sort of chemistry between the Ron and Hermione, if that's what you can call what 14 year olds experience. I,(quite arrogantly) never imagined that other fans hoped Harry and Hermione might discover feelings for each other. It doesn't bother me if I never saw a H/H coming, but the idea that Ron and Hermione cannot work because he is below her standards, or isn't worthy of her, does. Have you ever noticed couples who have been together for ever, and for the life of you, you can't imagine WHY? There you are, wondering and pondering, railing and wailing that they will never last, and yet there they are, blissfully proving you wrong. Even if theirs is a relationship that relishes warfare, this doesn't mean it's unsuccessful. I know of a husband and wife, polar opposites, who have fought every day of their now 30 year marriage. But they're happy. Would R and H theoretically not work out because they fight all the time? Is that a bad thing? Or is that just the way they communicate? I have no lofty theory for why H/H belong together, except I believe Ron would be as good for Hermione as she would be for him. It doesn't matter if he's Harry's sidekick, or he exhibits extreme jealousy while Harry is capable of such admirable strength of character (I'm not saying these are anyone's reasons). I think comparing Harry and Ron is deceptive. In my eyes they're equal even if they're not alike. Either of them would make good, albeit different boyfriends. Both Hermione and Harry depend on Ron. He anchors the trio very well, since H and H are struggling to find their place in the wizarding world. It's true he's trying to carve out a niche for himself as the 6th Weasley boy, but this isn't comparable to Harry and Hermione, who are muggle-raised. He has a certain level of security they don't have. What I think is very significant about Ron and Hermione's relationship however is that Ron is the only person who will take Hermione down a peg. (I will probably get flamed for this). I'm not saying Hermione should become a floozy because she's too brilliant, but in some ways I think her obsession with schoolwork is to compensate for her insecurity about other facets of her character. Ron sees right through her when she's being intolerably know-it-all, or gets her to relax when she's hyperventilating, I think there's evidence in the canon, especially when they're yelling at each other over homework. I believe this why Ron is very good for Hermione. And what does this have to do with them being a couple? Probably nothing, but that's my reasoning. Hermione may challenge Ron to become more ambitious, but Ron may challenge Hermione to let her hair down, I know she can do this on her own, but his telling her has an impact as well. What I really want to say is, don't underrate Ron's character because he isn't as clever as Hermione, or not a Harry Potter; he has his merits too. I don't think he has to become a great chess champion or have some other secret talent(even though that would be fine too) to be worthy of either the trio or Hermione; I happen to like him the way he is. And I really don't think any of those things matter when it comes to relationships. They may enhance them, but they don't bolster them. Good lord, I'm discussing the love lives of fictitious 14 year olds, time to go. Forgive the ramble, especially if I've repeated last year's theories, and please feel free to unspool this mess. Ama From keegan at mcn.org Fri Jan 25 23:16:13 2002 From: keegan at mcn.org (Catherine Keegan) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 15:16:13 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Wizard Economics In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.20020125150955.00ad2a90@mail.mcn.org> No: HPFGUIDX 34065 IMHO, it seems like some kind of middleman position would be a great job for a squib or any number of witches or wizards. So many of the characters seem to be happily isolated in their own wizards' world. Having others who could go out and procure things from "out there" and bring them in to sell at Diagon Alley, etc... would provide a valuable service and would be profitable, too. I imagine muggle-borns and folks from half-n-half families would have an advantage. I can easily see Gred and Forge try to argue their way through whatever maze that the MoM has established to get a license to sell their joke products to the muggles. Maybe traffic is only one way? Probably a bit safer although the occasional cursed teapot does make its way out... Catherine from California From jchutney at yahoo.com Fri Jan 25 19:04:02 2002 From: jchutney at yahoo.com (jchutney) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 19:04:02 -0000 Subject: SHIP R/H, H/H In-Reply-To: <95774A6A6036D411AFEA00D0B73C864303B057A8@exmc3.urmc.rochester.edu> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34066 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Hillman, Lee" wrote: > I think you've hit on something important here. Yes, I agree with Penny that you made some broad generalizations about shippers' motivations, and that that's a no-no, but I do think there is some validity in your canon-based points.> LOL! So, are you saying that it's wrong to make generalizations, but in this case, they're right? :) Honestly, I didn't mean to offend. I think I betray my own prejudices as an English major. There are so many ways to "read" text, etc. Obviously, the more complicated the material, the more ways to read the text ? hence, the 20,000 ways to view Hamlet. Honestly, I don't have an "investment" in H/R. JKR can kill them both off in BkV (poor Harry!), and I'll keep reading cause she's a damn fine writer. I cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that JKR is setting up H/R or that H likes R. However, IMO, we can all see that by a preponderance of evidence, that this more likely than not. (If I were to approach it mathematically I'd say that even though it's not 100%, it's maybe 60% likely to be true.) So, when discussing the topic with H/Hers, I speculate as to the motivations, etc that lead someone to an alternate view. I have taken alternate views myself re: Art. I always thought Kate Hepburn should have chosen Jimmy Stewart in the Philadelphia Story! I know I'm in the minority and non-canon. I also know that JS's "decency" was far more endearing to ME that Cary Grant's "suavity". There is nothing wrong with a preference or a prejudice ? as long as we're aware of it. Is it truly wrong to look at the values, biases, etc., we bring to the table when analyzing art? >Human beings, rightly or wrongly, frequently are attracted to the kind of person who is exactly the worst match. In message 29544, I said: "I think her interaction with Ron, particularly her frustration when he doesn't perform up to her par on either academic issues or questions of their mystery-solving, is indicative of a desire to see Ron be something he isn't And personally, I believe it would be a disaster if they did get together. Hermione is doing something that, unfortunately, many intelligent, otherwise sensible young (and not so young) women do: banking on potential, not reality." > Now I regret my unkind comments about Ron! LOL! Ron's flawed but he does have loads of good qualities. I would quibble slightly with your assessment of Hermione. If she's banking on potential, why do that when she could after "the real thing" in Harry? Maybe it's the "flaws" ? sarcasm, devil-may-care attitude, willingness to bicker, open emotion, etc. that appeal to Hermione? I actually wonder if Hermione would like Ron as much if he "grew up" and became academic like Percy or "cool" like Bill. jchutney From mercia at ireland.com Fri Jan 25 15:52:56 2002 From: mercia at ireland.com (meglet2) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 15:52:56 -0000 Subject: Moody was really Crouch, Jr. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34067 On the point of congruence between Moody and Crouch Jr. I accept that Crouch Jr's general bahviour can't have been too far off Moddy's persoanlity but I do think that there are several incidents that we can see as more in keeping with Crouch than Moody (with the benefit of hindsight of course!). During the bouncing ferret episode for example I believe that Crouch was persecuting Draco quite deliberately and just finding it convenient that he could also be assumed to be sticking up for Harry. After all he tells Harry (more than once) that there is nothing he hates more than a DE who got off. Moody might well be expected to feel this but we know by the end these are Crouch's real feelings. He asked Harry for details of how LV might have tortured the DEs who didn't go to Azkaban and we know that Lucius Malfoy was one of the first to go back to the MOM to save their own skins. Crouch isn't the chap to let the son off for the father's crimes. I reckon he would quite enjoy punishing the sins of the fathers to the fourth and fitfth generation. Also in the curses class, if we think about it, that is clearly done by someone with a powerful sadistic streak. I do not believe Crouch when he says he cleared it with Dumbledore (after all why should we believe anything he says - his whole existence at this point is an elaborate lie) and anyone who can torture animals (even spiders) with such relish can torture human beings. It is perhaps the first indication that this is not a good person if we only had eyes to see. His pretence of concern for Neville at the end of the class may have been in keeping with Moody (though he also had an alterior motive for it) but it is clear from the text that seeing the effects of the cruciatis even on a spider was a major trauma for Neville. I believe that would be a bonus for Crouch who would again see a little persecution of the son as an excellent way to get some revenge for the Longbottoms' work against the Death Eaters. The real Alastor Moody is Dumbledore's friend. He may be twitichy, unpredictable, unconcerned with other's opinion's, suffering from persecution mania etc but I do not believe that Dumbledore would be friend's with someone who was cruel in nature. That of course is accepting that Dumbledore is the standard for all that is good in the books and hoping hard that the notorious 'gleam of triumph' is not a hint in the other direction. But I think JKR said somewhere that Dumbledore is her idea of a good, wise person so until proved otherwise by the books that is what I will believe. meglet2/mercia From lav at tut.by Fri Jan 25 21:40:09 2002 From: lav at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 23:40:09 +0200 Subject: HP Translations Message-ID: <14163021258.20020125234009@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 34068 Greetings! (Don't know if it will hit the HPforGU - maybe it's for OT-Chatter... let's pray for best :) It has occurred to me today, when I finally finished an English translation of my favourite Russian sci-fi book, just how _different_ translation is from the original. Hey, the line, the characters, _everything_ was the same, still it has created *entirely* different impressions. Now that I can only live by hope to read HP series in English original, I have a question - has anybody here read the books in different languages (English included, of course)? Was there any difference (emotional, subjects stressed differently, all those stuff)? It is especially interesting if someone has read HP in English FIRST and only then in some other language (that is, original first, copy second), because as my experience with English originals shows, if you have read copy first, it influences your reading of the original a lot. Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, (Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed), who is now in "books must be read in their authors language" camp for the rest of his life... - We have nothing but faith and love. But it's very much when there's nothing but hatred and despair around. Sunny Kitten. (Sergey Lukyanenko, "The Boy and the Dark"). From lav at tut.by Fri Jan 25 21:34:44 2002 From: lav at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 23:34:44 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Number of teachers? (WAS children responsibility) In-Reply-To: <020e01c1a5d8$8bdfbf20$509801d5@j0dhe> References: <1214851382.20020123002047@tut.by> <020e01c1a5d8$8bdfbf20$509801d5@j0dhe> Message-ID: <4662695873.20020125233444@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 34069 Greetings! > Hollydaze wrote to us: H> Is there any "agreement" on what the number of teachers H> at Hogwarts is. I mean have HPfGU agree on a number H> bracket? It's just that there is one comment that bugs me H> about the number of teachers (and yes it is related to H> the number of pupils!!) H> [... A LOT of information ruthlessly skipped ...] H> Please point out if I have completely missed something obvious. There is no agreement on the number of teachers, you are right in saying that. The subject is highlighted on Lexicon quite well - in fact it's there where I was getting my information from. And AFAIK there's simply no solution to this problem as it seems to be one more bug in JKR texts. My idea about students responsibility has been replied by some people and it now seems that I got slightly confused with differences between Western and Russian education systems. Still my point remained the same - that wizarding children are more responsible compared to muggle children of the same age (in average, of course). But this has no direct connection to your letter, so I close this line. I keep thinking that it would be great to know that JKR is going to rewrite the whole series after Book 7, in order to remove such [several untranslatable Russian words skipped] errors from them. At the very least that would be fair to those poor saps who spend lots of time trying to organize the information from her books for others knowledge. Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, (Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed), always happy to throw weird ideas into the community. - It's so good - not to lie. What for anyway? There's so much truth in the world that lie becomes unnecessary. Leonid the Diver. (Sergey Lukyanenko, "Labirinth of Reflections"). From pollux46 at hotmail.com Fri Jan 25 14:15:51 2002 From: pollux46 at hotmail.com (charisjulia) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 14:15:51 -0000 Subject: Not a love drama. (SHIP) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34070 I guess I must start by stating that I am a determined R/H and H/G shipper. Just so you know what your deeling with!:-) One thing that I must point out as far as shipping is concerned is that I simply cannot see that the Potter series will turn into a desperate and passion-filled love drama. That just isn't that main point of the books! There about something else: Voldemort and the battle against him. Of course, I definitely do believe there will be more romance in the books to come and I can't wait for it!;-) After all we do have J.K.Rowlings word for it. And what's more I love discushing SHIPS and trying to guess how everything will turn out, even (or especially) with people who don't agree with me. But that's a far cry from filling them with complicated love triangles and whatnot. That's one of the main literary arguement I have against H/H. It would lead the books to a whole different place, one where I don't think I'd like to see them go. And there doesn't seem to be any escaping this as far as I can see if H/H were to happen. Even if Ron does eventually get over H. that can't happen in the very near future. I'd think it very bad form for Harry to go after the girl his friend had a crush on just a while ago. And if Ron dies (please,no!!!) that just makes it even worse IMO. In that event I don't think I could forgive Harry or Hermione for getting together even 20 years later but whatever's going to happen has to happen by the end of book 7. That's not a lot of time really. Of course, maybe I'm being too harse. In real life I'd see things differently I'm sure. But this is a book. Charis Julia. From gingerorlando at hotmail.com Fri Jan 25 22:27:10 2002 From: gingerorlando at hotmail.com (katrionabowman) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 22:27:10 -0000 Subject: SHIP: R/H, H/H & our trio's escapades In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34071 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lucky_kari" wrote: > I understand that the girlfriend who appears from nowhere would > upset things, but why is it Harry who needs to get involved in a > romance? Wouldn't this argument also support a Ron-Hermione > pairing? Indeed it would Eileen 8-). Perhaps I should have phrased it slightly better: *if* Harry ends up tidily in a "happy ever after" relationship, I believe it would have to be with Hermione. Obviously that Ron and Hermione could eventually pair up, whilst leaving Harry alone, is a possibility, and quite a nice one in my personal book > isn't Ginny already part of the picture, unlike Cho Chang, with a > defined relationship to the trio? Whilst Ginny does have a defined relationship with the trio, I wouldn't personally venture so far as to say she's part of the picture - she doesn't yet significantly intermingle with the trio in terms of meals, lessons, prep, social occasions, deduction, risk- taking and escapades or even general friendship. These are the particular areas where I can't quite see how JKR will incorporate a fourth "significant other". But I'll be fascinated to see if and how she chooses to follow this route. KT in Seattle -- who really must be finishing up her last afternoon in the office. From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Fri Jan 25 23:47:05 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 23:47:05 -0000 Subject: HP Translations In-Reply-To: <14163021258.20020125234009@tut.by> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34072 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Alexander wrote: > Now that I can only live by hope to read HP series in > English original, I have a question - has anybody here read > the books in different languages (English included, of > course)? Was there any difference (emotional, subjects > stressed differently, all those stuff)? > > It is especially interesting if someone has read HP in > English FIRST and only then in some other language (that is, > original first, copy second), because as my experience with > English originals shows, if you have read copy first, it > influences your reading of the original a lot. Yes, I've read HP in English and in Spanish. You see, my mother went to Spain last year, and she bought me the books there, as I was taking Spanish. My Spanish is not all that good, but my familiarity with the original books was very helpful in figuring out all the vocabulary, and I tried not to think too hard about the grammar. What immediately struck me with the Spanish translation was that I'd notice things that I did not notice in English, particularly in the translation's phrasing was a bit awkward. The biggest example of this was someone saying that Lily and James lived in "Valle de Godric". That just does not ring true to the original "Godric's Hollow". So, because it was such an alien version of an English-feeling place- name, I noticed it as I hadn't before. Godric, I thought. Godric Gryffindor? The decidely English tone of the books also seemed to evaporate, especially where that tone was extremely colloquial. > Sincerely yours, > Alexander Lomski, > (Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed), > who is now in "books must be read in their authors language" > camp for the rest of his life... As a big fan of Russian authors, you are dooming me to a terrible life without them, I'll have you know. :-) Unless I add Russian to the list of languages I'm learning: French, Spanish, Latin, and German. Eileen From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Fri Jan 25 23:48:41 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 23:48:41 -0000 Subject: HP Translations In-Reply-To: <14163021258.20020125234009@tut.by> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34073 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Alexander wrote: > Now that I can only live by hope to read HP series in > English original, I have a question - has anybody here read > the books in different languages (English included, of > course)? Was there any difference (emotional, subjects > stressed differently, all those stuff)? > > It is especially interesting if someone has read HP in > English FIRST and only then in some other language (that is, > original first, copy second), because as my experience with > English originals shows, if you have read copy first, it > influences your reading of the original a lot. Yes, I've read HP in English and in Spanish. You see, my mother went to Spain last year, and she bought me the books there, as I was taking Spanish. My Spanish is not all that good, but my familiarity with the original books was very helpful in figuring out all the vocabulary, and I tried not to think too hard about the grammar. What immediately struck me with the Spanish translation was that I'd notice things that I did not notice in English, particularly in the translation's phrasing was a bit awkward. The biggest example of this was someone saying that Lily and James lived in "Valle de Godric". That just does not ring true to the original "Godric's Hollow". So, because it was such an alien version of an English-feeling place- name, I noticed it as I hadn't before. Godric, I thought. Godric Gryffindor? The decidely English tone of the books also seemed to evaporate, especially where that tone was extremely colloquial. > Sincerely yours, > Alexander Lomski, > (Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed), > who is now in "books must be read in their authors language" > camp for the rest of his life... As a big fan of Russian authors, you are dooming me to a terrible life without them, I'll have you know. :-) Unless I add Russian to the list of languages I'm learning: French, Spanish, Latin, and German. Eileen From wmj007 at hotmail.com Fri Jan 25 23:36:26 2002 From: wmj007 at hotmail.com (engbama) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 23:36:26 -0000 Subject: polyjuice potion (was: Moody was really Crouch, Jr.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34074 > > Before I leave off on this topic, even though I know it's probably > been addressed somewhere before, I cannot for the life of me > understand why Crouch as Moody would teach Harry how to break the > Imperius Curse (or at least give him opportunities to learn how since > it seems to be a possibly un-learnable skill, more something one > empirically has as a gift). Or at least, having done so, why he > wouldn't let Voldemort know that Harry could break the curse. De-lurking here. Here are my thoughts on this one. 1. Crouch has been under the Imperius Curse for many years now (Let's assume about 10 - I don't have GOF with me to check.) and it might just feel good to put someone else under it other than his father. Also, IMO, he may have had some sort of contact with Wormtail and LV and was feeding his master information about the strength of his nemesis. 2. DD wanted him (Moody that is) to teach the students what it felt like so that they would have a chance to fight it. Well here ya go - what do you think? From theennead at attbi.com Fri Jan 25 23:45:25 2002 From: theennead at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 23:45:25 -0000 Subject: Snape, Sirius, the Dementors In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34075 Cindy wrote: > During one of my anti-Snape rants, someone (pigwidgeon?) > kindly informed me that Snape had every opportunity to > turn Black over to the dementors in PoA. Snape wakes > up, finds Black, conjures a stretcher and takes Black . . . > to the castle, not to the dementors. Snape could have taken > Black to the dementors (or called the dementors). This, > according to the pro-Snape crowd, means Snape is not pure > evil incarnate. Cindy then struggles to account for this decision in some way that might allow her to continue to think bad things about Snape, but fails to be convinced by her own theories. She finally sighs: > So I am left with the idea that Snape showed mercy on Black because > Dumbledore would have wanted him to. ::hangs head in defeat:: No! Wait, Cindy! Don't give up! All is not lost! How's this? Snape takes Black back to the castle, rather than handing him over to the dementors, because he thinks that he'll get more *glory* that way. After all, any old Squib could squeal for a bunch of dementors to come and rid the world of a dangerous criminal. But to be the wizard who captured Sirius Black single-handed and brought him in *alive?* That's Order of Merlin territory. There now. You see? Cheer up. You can keep on hating Snape, if you want to. -- Elkins, who just couldn't stand to see Cindy so disheartened From theennead at attbi.com Fri Jan 25 22:02:14 2002 From: theennead at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 22:02:14 -0000 Subject: Karkaroff's hesitation WAS(Re: Moody -- "Types"--Where Are the) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34076 I wrote: > > Karkaroff is, IMO, quite possibly Rowling's least > > sympathetic character to date. Just about the only nice thing > > I can think to say about him is that he did, at least, seem to > > suffer from a brief moment of inner turmoil right before he > > fingered Snape to the ministry. That's about it, really. Eileen wrote: > Hmmmm.... and I read that as. "Let me think. What else have I > got? Is it time to play the Snape card?" I don't think he had > even a BRIEF moment of inner turmoil. You're probably right. Although wouldn't you think that the guy in the Department of Mysteries (Rookwood? Was that his name?) would have been his real ace in the hole, rather than young Snape? I mean, a mole in the Department of Mysteries? Wow. That's *good.* Hard to trump that, really. I doubt that he was holding back Snape's name for any strategic reasons. But you're probably right that he wasn't really conflicted there at all, just desperately ransacking his his mind for any other names that might help his cause. I just thought I'd give him the benefit of the doubt, seeing as how I was trying to think of *something* nice to say about the man. You know what I am. Always extending the benefit of the doubt to the dregs of society. ;) -- Elkins From ftah3 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 25 22:15:42 2002 From: ftah3 at yahoo.com (ftah3) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 22:15:42 -0000 Subject: What Does It Mean To "Like" A Character? -- "Types" -- Hagrid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34078 Elkins: > Some thoughts here on the various ways in which it is possible to > "like" characters: as characters (Do we enjoy reading about them? Do > we enjoy the narrative function they fulfill?), or as people (Do we > identify with them? Do we consider them to be "good people?" Do we > think that we would enjoy their company in real life?) I enjoy characters as characters. When I fall into contemplative mode, I'll draw lines between characters and people I know to try to explain to myself or others an opinion I hold about the characters, but I never really feel that a character *is* someone I know. Er. If that makes any sense. What generally determines whether or not I like a character is whether or not the character is either well-crafted ("alive" on the fictional plane), or is a particular favorite character type of mine. I.e., I like both Harry and McGonnagal because they're both "alive" to me; but I like (to yank from another book; couldn't think of an HP example) Legolas from Tolkiens Rings books because, even though the character is dimensionless, he's a favorite character type (frufry mystical nature-boy archer guy type, LOL). I do also enjoy characters for their function in a story. Neville, for example, I enjoy mainly for the way he throws everything out of whack when he enters a scene (either by bumbling, or by doing something impressive but surprising, like standing up to Malfoy). > What I suppose that I was really trying to express there was something > more along the lines of: "I really hope that when Hagrid says these > awful things, he's only saying them because he is *Hagrid* -- a > sweet, well-meaning, but not always terribly thoughtful member of a > far-from-utopian society -- and not because he is actually serving as > the author's mouthpiece." > > That I find myself thinking such things at all, of course, reveals a > certain lack of trust in the author on my part. But the fact is that > I *don't* altogether trust Rowling -- and from the discussions here, > I gather that this is not all that unusual an ambivalence. Agreed on the desire to view Hagrid (for example) as a character rather than a mouthpiece. On the other hand, unless it's outrageously obvious that a writer is spouting dogma through characters, I'm oblivious to soap-boxing. And I don't really see it in HP. > Which brings us to the question of how readers respond when an author > whose work they enjoy suddenly seems to be attacking closely-held > beliefs. On the other hand, I can be made uncomfortable by events in a book. It may or may not be the author's intent to promote such things, but I can be put off. > Now *this* I find absolutely fascinating! Mahoney, do you > think that you might be able to explain why you think that > Hagrid and Snape's positions reverse themselves, once you imagine > yourself meeting them in person? Personal reaction. Hagrid would seem overbearing to me, and certain of his flaws would grate on my nerves severely. Snape, on the other hand, would fascinate the heck out of me, because awful people are fascinating; and if he showed signs of being not actually evil, I would be tempted to cut him some slack. Until he kept on being awful and I got tired of putting up with it.... ;-P > Mahoney concurs: > > > ....(And actually, I would probably seek out Snape to > > challenge me as a teacher...) > > To which I can only say: Wow. You guys really are *brave.* I've had a Snape-ish. Rude to all the kids, quick with snide comments. But knew a LOT, and I learned a lot from him. In college, I deliberately took classes from the profs other students hated, because often those profs were hated because they had a lot to teach and expected students to keep up, and that was fantastic. They were challenging. I'd probably love Snape as a teacher. Great post; wish I had more time to spend on adding more to my answer! Happy weekend, Mahoney From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Sat Jan 26 00:15:01 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 00:15:01 -0000 Subject: SHIP: Possibility Hermione has romantic feelings In-Reply-To: <3C51DBB3.9090009@swbell.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34079 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Penny & Bryce wrote: > Hi -- > > Eileen said: > > > > > > 1. Hermione is a cruel insensitive girl who implies to Ron that > > she > > > > would go to a ball with him, knowing perfectly well what his > > feelings > > > > are, when she wouldn't. > > > > 2. Hermione does return some of the interest. > > I added: > > > > > > > OR > > > > > > 3. Hermione, offended because her friend assumes that he can just > > use > > > her as a last-ditch date when he can't get a "pretty girl" and then > > even > > > more offended when said friend questions her ethics in choosing > > another > > > date, throws off some remarks in the heat of an argument. Maybe she > > > would have phrased her remarks differently if they'd been having a > > cool, > > > calm conversation. > > Eileen responded with: > > > > > This is just a slightly different rephrasing of #1. > > No, cruel & insensitive = calculating; thrown off in the emotional heat > of an argument is *not* calculating. #1 is the argument that (a) > Hermione knew at the time of the argument how Ron felt about her, and > (b) made a calculated decision in the course of an argument to hurt Ron > by implying that she would accept a date with him. Sorry, that's not what I meant by #1. I don't equate cruel and insensitive with calculating, though I can understand why a lot of people do (they often go together.) But, as I can be cruel and insensitive without being calculating, I don't buy it. BTW, I think Ron is often cruel and insensitive. I just don't buy Hermione either being so, or doing cruel and insensitive things even while she is angry. I've seen no evidence for this throughout the books, and in fact, base my love for her character off this positive virtue, one that I and Ron lack. > >> 4. Hermione, who has a bit of romantic interest in more than one > > boy > >> (gasp! Can teenage girls do *that*?!), sends off some mixed > > signals. > > > And this is just #2 all over again. > > No, #2 is, I think, an argument that Hermione Likes Ron and is inviting > him to ask her out (wanted it all along) & has no romantic feelings for > any other males. No, #2 was Hermione does return some of the interest. I picked the word "some" for a reason. The scene obviously does not mean Ron and Hermione will get married or even date, but it is evidence for an R/H pairing. I rather think my point stands, though I'm sure others will disagree. Fire away! > We know that James & Lily both attended Hogwarts & were presumably the > same class year based on Hagrid's remark that they were Head Boy & Head > Girl in their time. But, do we know that they dated at Hogwarts? Maybe > they only knew each other at Hogwarts & hooked up later on. We don't > even know for sure *when* they married. We do know that it was very quickly out of Hogwarts because they were dead without a few years after being together for at least two years. Whether they completely got together at Hogwarts is a matter of debate, but it'd be stretching it, imho, to think it didn't start there. >We do know that Molly & Arthur > had some romantic relationship at Hogwarts, but do we know that they > never dated anyone else or that they married straight away after leaving > Hogwarts? No, we don't know this, but we do know they first got together in Hogwarts. This was in response to a question about whether school day romances can last. My answer was that in real life, usually not, but HP might be different based on a few things. >I'm curious where people have this idea that marriages are > young in the wizarding world, >and I'd be especially interested in any > canon evidence for Eileen's statement above that, in the wizarding > world, 18 yr olds are expected to take up the societal position of 30 yr > olds. Is this based on something in canon or just supposition or >opinion? Marriage in any society is usually based on what age people completely settle down. The introduction of higher education, the unstable entry period into the workforce, has driven the marrying age way up compared to what it was 100 years ago, 50 years ago, or even 20 years ago. OTOH, we have the wizard world, where there is no university, and people are expected to settle into careers right out of school, as far as we can see. Add to that the absurdly young age Lily and James Potter were married at, the fact that Molly and Arthur were a couple at Hogwarts, Viktor's seriousness in his relationship with Hermione. They all seem to fit in with what I already expected, and indeed with the norm for most of human history. It's only recently that the young adult has become "THE TEEN-AGER." > As best I can tell, Ginny's relationship to the Trio is that of an > annoying younger sister who is actively excluded from their activities. > I would think she's about on even footing with a complete outsider > frankly. /me looks around for a GIANTCUSHION to use as a weapon. I think I'll leave that one alone. Eileen From Joanne0012 at aol.com Fri Jan 25 23:23:46 2002 From: Joanne0012 at aol.com (joanne0012) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 23:23:46 -0000 Subject: Number of teachers? (WAS children responsibility) In-Reply-To: <020e01c1a5d8$8bdfbf20$509801d5@j0dhe> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34080 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Hollydaze" wrote: > Is it really possible that 13 teachers (12 in reality as Hooch only seems to teach in the first year, how exactly do you carry on Flying lessons after one year, what else is there to learn? You can only practise.) > > I just don't see how it is possible for the 12 teachers we have to teach that >number of pupils (even if it is as low as 280 - 10 per house per year) unless >they are ALL double house classes, and with no breaks, as that would be 20 per >class and so 14 simultaneous classes which is already more than the number of >teachers we have! One additional factor is that the kids don't have every subject every day. In HPSS, Astronomy is just Wednesdays at midnight, herbology is stated to be 3 times per week, and DADA doesn't start until Friday so it's clearly not every day. On the first day of classes in CoS, they have 3 subjects. If the kids have 3 classes per day it's do-able; 4 houses times 7 years is 28 groups of kids and if they have 3 classes per day that's 84 class sessions per week; divide by 12 teachers and that's 7 per teacher per day. Lighten that load a bit to 5 classes per day because of the double sessions, and that's a typical load for a US high-school teacher. From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Fri Jan 25 23:31:20 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 23:31:20 -0000 Subject: What Does It Mean To "Like" A Character? -- "Types" -- Hagrid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34081 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" wrote: This is getting so interesting. So much interesting than my Shakespeare class! :-) > LOL! You have an extraordinarily well-developed sense of fair play, > Eileen. I'm sincerely impressed. Thankyou very much for the compliment. I hope I live up to it. > But one thing that we Americans (I'm assuming here -- please don't > hurt me if I'm wrong!) might want to keep in mind about that scene is > that capital punishment has not been a legal penalty for murder in > Great Britain for quite a number of years now. So while it is still > a political issue of sorts (there are people in Britain who advocate > the resumption of the death penalty), it's hardly the flaming-hot, > red-button, "let's-not-go-there-if-we-want-to-avoid-a-screaming- > argument" sort of topic that it can be here in the US. Actually, I'm not an American, but a Canadian, and capital punishment has not been a legal penalty for murder for quite a number of years either. There's also many people who want to bring it back. Yet, as you paint the British picture, it's not really a red-button argument here either. Nowdays, people debate it at leisure and rationally. Even so, it struck me as unduly political. > However, I see your point. It is awkward, to say the least, when > a political hot topic intrudes without warning in a work of fiction, > worse still if the author happens to disagree with you, and worse > *still* if she chooses to express her disapproval by placing your > beliefs in the mouth of a character who is not only generally > portrayed as Wrong About Everything Under the Sun, but is also an > object of mockery and disdain. > Rowling hasn't done that to me yet, but other authors certainly have, > and there's no question about it: it can hurt, and it can anger. In fact, it has occured to me that many of the people who oppose Harry Potter on what seem frivolous grounds (witchcraft, order vs. chaos etc.) seem to be turned off by such things. I know people whose major problem with the books was actually rooted in a hostility they felt Rowling harboured against the ordinary middle class. > Unfortunately, it's also hard to avoid -- and the further from the > mainstream your deepest-held beliefs happen to be, the less > avoidable it becomes. The best remedy that I'm aware of is simply > to learn to swallow the indignation and read on. (Although throwing > the book across the room can also prove gratifying, in its way.) Or, if like me, you hold an impossible mish-mash of deepest-held beliefs, it becomes completely unavoidable. Authors whom I love in one respect offend me deeply in others. OTOH, I sometimes offend other people, "How can you believe X, and not believe Y?" > (Just develop thick skin. Right. Sage advice. And yet...and > yet...and yet I can still remember with unpleasant vividness just > how horribly angry and resentful I felt towards C.S. Lewis over > this sort of thing when reading the Narnia books as a child. It's > *visceral,* my memory of that anger. Physical. And that was nearly > thirty *years* ago, for heaven's sake! It's weird, that. And surely > not altogether healthy. Just a moment -- must pop a sedative. > There. Ah. Better.) C.S. Lewis.... Please, don't put me in mind of that. I loved Lewis when I was around 8, and then after I began to understand him better, I just could not tolerate him for years. Only recently was I able to pick up the Narnia Chronicles again, and enjoy them for all the things I did like in them. >Attachments are far more > often, it seems to me, formed on the basis of things like > sense of humour, and temperamental compatability, and shared > interests, and even shared dislikes than they are on any > strict accounting of moral virtues. I think though that, there is a moral factor in it. We may not get on with the most virtuous people, but we stick with friends because of their loyalty, generousity, encouragement etc. Which may well explain why the trio gets along so well with Hagrid. > For an example of this phenomenon, I might cite my own vehement > condemnation of Moody for using nasty language to describe Karkaroff > in the Pensieve scene of GoF, while noting my own utter lack of > dismay over Sirius' use of similarly unkind and degrading language to > refer to Pettigrew in PoA. And you know what? Even *writing* this, > I find myself feeling this overwhelming urge to qualify ("Yes, but > you see, Sirius has far more *personal* reason to call > Pettigrew 'filth' than Moody does to refer to Karkaroff that way, and > Sirius has suffered so *badly,* the poor dear, and...and...") All of > which has some validity, IMO. But is the reason I want to say it > *really* because it "has validity?" Or is it simply that I *like* > Sirius, while I don't like Moody, and so Sirius gets leeway from me, > while I'm willing to cut Moody not a single lousy break? That's a funny example, b/c I find it hard to stomach Sirius's attitude in that scene, even though I can offer up a million justifications for it. There's something about its dehumanization of Pettigrew that just sickens me. I also find it difficult to see Sirius's POV in the Black/Snape debate. OTOH, I read right past Moody's remark without registering any disliking. And on what appears to be a third hand,(/me looks down at her hands in amazement), I don't feel the same way towards Lupin, whom I very much love, even though he was right with Sirius in that scene. I said: > > I feel like going into a rage when people say things > > like, "Ron's jealousy proves he's likely to betray > > Harry." I know it's not rational, but I feel it deep > > down, as if I was being accused of my schooldays jealousy > > leading to treason. > > I can certainly understand that! > > So, Eileen, do you like Ron? Yes! >In the sense of thinking that you'd > get on well with him in real life? You know, I rather think I would, to some extent. I'm not sure we'd be good influences on each other. 11111111 >In the sense of enjoying reading > about him? In the sense of feeling personal affection for him? Both, though the second might conceal a highly developed self-love. There's something about the way Ron can obliviously horrify a room full of people within two seconds that comes close to home. I especially remember that scene where he was manhandling Pigwig to the horror of those girls. I don't manhandle owls, but once I open my mouth I rarely feel that people aren't either raising their eyebrows or laughing at me. Like Ron, I tend to perform. OK, enough of possibly damaging self-confessions. > To which I can only say: Wow. You guys really are *brave.* > > I had a Snapesque mathematics professor once. Thirty minutes > before every class, my stomach would begin to ache. Ten minutes > before class, I would start to cry. And then after every class, I > would have to go be violently sick. After Every Class. Not an > experience I *ever* want to repeat. It depends, though, how you do in that class. My Snape taught me everything I know about English grammar. He hated me with a deep an enduring hate from Day 1 for no reason. (Though I can't rule out the conclusion that my parents went to school with him, and when he fell into evil....)But, I had a talent for that sort of thing that was pushed on by such an attitude, not stomped down. There were many people in his classes that just fell to pieces. He was as cruel to the less innately talented as Snape to Neville, and I can never forgive him for that. But I was undoubtably his best student, and like Hermione, I picked up everything he taught us immediately, and so it became a good experience in the end. In fact, I once had a nigh perfect grasp of English grammar. To my regret, I've let it slide since I left that private school. I must remind myself, though, it was terrible for many others. I've been fortunate in the classes I'm weaker in to find kinder teachers, with the exception of a Grade 12 teacher, who thought it was funny to make sexist remarks all through class. I'm not naturally good at Math, so after continual ribbing about how women were dumb at Math, I felt completely stifled, and started skipping class, not doing assignments, failing tests etc. Fortunately, it was a rather experimental school with re-writes and such things, so my Dad pulled me out of that abyss, taught me the course himself in the last month and a half (at the cost of almost all his freetime), so that I got a final mark of 89% and a lesson in self-confidence. What get's me about the whole thing was I'm pretty sure the teacher didn't mean it. He just thought he was being jovial and good-humoured. > Then, the most Hagrid-like teacher I ever had, *I* made cry once. Ahem, I won't speak to this. /me tries to hide a guilty face, still blushing in memory of days past. Eileen From cindysphynx at home.com Sat Jan 26 01:57:49 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 01:57:49 -0000 Subject: Hagrid, Moody and Violent Responses (WAS What Does It Mean To "Like" ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34082 What a great thought-provoking post, Elkins! I would have responded long ago, but my modem was unplugged, and I couldn't figure that out for six hours. Doh! ********* Elkins wrote (about my defense of Moody and condemnation of Hagrid): > I found this very funny when I read it, largely because it appeared on > the very same day that, elsewhere, Cindy had defended Moody (or, > rather, Crouch/Moody) to me for his behavior during the Bouncing > Ferret Incident -- a scenario that seemed to me to share many of the > same dynamics. > > In both scenarios, the actor is responding with an excessive degree > of force to a not-very-nice action taken by a not-terribly- > sympathetic antagonist character. In both scenarios, the attacker is > *vastly* more powerful than his victim. In both scenarios, by the > time the act of violence takes place, the victim is really no longer > in any way a threat to the person who is supposedly being "defended > against." (Karkaroff, while rude, was never really any physical > threat to Dumbledore in the first place; Draco, while angry, was > certainly not going to continue to fire off curses at Harry once a > teacher had arrived on the scene.) Although in neither scenario > does the victim of the violence suffer any permanent damage, in both > cases, the degree of violence used *was* sufficient to cause real > injury (a subject which has been under some debate, I know, but I am > firmly of the opinion, that being bounced onto a floor from ten feet > in the air while in the form of a ferret would leave bruises at the > very *least;* frankly, I'm surprised that Draco didn't break any > bones). And in both scenarios, the reader is supposed to be > impressed (at least, with Crouch/Moody, until we learn better) with > the actor's loyalty to one of the protagonists -- Dumbledore in > Hagrid's case, Harry in the case of Crouch/Moody. > > Now admittedly, the two situations are not *identical.* But they > are sufficiently analagous that I feel compelled to ask: Cindy, do > you think that your willingness to forgive Moody for Bouncing Ferret > might not have quite a bit to do with the fact that you just plain > *like* the guy, and so find yourself willing to cut him more slack > than you're willing to cut for somebody you don't like, ie Hagrid? Am I forgiving Moody just because I like him? Uh, this is the part where I'm supposed to come up with all kinds of impressive reasons why Moody can be forgiven a violent response, but Hagrid cannot. This is going to be tough. I think there are a few fact differences that make Moody's conduct OK but Hagrid's not OK. I am in the camp that says that Moody didn't hurt Draco, as that is a very important factor. I also think that Moody had authority over Draco that Hagrid does not have over Karkaroff. A teacher who disciplines a student and acts to protect another student from the offending student is entitled to some leeway. Also, by the time Karkaroff is slammed into the tree and Draco is bounced, we have very different amounts of information about these two antagonists. First, Karkaroff at this point isn't really an antagonist. Karkaroff's only crime up to that point was showing up wearing fur. :-) Draco, on the other hand, has had three books worth of efforts to undermine the trio and torment people for no good reason. So yes, it did feel good to finally see him get what is coming to him. (Note: the ferret bouncing is the first time we see Draco singled out for discipline for wrongdoing. It was long overdue, of course. I also think Moody's actions were legally justified (er, under U.S. law in the muggle world) because Moody had no idea whether Draco planned to continue to fire on Harry or what kind of spell Draco had fired. Moody acted to protect Harry from a real, demonstrated threat, whereas Karkaroff never posed a threat to Dumbledore. Moody was also acting to enforce a school rule that had been violated in his presence. Hagrid enjoyed no such justification. To be fair, though, I suppose Moody could have just transfigured Draco without bouncing him in the air. Yeah, OK, that part wasn't justified. But it was very, very funny. So why am I still cutting Moody a break? Because Moody made one mistake, and Hagrid made a whole bunch of mistakes. I didn't care for Hagrid giving Dudley the pig tail, but I was willing to look the other way in the early part of PS/SS. But Hagrid just kept on doing nutty things. If in OoP, Moody proves himself to be a loose cannon, I will probably change my mind. While we are on the subject of violent responses, there is another scene that really bothered me. I didn't like it all in CoS when Arthur Weasley and Lucius Malfoy fought each other with fists. Aside from the fact that it didn't seem believable that two wizards would use their fists to fight instead of wands, I wasn't plesed that Arthur would lunge at Lucius over a petty insult. I guess that reaction makes me a pacifist, unless of course 14 year old boys are being attacked by fully grown men. :-) I think I will have to adopt a new rule for myself that each beloved character is allowed one hideous mistake, and after that, I will cross them off my list. Lupin and Black have used their quota. Snape probably has used his quota. Hagrid is way past the limit. Cindy From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com Sat Jan 26 02:23:31 2002 From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 20:23:31 -0600 Subject: James, Peter, Dumbledore, Secret-Keeper References: Message-ID: <3C521323.EDF40DC5@kingwoodcable.com> No: HPFGUIDX 34083 I was pondering something earlier today, and I've started to think that perhaps James didn't trust Peter 100%. Why? We know that Sirius convinced James to go with Peter, but he wasn't the first choice. James also left his invisibility cloak in the care of Dumbledore, along with Harry's key to the Gringott's vault. So I wonder if James already knew that Peter was up to no good? He couldn't have known anything factual, because he still chose Peter as the Secret-Keeper. But why would James leave his belongings in D's care, and yet choose another for the Secret-Keeper? Is this even a valid consideration? -Katze From ickle_ronniekins at yahoo.com Sat Jan 26 01:49:06 2002 From: ickle_ronniekins at yahoo.com (Ronald Rae Yu) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 17:49:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: God in HP World Message-ID: <20020126014906.89615.qmail@web21109.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 34084 I've already searched the HPfGU Religion FAQ and didn't find these things. I still ponder on the existence of God (or some god) in the HP world. I've noted the times people (particularly Wizards) used the term 'God' in the books: 'God, this place is going to the dogs,' said Malfoy loudly. 'That oaf teaching classes, my father'll have a fit when I tell him.' -PoA6 'My God,' said Lupin softly, staring from Scabbers to the picture in the paper and back again. 'His front paw...' -PoA19 'Don't tell me you don't know?' he [Draco] said delightedly. 'You've got a father and brother at the Ministry and you don't even know? My God, my father told me about it ages ago...' -GoF11 'My God - Diggory!' it [Fudge] whispered. 'Dumbledore - he's dead!' -GoF35 My questions: Are these just expressions with no religious significance whatsoever? I noticed that the capital 'G' god is used. What god are they referring to? Expression or not, does this prove the existence of a god (and their recognition of its existence) in the Wizarding World? What about Harry's having a godfather? Is godfather here a Christian / religious thing? Also, there is the 'St. Mungo's' wizard hospital. What earned Mungo the title 'saint'? If he is indeed a saint in their muggle world at least, why name the hospital after a saint? Just wondering. -Ron Yu __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com From mdemeran at hotmail.com Sat Jan 26 02:00:22 2002 From: mdemeran at hotmail.com (Meg Demeranville) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 20:00:22 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: SHIP: Possibility Hermione has romantic feelings References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34085 I wasn't going to delurk and throw my hat into the ring but (big sigh) since I can sympathize with Hermione I am going to throw my hat into the ring, please be nice: > It was written: 3. Hermione, offended because her friend assumes that he can just use her as a last-ditch date when he can't get a "pretty girl" and then even more offended when said friend questions her ethics in choosing another date, throws off some remarks in the heat of an argument. Maybe she would have phrased her remarks differently if they'd been having a cool, calm conversation. > Ever since I was little, almost of my friends have been guys, still are. I was a brainy little kid, now I'm a brainy adult and I have always perfered the company of guys. I was always accepted as one of the guys. Whenever dances came up, invariably I was one of the last girls asked to go, unless I asked a guy because the guys all figured I was a backup date. Similar comments Ron made were made to me at about the same age and well, my response was always to be furious that I was thought of as a back up to the "pretty girls" and personally I think Hermione handled it better than I did. At that age, self-image is very important and having your friends treat you as a backup is pretty miserable. I don't think she meant anything more than "Hey, you brain dead git, look over here, I am a pretty girl too". I can't buy into her having feelings for Ron simply because I don't think she would have said anything about asking her the next time. I think that would have embarassed her too much to say anything about asking her the next time. Just my little thought. Meg (so glad the weekend is here) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cindysphynx at home.com Sat Jan 26 03:02:01 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 03:02:01 -0000 Subject: Least Sympathetic Character (WAS Karkaroff's hesitation ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34086 Elkins wrote: > > > Karkaroff is, IMO, quite possibly Rowling's least > > > sympathetic character to date. Just about the only nice thing > > > I can think to say about him is that he did, at least, seem to > > > suffer from a brief moment of inner turmoil right before he > > > fingered Snape to the ministry. That's about it, really. > Oh, I think there is one character even less sympathetic than Karkaroff, who has at least reformed himself into a headmaster of a school. Pettigrew is worse, IMHO. He is begging for his life in the Shrieking Shack and can't even muster any sort of apology. At least Karkaroff understood that an apology was in order. Cindy (thanking Elking for helping her find a way to continue despising Snape) From blpurdom at yahoo.com Sat Jan 26 03:28:47 2002 From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 03:28:47 -0000 Subject: Moody was really Crouch, Jr. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34087 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "meglet2" wrote: > After all he tells Harry (more than once) that there is nothing he > hates more than a DE who got off. Moody might well be expected to > feel this but we know by the end these are Crouch's real feelings. > He asked Harry for details of how LV might have tortured the DEs > who didn't go to Azkaban and we know that Lucius Malfoy was one of > the first to go back to the MOM to save their own skins. This is also the source of the animosity between Crouch and Snape, who has the added baggage of being a known spy for Dumbledore near the end of Voldemort's reign of terror. Snape, however, may be assuming that Moody's attitude toward him is because Moody (really Crouch) does not completely believe that Snape has left the Death Eaters. > His pretence of concern for Neville at the end of the class may > have been in keeping with Moody (though he also had an alterior > motive for it) but it is clear from the text that seeing the > effects of the cruciatis even on a spider was a major trauma for > Neville. I believe that would be a bonus for Crouch who would > again see a little persecution of the son as an excellent way to > get some revenge for the Longbottoms' work against the Death > Eaters. I think Crouch was all ulterior motive and did not really consider whether this would make him appear more like Moody than if he hadn't done it. Plus, he might have gotten a little extra thrill from using the son of the Aurors he helped torture. This was, of course, revealed to be a plan of his which did not work (he tells when he's under the Veritaserum), but I'm glad for Neville that it didn't work. Think how guilty he might have felt if he had been partially responsible for what happened to Harry. As it was, I shudder to think of Neville having to go through the summer after fourth year knowing he was THIS CLOSE to the cruel DE who tortured his parents into insanity. > The real Alastor Moody is Dumbledore's friend. He may be twitichy, > unpredictable, unconcerned with other's opinion's, suffering from > persecution mania etc but I do not believe that Dumbledore would > be friend's with someone who was cruel in nature. *cough!*Snape*cough!* I was going to say "'Nuff said," after that, but I changed my mind. I do believe there is a backstory that JKR will give us eventually to explain why Snape is such an S.O.B. to Harry, Ron, Hermione, Neville, anyone who's not a Slytherin, etc. Whether it's one of the many things I used in my fic (a combination of a relationship with Lily, a bad history with the Longbottoms and porphyria, which just makes people tetchy in general) or something entirely different (probably only the thing with the Longbottoms is a likely candidate to be used by JKR), I don't expect to find out about it soon. This will probably wait for the latter half of book seven, as will many other revelations. ::sigh:: Oh, the wait for book five.... --Barb http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HP_Psych http://schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb From twoplus3 at juno.com Sat Jan 26 03:37:29 2002 From: twoplus3 at juno.com (pastafor5) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 03:37:29 -0000 Subject: You must all read this. In-Reply-To: <001001c1a4f4$c26292a0$a30eddc8@grupotv1.com.br> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34088 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., wrote: > http://www.bettybowers.com/harrypotter.html > > *laughs* It's hilarious! > Unless it's already been posted. In which case, I apologize :P > > Daniel > http://www.pixicore.org/broken/ Please tell me that was a joke! If not, she should be ashamed of herself. Saying she represents a "Christian" way of thinking. Quite the opposite, I'd say. It's a shame to see what JKR is up against. She wrote a wonderful, insightful book series about the battle of good against evil, and then has someone twist her words and work into that kind of rubbish. As a Catholic, I suggest that betty bowers get her mind out of the gutter. From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com Sat Jan 26 02:51:17 2002 From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 20:51:17 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Moody was really Crouch, Jr. References: Message-ID: <3C5219A5.724C862D@kingwoodcable.com> No: HPFGUIDX 34089 Great Post! And I agree...so all I have to add regarding Moody, is that he's one of my favorite characters. Even though the character was saw was an imposter, Rowling has stated that the real Moody is even "cooler"! I can hardly wait! meglet2 wrote: That of course is accepting that Dumbledore is the standard > for all that is good in the books and hoping hard that the > notorious 'gleam of triumph' is not a hint in the other direction. > But I think JKR said somewhere that Dumbledore is her idea of a good, > wise person so until proved otherwise by the books that is what I > will believe. I don't think the gleam of triumph was a hint in the other direction, and here's why. When Crouch questioned Harry, he "hissed" when he found out that V had taken Harry's blood. So my logic is as follows. Crouch is on V's side, and must've have seen an problem with taking Harry's blood, why would he hiss otherwise? So if crouch is bad, and he thought it was bad for V to take Harry's blood, then Dumbledore's triumph must mean that it's good for his team that V took Harry's blood. If taking Harry's blood is actually bad for V then it explains both sides. And if D were really on the bad side, then he would've hissed too. I also take it on faith that Rowling truly meant what she said...D is the epitome of good. Does that make sense? -Katze From tabouli at unite.com.au Sat Jan 26 03:11:10 2002 From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 14:11:10 +1100 Subject: Fictional vs factual people, translation and cultural issues Message-ID: <001a01c1a617$6c9be820$4b27ddcb@price> No: HPFGUIDX 34090 Gwen (on why smart Hermione could easily make bad relationship decisions): > I have seen intelligent, attractive, powerful women sublimate themselves for a petty, immature, jealous guy more times than I can count.< Absolutely. I've said it before, but I'll say it again: I've *never* understood why some people imagine that academic intelligence is insurance against choosing a disastrous romantic partner. The former is of the intellectual, rational domain, and the latter of the emotional, irrational domain, and to a large degree these operate independently of each other! It is entirely possible and even *common* for an intelligent woman to fall for and cling to someone disastrous... (one of the reasons I never have any trouble finding Scarlett's behaviour in Gone With The Wind entirely plausible and understandable). Elkins > Mahoney likes both Hagrid and Snape as characters; she likes Hagrid as a person, while disliking Snape as a person. (...) > > On the other hand, if I were to meet them both, in > > reality, I would have a difficult time accepting > > Hagrid's loveable qualities...while I would probably > > cut Snape a huge break... >Now *this* I find absolutely fascinating! Mahoney, do you think that you might be able to explain why you think that Hagrid and Snape's positions reverse themselves, once you imagine yourself meeting them in person?< Ooo, the ol' fictional/factual divide! Hmm, let me compare my position with Mahoney's. In print, Hagrid is the kind bumbler, heart in the right place (though, to quote Pratchett, the rest of him often isn't), caring towards the Trio, etc.etc. Snape is the nasty teacher with mysterious past, cruel, vengeful, whose intentions are apparently good but whose behaviour often isn't. As characters, I like 'em both. I look forward to scenes where they appear. Both are interesting and flawed in ways which drive the plot (if you think about it, both Hagrid and Snape have played vital roles in all of the books so far). From a writer's craft perspective, I prefer Snape. The Lovable Oaf is a bit of a literary cliche, whereas Snape is a more singular creation: bitter, complex, unpredictable. As real people, I would *like* Hagrid, albeit in a mildly indulgent way, as someone manifestly well-meaning (if irresponsible and clumsy), and I doubt that I'd like Snape: he's just too nasty and spiteful for my tastes, I'd be nervous of him. *However*, even though I wouldn't "like" Snape that much, I would *respect* him (much more than I would respect Hagrid), because he's so complex, fascinating, crafty and clever. Not a man to trifle with. In terms of personal identification, I don't identify with either, much. I can see some aspects of both in myself, but not to the extent of identification. I am, alas, one of the thundering hordes of women on this list who is *definitely* a Hermione... (though I'd flatter myself that I have a dash of Dumbledore as well). Elkins: > So what role might empathy and identification play in what we mean when we say that we "like" a character?< Identification breeds empathy, certainly. When people denounce Hermione as a pompous, conceited show-off-know-it-all, I don't like it at all, because people did exactly that to me at her age for the same reasons, and they couldn't see the desperate need to prove myself and the insecurity that underlay it. I feel I *understand* Hermione intimately, and get defensive if people misinterpret her in the way they misinterpreted me. Nonetheless, for me it's not the same as "liking" a character. It's the differences between how you feel about yourself and how you feel about other people - you can like or dislike what other people show you of themselves, but when it comes to yourself, you're on the other side of the social wall, you're the one liking or disliking, feeling the feelings and so on: coming up with a simple "like" or "dislike" for yourself is too much of a simplification. I mean, you could say I "like" Hermione, but it's more complicated than that - it's more that I want her to be happy and get what she hopes for in life, independently of liking or disliking, because she's me! Does that make sense? jchutney: > This reminds me of Henry James' famous edict about the relationship of plot to character (they are the same thing). Minerva and Dumbledore are great but if everyone were like them, we'd have no story! LOL! It seems to me that the "whiter" or "blacker" a character the less interesting. It's the "grey" like Sirius and Snape that provoke discussion (so, is he good OR bad?) and of course, "greys" keep readers guessing. We have no idea what Snape will do next. The one time we all went crazy for Dumbledore was in analyzing his "grey" moment (gleam of triumph). Could Dumbledore actually be NOT all good? Stop the presses!< Hear hear. This is the main reason why I separate "what I like in a character" and "what I like in a person"... I can't *stand* terminally nice pure noble upstanding brave flawless Good Guys in fiction. So boring. So predictable. So unrealistic. Give me some interesting flaws and weaknesses any day. (Of course, in real life terms, the terminally nice are a rare and cherished breed - and make impeccable friends, excellent employees and parents, etc.) Let Dumbledore have his vanity and his quirky sense of humour, I say. No Potterverse Aslan-equivalent for me. And there's nothing like a good villain in fiction (sadly, Voldemort is cutting it less and less for me). Bring on the deliciously scheming nastiness... Alexander: > It has occurred to me today, when I finally finished an English translation of my favourite Russian sci-fi book, just how _different_ translation is from the original.< Ahaaaa! Thanks Alexander, this reminds me of a musing I've long intended to raise on this list... those of you who've read HP in other languages, what are the translations like? How good a job did they do? How did they translate the humour? (e.g. the Uranus joke wouldn't translate, I imagine). Were there many cross-cultural gaps, like the oft-quoted French confusion at the English embarrassment about love and sex in HP? Any other concepts and scenes which don't quite come off taken out of the English-speaking context? I've noted quite a lot of trans-Atlantic cultural differences surfacing in our analysis of the series (notably emotional expressiveness (US) vs emotional control (UK)), and surely there must be a lot more when comparing the Anglophone cultures with the non-Anglophone cultures. Alexander? Susanna? Katze? Tabouli. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Sat Jan 26 03:04:47 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 03:04:47 -0000 Subject: Hagrid, Moody and Violent Responses (WAS What Does It Mean To "Like" ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34091 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > I also think that Moody had authority over Draco that Hagrid does not > have over Karkaroff. A teacher who disciplines a student and acts to > protect another student from the offending student is entitled to > some leeway. That's interesting, because I feel exactly the opposite way: Moody's authority over Draco is the reason why I found the ferret-bouncing incident more objectionable than Hagrid's attack. It's the issue of power balance that gets to me, I guess. Let me see if I can explain this intelligently. Karkaroff and Hagrid are both adults (legally and physically, anyhow). Hagrid is way bigger and stronger than Karkaroff, but Karkaroff is the more powerful wizard. There is a certain balance between them. OTOH, Moody has the advantage over Draco in every way -- in age, physical strength, authority, and magical power. So to me his actions came across as an abuse of that power, and plain old bullying. If he simply wanted to protect Harry, any number of non-violent spells would've done the job (like Stupefy). If he wanted to discipline Draco and teach him a lesson -- hey, that's what detentions are for. If Moody had sent Draco off to scrub the infirmary toilets with his toothbrush or something, I would've been the first to applaud, but there was no excuse for violence, IMO. Oh, and for the record, I really like Hagrid, have no strong feelings about Moody either way, and think Draco is a slimy little git but a fun character to read about. Don't know how it fits in with the general theory about excusing characters we like. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From pennylin at swbell.net Sat Jan 26 04:07:08 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny & Bryce) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 22:07:08 -0600 Subject: Hogwarts romances (some SHIP) References: Message-ID: <3C522B6C.7030509@swbell.net> No: HPFGUIDX 34092 Hi -- Last post of the night for me! lucky_kari wrote: > We do know that it was very quickly out of Hogwarts because they were > dead without a few years after being together for at least two years. Huh? Not sure what you mean here. They were married for at least 2 yrs if they were married before conceiving Harry, but I can't figure out how you're calculating a marriage date soon after leaving Hogwarts. We don't know how old they were when they got married or had Harry ... so I can't see as it's possible to calculate. > Whether they completely got together at Hogwarts is a matter of > debate, but it'd be stretching it, imho, to think it didn't start > there. Might have started there ... but there's not telling for sure what sort of interlude there might have been at Hogwarts. Just flirting & they didn't get together until 1, 5 or 10 yrs after leaving Hogwarts? That's as much a possibility as that they dated steadily at Hogwarts & married 1 yr after leaving. No evidence either way so equal possibilities in my mind. > Add to that the absurdly young age > Lily and James Potter were married at, Again, huh? Where's the canon evidence for this? I know this is a common fanfic assumption but ...I don't recall anything in canon to support it. Penny From pennylin at swbell.net Sat Jan 26 03:58:53 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny & Bryce) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 21:58:53 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: SHIP R/H, H/H References: Message-ID: <3C52297D.5010907@swbell.net> No: HPFGUIDX 34093 Hi -- Various replies -- jchutney wrote: > Honestly, I didn't mean to > offend. I think I betray my own prejudices as an English major. There > are so many ways to "read" text, etc. Obviously, the more > complicated the material, the more ways to read the text - hence, the > 20,000 ways to view Hamlet. I'm a recovering English major too ... I love that there can be such varied interpretations too. It's a real tribute to JKR's writing ability, yes? > I cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that JKR is setting up H/R or > that H likes R. However, IMO, we can all see that by a preponderance > of evidence, that this more likely than not. (If I were to approach > it mathematically I'd say that even though it's not 100%, it's > maybe 60% likely to be true.) Er ... well, we can't *all* see that a preponderance of evidence shows R/H. In fact, my view of the preponderance of the evidence is exactly the opposite. Surprise, surprise! I wouldn't begin to quantify mathematically what the odds are that JKR would or would not take any particular plot direction myself. All bets are off IMHO. So, when discussing the topic with > H/Hers, I speculate as to the motivations, etc that lead someone to > an alternate view. Ah, but we don't necessarily think we are taking the "alternate" or underdog view. :--) I'm not sure what fandom numbers would show in terms of how those who ship break down percentage wise. It would be interesting to know, but I don't think we H/H'ers are drastically in the minority, if at all. Ama said: > I'm not saying Hermione should become a floozy because she's too > brilliant, but in some ways I think her obsession with schoolwork is > to compensate for her insecurity about other facets of her > character. Ron sees right through her when she's being intolerably > know-it-all, or gets her to relax when she's hyperventilating, I > think there's evidence in the canon, especially when they're yelling > at each other over homework. Canon examples? I can think of one H/H example off-hand myself actually. PoA -- the chapter where Harry sneaks into Hogsmead -- Hermione is fussing about how he should turn in the Map & go back to school, etc. Harry grins at her & says, "You're not going to turn me in are you?" She smiles sheepishly & says, "Well, of course not, but really Harry" (I'm being lazy & paraphrasing). Point is: both boys are capable of helping Hermione loosen up. Ron hasn't got a monopoly on that. OTOH, I can't recall any R/H examples from canon of this. Kimberly said: > I think we'd all agree that people have the capacity to change their > minds, but that's not at all relevant to the point at hand, which is > whether or not Hermione meant what she said *at the time that she > made the statement*. One of my points is that she might not have known, until after-the-fact, that Ron had romantic interest in her. We the readers have a growing sense of this, but Hermione might not have. I think after the Ball she most certainly was aware of it ... but *was* she aware at the time of the fight? Maybe; maybe not. One of my other points is that her statement is not necessarily an invitation to ask her out and is definitely not an indication that she'd accept if he did. I'm not the only one to mention this so I don't think I'm totally out in left field. > I have too high of an opinion of her kindness *and* her self- > possession (she keeps her cool when she's facing death by poison or > fire in PS/SS; I don't think it's deserted her here) to think that > even in the heat of the moment she would knowingly say something that > could have no other result than to hurt a friend, even if he has been > hurtful to her. Ah, c'mon. We all lose our cool now & again. Hermione's no saint. But, be that as it may, my point is that she's not being intentionally cruel. I do not think that she was thinking to herself: "I'll show him! I know he likes me so I'll tell him to ask me out, even though there's not a chance in this world I'd date *him*!" Of course not. People don't think like that in the middle of an argument. She's hurt & angry though & what she's saying to him, IMO, is: "Look, if you don't like it that I went to a dance with a visiting student, you should have asked me yourself first, not as a last resort. You have no right to be judging who I went with." I had said: >> It also might not have been clear to >> her what the real reason was (Ron's interest in her) until after > her >> head had cleared after their argument. Maybe she went back up to > her >> room and thought "Oh, dear. Oh, no." :::shrugs::: It's possible. Kimberly responded with: > > This is possible, but unlikely in light of Harry's thought-comment at > the end of the fight, and it completely contradicts your own previous > statement that you were sure that she *did* know how he feels. I buy > it as possible, but clearly neither of us believes it to be true. Just because Harry's figured it out doesn't mean Hermione has. It also doesn't contradict my previous statement because what I said was I'm sure she *does* know how Ron feels (i.e., by the end of GoF, she certainly does know how Ron feels, and after their fight, my guess is that she knows). But, before or *during* the fight, did she know? Maybe or maybe not. Penny (who will definitely shut up on this topic for now because she'll be out of town for awhile) From catlady at wicca.net Sat Jan 26 05:36:51 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 05:36:51 -0000 Subject: How did Voldemort pass the time from 1944 to 1969? / JKR interviews Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34094 Olwyn wrote: > it's likely the DEs were formed while while the Maurauders were at > school, although it does make me wonder what Voldy was up to in the > mean time. :) He said somewhere that he spent the years (between leaving Hogwarts and terrorizing the wizarding UK) searching the world to study immortality. I personally think he did a serious amount of that searching in the library at Malfoy Manor, where he was a Bad Influence on young Lucius Malfoy. Someone has suggested that he went straight from murdering his father and paternal grandparents to working for the Dark Wizard Grindelwald in Germany (for one year, until Dumbledore defeated Grindelwald). Eileen Lucky Kari wrote: > does anyone have a copy of that interview. I've heard it (in > several variations) but I've never seen it, Here is a fabulous tool for searching for JKR interviews: http://www.geocities.com/aberforths_goat/ From adanaleigh at hotmail.com Sat Jan 26 06:04:04 2002 From: adanaleigh at hotmail.com (Adana Robinson) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 06:04:04 Subject: [HPforGrownups] God in HP World Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34095 >From: Ronald Rae Yu > >I've already searched the HPfGU Religion FAQ and >didn't find these things. (snip list of religion-related questions) OK, I'll admit, I haven't searched the FAQ on this yet. And I don't have any answers (and I'd like some! Especially about St. Mungo, I mentioned this to someone only today! But here's another question to add to this list: In GoF, the suits of armor are bewitched to sing Christmas carols (not Midwinter Solstice carols, as in many fantasy worlds) and one is singing "Oh Come, All Ye Faithful". Surely there are many non-religious carols that could be mentioned if God were to be left entirely out. What does this say to all the "HP is demonic" book-burners out there? Does it mean anything at all? Adana _________________________________________________________________ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com From andrew_macian at yahoo.com Sat Jan 26 06:06:32 2002 From: andrew_macian at yahoo.com (Andrew MacIan) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 22:06:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] God in HP World In-Reply-To: <20020126014906.89615.qmail@web21109.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20020126060632.14350.qmail@web9501.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 34096 Greetings from Andrew! A short response, sans comment.... --- Ronald Rae Yu wrote: {snip} > My questions: Are these just expressions with no > religious significance whatsoever? Yes, a very common one in the UK and the US. > I noticed that > the > capital 'G' god is used. What god are they referring > to? This is accepted English usage, and to read anything else into it is, well, reading more into it than is there. > Expression or not, does this prove the existence > of a god (and their recognition of its existence) in > the Wizarding World? No. Vide supra. > > What about Harry's having a godfather? Is godfather > here a Christian / religious thing? It can be, but it ain't necessarily so. There was an *extensive* discussion of this here not that long ago. I'd suggest you use the search function in the message archives, rather than shorten the half-life of the topic. {snip} 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 djdwjt at aol.com Sat Jan 26 06:09:55 2002 From: djdwjt at aol.com (elfundeb) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 06:09:55 -0000 Subject: SHIP: R/H, H/H & our trio's escapades In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34097 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "katrionabowman" wrote: > Just to throw something into the mix here: the thought > occurred to me this morning that Harry getting involved with anyone > other then Hermione (e.g. Ginny, Cho, or some yet undiscovered other) > would fundamentally alter the dynamic of our trio. > > > Such an addition goes against JKR's portrayal so far of the trio > getting into cahoots and proving a potent DADA force to be reckoned > with when combining their individual skills (although, GoF was much > more centred on Harry's singular success - so perhaps here JKR is > foreshadowing the removal of the trio's dependence on each other and > thus paving the way for an alteration in the trio's relationship > dynamic?). > > If JKR is intent on maintaining the trio however, then I would > personally say that - if a romantic element is going to play a major > part in the series' conclusion - Harry, as the chief protagonist, > will end up with Hermione. > > Much as it pains me to say so! > > KT in Seattle It never ceases to amaze me how people have such different views of the same material! I have the exact opposite reaction to what ship would maintain the trio: I think H/H would ruin it but R/H would not, for 2 reasons. First since Harry and Hermione have at least some picture of Ron's feelings, an H/H relationship would put enormous strain on Harry's and Hermione's relationships with Ron and seem like betrayal (unless Ron gets over his crush, which IMO has been building for a long time and will not disappear easily). I think he would effectively be out of the trio and alone with his jealousy (well, I suppose this would be an opportunity for Ron to get a grip on his many jealousies and insecurities. . . ). On the other hand, there is no indication to date that Harry has romantic interest in Hermione so R/H should not create jealousy for him (e.g., he doesn't seem disturbed at all by the R/H Yule argument, seeming to be very neutral in his observation that Hermione had "gotten the point.") Second, at some point in each book Harry has had to go it alone (in GoF he had to face all his major challenges alone, though he had preparation assistance from the others) and an R/H relationship would be a convenient way to get them away from him periodically and let us as readers focus on Harry's personal challenges. However, in my view the best way to maintain the Trio intact and to create beneath-the-surface tension would be for some or all of them to have feelings for one another but to try to keep them under wraps as much as possible. I agree that bringing in a fourth person would alter the dynamics dramatically. But, as you point out the dynamics are beginning to change anyway and there are 3 more books for JKR to develop another character (and hopefully such character would serve a purpose other than to provide a love interest for one of the Trio, since IMO the series needs more good female characters). Debbie (who swore she would not respond to shipping posts but who really wants the Trio to keep their hands off one another at least until Voldie is under control again and perhaps longer than that) From djdwjt at aol.com Sat Jan 26 06:50:38 2002 From: djdwjt at aol.com (elfundeb) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 06:50:38 -0000 Subject: Violent Responses (Arthur Weasley) (WAS What Does It Mean To "Like" ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34098 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > > While we are on the subject of violent responses, there is another > scene that really bothered me. I didn't like it all in CoS when > Arthur Weasley and Lucius Malfoy fought each other with fists. Aside > from the fact that it didn't seem believable that two wizards would > use their fists to fight instead of wands, I wasn't plesed that > Arthur would lunge at Lucius over a petty insult. This scene really bothers me too. It's one thing for Draco and Ron to engage in recurring sparring matches where (i) Draco insults Ron's poverty, (ii) then Draco insults Hermione, and (iii) Ron pulls his wand out. After all, they're adolescents. But for two adults to do that (and even worse, come to blows over it) seems ridiculous (read this scene: the sequence of events is exactly the same, except Lucius insults Arthur and Hermione's parents), and I don't think the Grangers were impressed. I'd excuse it on the one-bite-at-the-apple theory, except that I can't help thinking that there's a much bigger Arthur/Lucius backstory that we haven't heard anything about yet. It's possible that they went to Hogwarts at the same time (I'm right there's no evidence to the contrary?); it doesn't appear that Arthur's positions at MOM had anything to do with chasing Death- Eaters so I don't get the sense that they have crossed paths professionally. Are there any adults in HP that model really appropriate behavior? The more I look at adult characters, even those I like, I find instances of inexcusable behavior. Then again, one thing I like about HP characters is that they all have human weaknesses in abundance. Debbie From pigwidgeon37 at yahoo.it Sat Jan 26 07:04:53 2002 From: pigwidgeon37 at yahoo.it (=?iso-8859-1?q?pigwidgeonthirtyseven?=) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 07:04:53 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Translation Musings (provoked by Tabouli) Message-ID: <20020126070453.84053.qmail@web14704.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 34099 Tabouli wrote: <> Yes, ma?am (still panting, but trying to sketch a military salute), here I am!! And mind that it was you to ask my opinion, so I feel free to launch into another translation rant (close second to Snape rants on my list of favourites). I?ve read the books, not all of them, but at least some, in Italian and German. To be exact, it was PS/SS and PoA in German and GoF in Italian. Funny thing is, the Italian version was much better than the German one, though I would have expected it to be the other way round. Why? Well, above all because German, even if its vocabulary is more limited than the English one (oh, yes, it is!), still has the same possibilities, structure-wise, of creating neologisms, a thing that I deem very important for translation. Examples: The suffix ?-less? to indicate that something is deprived of something (colourless) has an exact correspondence in the German suffix ?-los?, so if there?s an English adjective the translator particularly likes, he can always create a German neologism that is immediately understandable to the reader. Not a thing to do too often, but if it?s necessary to keep an important phrase ?in tone?, it can be done. If used to often, it becomes a very tiresome mannerism. Next example: syntactic structure. Great big affinity between German and English, because both languages don?t have a tendency to suppress subordinates. Italian does. Last example: Compound nouns (is THAT the right term???) like ?Quidditch pitch?. In German, compound nouns are made up in exactly the same way. In Italian, if you?re lucky, you have to resort to the preposition ?of? which makes the whole construction a lot heavier, but in many cases, ?of? doesn?t work at all because the Italian analogues ?di? and ?da? don?t cover all the possibilities and you have to make up a whole subordinate. I won?t bore you with more examples, after all I just wanted to explain why, basically, German HP could potentially be better than Italian HP. The real problem arises with word play, names, poetry and specific objects or concepts that simply don?t have an analogue in the culture linked to the language you?re translating into. (And here I?m only speaking of German and Italian which are both languages spoken in a rather small part of the world and it?s still Europe. But even there the cultural difference can amount to a downright cultural gap- a German from Hamburg and an Austrian from Vienna may be only 2500 km apart, but boy what a cultural difference!)E.g. the Uranus joke you mentioned is impossible to translate: You either have to replace it by something that?s necessarily less subtle and far easier to catch, or you simply translate it 1:1, but then the reader won?t understand why Harry and Ron find it so funny. Come to think of it, Uranus is a particularly good example, for the joke in itself is extremely rude, but so well disguised. So, if a translator tries to find an equivalent that works, he?d have to fall back on something more obviously rude like: Trelawney: ?Yes, my dear, that?s Venus in a very interesting position indeed: A sixty-nine degree conjunction with Jupiter. Very good work, Lavender!? Seamus: ?Oh, yeah, Venus in a sixty-nine position, can I see that too, Lavender?? That would of course work, but it?s a little too obvious. Anyway, I?m going to look it up in the German version, but considering the poor quality of those I?ve read, I doubt that the translator caught it, let alone tried to find an appropriate substitute. But these are minor difficulties compared to the whole problem with cultural context: take e.g. the whole concept of British boarding schools. Yes, we do have boarding schools in Austria, Germany and Switzerland, but even if you searched for a Head Girl or a Prefect with a magnifying glass, you won?t find one. The concept doesn?t exist, period. Same goes for Italy where sending your child to a boarding school nearly equals abandoning it on somebody?s doorstep. (OTOH, Mrs. Weasley should be one of the Italian readers? favourite characters). Therefore, Head Boy isn?t something you can simply translate, you have to a) invent a convincing new word and b) explain it. Considering that HP has a target group ranging from age 6 to age 99, how do you explain? A glossary is always a tempting possibility, but out of question for children- they would get bored to death if they had to look up words they don?t understand. Which means that you have to find a subtle way of slipping the explanation into the text, maybe McGonagall?s welcome speech for the first years in PS/SS could serve as a vehicle. Then there are the names: The assonance ?Snape- snake? made the Italian translator name him ?Pitone? (python) which, IMHO, is more unforgivable than the Imperius Curse. And McGonagall became McGranite. Eurgh! But that?s the difficulty with speaking names: translate them, and you necessarily have to interpret them, or leave them as they are, and the readers probably won?t get the meaning. No matter how well a translation is done, the translator will always create a different, but not necessarily worse, piece of literature. That?s something I completely agree about with Alexander (that?s a first!), but I?d love to hear his comments on Russian vs. English. Susanna/pigwidgeon37 "And how come those portraits seem to be alive?" "What'ya mean? All paintings move." "No, they don't. We have lots of paintings in our villa, among them a real Chagall, and none of them..." "And d'ya expect that something painted by a jackal will move? Now really..." --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Get personalised at My Yahoo!. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From judyshapiro at earthlink.net Sat Jan 26 10:04:17 2002 From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 10:04:17 -0000 Subject: Timeline/Ill Lupin/Competent Hagrid?/Betty Bowers In-Reply-To: <3C522B6C.7030509@swbell.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34100 Wow! This discussion board has been active lately! Let me string together a few comments, on various topics, that I have: Penny & Bryce asked: > I can't figure out how you're calculating a marriage date > [for James and Lily] soon after leaving Hogwarts. >...I don't recall anything in canon to support it. Many people here believe that James and Lily got married very young. This isn't exactly based on canon; it's from an interview with JKR, around the time GoF came out, where she gave Snape's age as "35 or 36." We also know that CoS is set in 1992-1993 (because Nearly Headless Nick has his 500th Deathday then, and his cake says he died in 1492.) So, if Snape was "35 or 36" in GOF he would have been born around 1960. We know that James,and Lily were in the same school year as Snape, so they would also have been born sometime around 1960. Harry is 11 in 1991, so he was born in 1980, which would make his parents only around 20 when he was born. By the way, I always thought of 20 as very young to be married with a child, but based on what JKR said in the recent TV special "Harry Potter and Me", her own mother was about 20 when JKR was born. So, being twenty when you have a child probably sounds just about right to JKR. On to other topics: Concerning Hagrid and his competence or lack thereof: Here is my take on Hagrid's character. Hagrid is obviously supposed to be very compassionate and loving. This is why Dumbledore would trust Hagrid "with his life." However, Hagrid also is very childlike -- emotional, impulsive, unable to see the consequences of his actions. I think this is supposed to be out of Hagrid's control -- he's not selfish or inconsiderate; he's just not capable of acting any other way. As others here have said, he's somehow "stuck in time", and has not truly matured. Maybe this is because he's part giant; maybe his intelligence is fairly low; I'm not sure. But, I'm certain it's not supposed to be his fault. (My husband has an interesting question -- "How long do giants live? Maybe Hagrid hasn't grown up *yet*.") So, I have to forgive Hagrid his flaws. Whoever said that Hagrid sympathesizes with big, monstrous creatures because Hagrid himself looks scary but is actually kind, I think you've hit tne nail on the head. Hagrid seems to think "Everyone has it in for big, scary looking creatures like Norbert, Agagog, and... me." It will be interesting to see if the full giants, when they show up, have also somehow been misunderstood. Now, about Lupin: Several people asked whether Lupin was protecting Harry from Sirius Black on the Hogwarts' Express. One big question was "Could Black get on the train? Why would anyone think Harry was in danger on the train?" Well, I'm not sure if Lupin was there to protect Harry or not. But, it's clear that someone in authority was very worried about Black getting on the train. That was why the Deemntors searched it; they were making sure Black wasn't there. Lupin even tells the dementor something like "None of us is hiding Black under our cloaks. Go." I think that JKR is indeed using lycanthropy as a metaphor for real-world illness, and discrimination against disabled people. According to the recent "Harry Potter and Me" interview, JKR's mom died of MS, at the fairly young age of 45. I wonder if JKR likewise envisions Lupin as dying young -- Lupin is so ill that it's hard to see how he could live a normal human life expectancy, let alone a normal wizard one. However, the way of Lupin is treated doesn't make me think of MS; it makes me think of AIDS. I have no idea if JKR had AIDS in mind, but the way the wizarding world responds to lycanthropy (ostracism, fear of contagion, and equation of lycanthropy with immorality) is very much like how AIDS is often viewed in the real world. Interestingly, one of Lupin's outward symptoms -- being very thin -- fits AIDS but not MS. (Exhaustion fits MS and AIDS both, and many other illnesses.) Another question about Lupin -- when do you think he is contagious? Do you think that in the Potterverse, werewolves are only contagious in wolf form? Or are they contagious all month? Can kissing or other contact spread lycanthropy? This would certainly be a big hinderance is forming romantic relationships. (Alas for my Lupin fantasies! Sigh!) Lasty, Pastafor5 said in response to the article at http://www.bettybowers.com/harrypotter.html : > Please tell me that was a joke! ... I suggest that betty bowers get > her mind out of the gutter. Yes, it's a joke. The BettyBowers site is a parody of the religious right. It's 'affiliated' with several other similar parody sites, as I recall. Unfortunately, the BettyBowers site was redesigned recently, and it's less obviously a parody (and less funny, if you ask me) than it was before. -- Judy From knitwit1912 at sympatico.ca Sat Jan 26 04:38:53 2002 From: knitwit1912 at sympatico.ca (Karen Shepherd) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 23:38:53 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hogwarts romances (some SHIP) References: <3C522B6C.7030509@swbell.net> Message-ID: <3C5232DD.7F8BF477@sympatico.ca> No: HPFGUIDX 34101 A couple thoughts (and maybe some answers?) on the subject of Lily and James' ages when they got married... First, > lucky_kari wrote: > >We do know that it was very quickly out of Hogwarts because they were > >dead without a few years after being together for at least two > >years. Then, Penny & Bryce wrote: > Huh? Not sure what you mean here. They were married for at least 2 > yrs > if they were married before conceiving Harry, but I can't figure out > how > you're calculating a marriage date soon after leaving Hogwarts. We > don't know how old they were when they got married or had Harry ... so > I > can't see as it's possible to calculate. Well we don't know for certain, but one can take a guess--a pretty sketchy guess, and one probably resembling Swiss cheese, but one nonetheless. JKR has stated that Snape was 35-36 in GoF. Going with the latter age as well as the Harry-was-born-in-1980 theory, that means he was born around 1958-59, depending on when his birthday falls. He was at Hogwarts with MWPP & Lily, and considering the animosity betweeen the two groups I'm assuming that MWPP&L were in about the same year as Snape. It would be easier for the rivalry to heat up if they saw each other in class every day or so (more opportunities for pranks on either side. :->), and if there was a large age difference, would the older party bother deliberately annoying the younger? BTW, does JKR ever mention Snape & MWPP ever having classes together? If she does, I'm assuming it would be in an off-handed comment by Black or Lupin. Anyway, back to the theory. Assuming Snape, Lily & James were the same age, that means the three of them would have been 22-23 in 1981. Subtract two years for the assumption that L&J were married when Harry was concieved, and you have an approximate age of (at most) 20-21 for when they were married. Assuming that L&J graduated at the same time, that gives a 2-3 year window where they could have been married. I know, I'm going under a lot of assumptions here. But even if you argue an earlier/later year for Voldemort's fall, you'd still get the same ages, just different birth years. It's the other assumptions where my theory collapses like a Meccano set without the nuts & bolts. :-) Does anyone have any other tidbits from the canon that would help to prove whether MWPP&L and Snape were the same/different ages? I know she mentions James and Lily beaing Head Boy and Girl, but I don't think she specifies whether they held those titles during the same year. Pick away! --Karen Shepherd From terrilyn at ameritech.net Sat Jan 26 05:19:07 2002 From: terrilyn at ameritech.net (Terri Lyn Layman) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 00:19:07 -0500 Subject: Absurdly young age for marriage.. Message-ID: <000001c1a628$fb345ca0$5d59fea9@c8b5v1> No: HPFGUIDX 34102 Ok... here's a thought... I have seen a few people say that they think James and Lilly married too young... But, really... ask yourself this: "What age were my parents when they married?" The current (1990) statistical age for marriage is 25 for women, and 27 for men. source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/releases/95facts/fs_4312s.htm In 1996, I got married at 21, which in retrospect was "an absurdly young age". However, back in 1972, my parents married when they were 22. Their parents married at the age of 18 (give or take), and even further back Laura Ingalls Wilder (another fine female author), got married at 17 (according to the TV series). While discussing literary females, the fictional Juliet was 14 and beginning to be considerd an "Old Maid". Now, if we are to assume that Harry at this point is 14 (just a year younger than my nephew), I see it as completely plausible that his parents may have married when they were in their late teens to early 20's (as my sister- and brother- in law married at about 19/20). Canon never explicitly states how long they courted, the nature of their courtship (Don't we all have a couple of friends who were in various stages of dating, broken up, and engaged for so long that when the final invite came we were flabbergasted they'd finally made up their minds?), or how long after marriage Harry was born for that matter. We are also given very little insight into Mr&Mrs Evans and Mr&Mrs Potter(Sr). The ages that those couples married at, coupled with the enviornment they projected around them as to what a relationship is also bears on things. (Granted, any positive Marriage message sent to Petunia seems to have been lost.. either that or combined with the (s)mother ing messages sent to her. I don't think she makes a good wife or mother.) These are just my thoughts on the matter, YMMV. -TerriLyn From jchutney at yahoo.com Sat Jan 26 06:21:30 2002 From: jchutney at yahoo.com (jchutney) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 06:21:30 -0000 Subject: God in HP World In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34103 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Adana Robinson" wrote: > But here's another question to add to this list: In GoF, the suits of armor > are bewitched to sing Christmas carols (not Midwinter Solstice carols, as in > many fantasy worlds) and one is singing "Oh Come, All Ye Faithful". Surely > there are many non-religious carols that could be mentioned if God were to > be left entirely out. What does this say to all the "HP is demonic" > book-burners out there? Does it mean anything at all?> Good topic. JKR is so very vague (and intentionally so, IMO) about G- D that I doubt we'll ever get real answers. As for speculation, use of the word G-D suggests a belief in a Single Creator (although there of course may be many agents similar to our prophets or angels). Obvioulsy, the practice of magic sets the HP books apart from traditional Christianity. I think JKR gets around this issue (IMO) in that wizards do not choose their abilities. IMO, HP is clearly an AU not meant to line up religiously with our world. But then again, what Fantasy series does? Perhaps I'm wrong (and I certainly don't mean to offend re:this Delicate Topic) but HP reminds me of the Alladin and Arabian Nights stories. Magic is forbidden in Islam, just as it is in Christianity, and yet Muslim children are able to read theses stories of flying carpets, "friendly" genies, and sorcerers without jeopardizing their faith. (Of course, I'm sure there are fanatical Mullahs out there ready to burn Sheherazade!). In the Arabian Nights, the characters exist in a Muslim world (just as Harry exists in a "Christian world") and yet there are many AU aspects to these stories. Couldn't HP be an English version of this type of story? jchutney From john at walton.vu Sat Jan 26 13:31:05 2002 From: john at walton.vu (John Walton) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 13:31:05 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] God in HP World In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34104 Adana Robinson wrote: > OK, I'll admit, I haven't searched the FAQ on this yet. And I don't have > any answers (and I'd like some! Especially about St. Mungo, I mentioned > this to someone only today! Interesting fact about St Mungo -- he was known as St Kentigern south of the Scottish Border. *nodnod* My auntie used to teach at a school called St Kentigern's, see. > But here's another question to add to this list: In GoF, the suits of armor > are bewitched to sing Christmas carols (not Midwinter Solstice carols, as in > many fantasy worlds) and one is singing "Oh Come, All Ye Faithful". Surely > there are many non-religious carols that could be mentioned if God were to > be left entirely out. What does this say to all the "HP is demonic" > book-burners out there? Does it mean anything at all? The answer to your final question is basically "no". Britain tends (he said, making a VERY sweeping generalisation) to go in much more for the Christmas Carol singing than other countries, particularly the USA, in schools. My school had a Christmas Carol Service every year, for instance. I don't think we can draw many conclusions from this apart from "Hogwarts is modelled on a British school". Just my 0.029 euros (US$ 0.02). --John ____________________________________________ "Wow! They've got the internet on computers now!" -- Homer Simpson John Walton -- john at walton.vu ____________________________________________ From meboriqua at aol.com Sat Jan 26 14:15:23 2002 From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 14:15:23 -0000 Subject: Competent Hagrid? - again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34105 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "judyserenity" wrote: Hagrid also is very childlike -- emotional, impulsive, unable to see the consequences of his actions. I think this is supposed to be out of Hagrid's control -- he's not selfish or inconsiderate; he's just not capable of acting any other way. As others here have said, he's somehow "stuck in time", and has not truly matured. Maybe this is because he's part giant; maybe his intelligence is fairly low; I'm not sure. But, I'm certain it's not supposed to be his fault.> If this is the case, my belief in his incompetence as a teacher is confirmed even more. If Hagrid is not *supposed* to be at fault for the things he does, how can he possibly be trusted as a teacher responsible for "interestin' creatures" and Hogwarts students? I see no evidence that Hagrid has below normal intelligence, but if he does, than he is clearly in no way qualified to be a teacher. On another note, I am uncomfortable with the argument that characters (or real people) are not in control of themselves and are therefore excused from their behavior. I am not talking here about the fact that many of us do and say things based on what we know (such as Draco's behavior often being based on what his father has so meticulously taught him), but when adults *choose* to turn backsides into pig tails or slam other adults into trees, or even adults who choose to turn students into ferrets, I say that these adults are in complete control of their behavior and know exactly what they are doing. Once again, I cana't let Hagrid off the hook. --jenny from ravenclaw, wondering if Tabouli has an acronym for those of not who are *not* Hagrid fans ************ From lav at tut.by Sat Jan 26 14:38:09 2002 From: lav at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 16:38:09 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Translation and Cultural Issues In-Reply-To: <001a01c1a617$6c9be820$4b27ddcb@price> References: <001a01c1a617$6c9be820$4b27ddcb@price> Message-ID: <14926216559.20020126163809@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 34106 Greetings! DISCLAIMER. Some parts of this post may be considered offensive to some Western readers. Sorry in advance, but that's the way it is. Any harm is unintentional. Consider yourself warned. Numbers in square brackets (like "[1]") are footnotes. Look below. Whenever mentioning "Russia" and "Russian" keep in mind that I mean in fact Eastern Slavic region of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine. I'm myself from Belarus, though tied culturally with Russia (completely Russian education and Russian being prime language). --- Tabouli wrote to us: ----------------------------------- T> Ahaaaa! Thanks Alexander, this reminds me of a musing T> I've long intended to raise on this list... those of you T> who've read HP in other languages, what are the T> translations like? Different. I know of three independent translations to Russian, two of them made by enthusiasts before even anybody heard about HP in Russia. Then there's also the "official" translation which is a way too horrible to read (one of the most flattering comments that I encountered about it was "extreme language poverty of translator"...). They couldn't even write Voldemort's name the same way in different books. As a result, Main Villain name from second book spells like "Volan-De-Mort" (oops), part "volan-" reminding me of badminton only... :) Unofficial translations are several grades better but they are what they are - unofficials. BTW, I don't remember how Voldie was translated in official version, but unofficial is: English: "Tom Marvolo Riddle" -> "I am Lord Voldemort" Russian: "Tom D. Dwolloder Rebus" -> "Lord Sudeb Voldemort" "Rebus" is "Riddle" in Russian - direct translation. "Lord Sudeb Voldemort" is "Voldemort the Lord of Fates". IMHO much more impressive... 8-P T> How good a job did they do?How did they translate the T> humour? (e.g. the Uranus joke wouldn't translate, I T> imagine). What Uranus joke? I want to hear it, as well as the place in the text where it's located. There are some jokes based on play-on-words, which surely were very different in English origin [1], so I think it's compensated. T> Were there many cross-cultural gaps, like the oft-quoted T> French confusion at the English embarrassment about love T> and sex in HP? Any other concepts and scenes which don't T> quite come off taken out of the English-speaking context? I'm not the one to make the judgement here, as I'm reading translated American and English books with a good degree of self-identification with the country of origin, not from Russian point of view. (Of course, it's not quite correct. One cannot really hope to understand English books like an englishman until he lives in England for a while. Hence my reaction to the book is not one of englishman, but rather "reflection" of Englishman in Russian culture. There are some quite articles on the problems of translations, probably even in English, but it's not the group to discuss them in general). T> I've noted quite a lot of trans-Atlantic cultural T> differences surfacing in our analysis of the series T> (notably emotional expressiveness (US) vs emotional T> control (UK)), and surely there must be a lot more when T> comparing the Anglophone cultures with the non-Anglophone T> cultures. Alexander? Susanna? Katze? Again hard to say. It had never occurred to me to try to read the books as a Russian - instead I was always trying to read them as an englishman/american. Question of school discipline has already been touched here in the newsgroup. Compared to russian schools Hogwarts is the Chaos itself. It also seems that Russians perceive Wizards judgement system much more lightheartedly than Westerners. At least it is much more just than judicial system in my country... I would expect Moody to be treated with much more kindness in Russia - he is fighting for the Idea (from the capital letter) - that's something to touch the heart of almost any Russian. (Those of you who think those days have passed by - forget about it. Russia is currently searching for the new Idea, as soon as she finds it, Lord save us all! ;) An interesting question is name-association. Most names in Rowling books have pretty fixed values but there are still names that have no specific value (common names) but still might stir some associations deep on the subconscious level. And of course those reactions will be different for people from different countries. (For example, tell anybody in Russia about "Gunpowder Treason" and he won't move a bit - the expression has zero meaning in Russia. Name "Joanne" is unlikely to touch the heart of an American but think on the reaction of a French, even if the reaction is a subconscious one? Name "Ivan" will be associated with Hollywood movies and Russian mafia for a Western reader, but it will associate with the most famous folklore hero for a Russian, the one that eventually wins not due to his courage, strength or intellect, but due to his kindness. The list can be continued...) About names in JKR books: two names for sure are Harry and Ron (Ronald). Needless to say, Ron doesn't hit a string in Russian heart at all. Harry associates with chess at best (Harry Kasparov being world chess champion). But surely this names convey some meaning to an English or American reader (even if this meaning is sub-conscious and not purposefully intended by the author). Even more, the names will convey entirely different meanings to English and American readers, being the result of much different upbringings and history. Any more ideas on this issue? That's all that I can invent on the spot. Perhaps if I think more on it I will provide more information, but IMHO that's enough for now about the books. But when we come to analyze the _discussions_ of the book instead of the books themselves... For example, it would never occur to a Russian to sit down and calculate just how often does a female or an african (or whoever else) appears in the books and takes an active part in the plot. Yep, sure I know it's a hot subject "out there" but it surely doesn't hit any strings in my own soul (almost all issues covered by Political Correctness rule are simply "not perceived" here in ex-USSR) [2]. Another issue (if only for me) is overall trend to analyze characters actions from different points of view *while still reading the book*. Yep, what the Hell it's for? After all, you read the book to get pleasure from a good story, not to compare your political views to that of author (are you? Ah, I see... :). I have found myself deeply surprised by the fact that some people find themselves *insulted* by the author. However this is most likely my personal (not society-inducted) reaction. After all, my favourite Russian author constantly keeps "insulting" me in the same way as many of people have written earlier. Still, I don't *feel* insulted the least. I know for sure I have different views from that of author about many issues, but is that important after all? He's wrong of course, why be insulted? ;) On the other side, the question of "world coherence" does not come into discussions here at the list entirely. Under this term I mean that all canon facts that we have about the World described by the author must not contradict to each other and to simple logic. That is, lava should NOT flow upwards ("Ah, yes, but there's a gravity anomaly there..."), number of teachers must correspond to the number of students ("but they probably use Time Turners...") and no mistakes of similar kind should be present in the books. Most often than not, such mistakes require a lot of work to be explained, and even then their explanation in turn creates another contradictions (most often than not these will be contradictions with book scenario line). And from this my very personal point of view, Rowling's books deserve a very low mark. The Wizarding World does not live - because it cannot live, like a man with his head inside his stomach... T> Tabouli. --- SMTP server of my ISP wasn't functioning in the morning, so Susanna/pigwidgeon had time to write to us: ------------- S> But these are minor difficulties compared to the whole S> problem with cultural context: take e.g. the whole concept S> of British boarding schools. Yes, we do have boarding S> schools in Austria, Germany and Switzerland, but even if S> you searched for a Head Girl or a Prefect with a S> magnifying glass, you wont find one. The concept doesnt S> exist, period. Yep. In Russia there is concept of "starosta", but it's not for whole House - there are no Houses in Russian schools, but instead each class of 20-30 pupils has it's own "starosta". His functions are pretty the same, though. The word was not translated but transliterated, though (that is, prefects remained prefects in Russian). Head Boy and Girl, however, don't exist in Russian schools at all (the closest analog would be "pioneer leader", but they disappeared together with pioneers and USSR...), and their direct translation would prove to sound real stupid (in Russian word "head" is not used to name a position of power for more than 100 years already) - something like "boy with the biggest head"... ;) So they were translated as "Major Prefects", and in fact there's no hint there are TWO of them (as they are not gender specific)... I only knew it for the first time when I got to the Lexicon and HP4GU that there are in fact TWO students of highest authority in Hogwarts. > So, if a translator tries to find an equivalent that > works, hed have to fall back on something more obviously > rude like: Trelawney: Yes, my dear, thats Venus in a > very interesting position indeed: A sixty-nine degree > conjunction with Jupiter. Very good work, Lavender! > Seamus: Oh, yeah, Venus in a sixty-nine position, can I > see that too, Lavender? Personally, I didn't understand your example at all, probably because I haven't seen original joke yet... :) And that considering the fact that I was school champion in dirty jokes... ;) As fas as I have understood there's wordplay by Venus being simultaneously a planet and a... well... person. In Russian there's quite another wordplay, based on the fact that Russian name for Venus ("Venera") corresponds greatly to "veneric". So Seamus asks Lavender to show him her veneric data... > Then there are the names: The assonance Snape- snake > made the Italian translator name him Pitone (python) > which, IMHO, is more unforgivable than the Imperius Curse. > And McGonagall became McGranite. Eurgh! But thats the > difficulty with speaking names: translate them, and you > necessarily have to interpret them, or leave them as they > are, and the readers probably wont get the meaning. Nah, there were no such attempts in Russian translations. All names were simply transliterated by standard translation rules. It led of course to many names being perceived differently by ear. And of course names don't "ring bells" in reader's mind, unless that reader has a good expertice of European culture. On the other hand, I have always disliked the idea of "talking" name, hence I like our translators approach... :) Interesting how spell names are translated. In Russian translations that anglo-franco-portugalo-latin-whatever-else mix was replaced by russo-latin mix, which definitely sounds much more weird (Russian is not fit to be used together with Latin, after all), but probably better than official translation which transliterates spell names just like personal and geographical names. "Knockturn Alley" (allusion with "nocturn" in English) was translated differently in official and unofficial versions. In both cases meaning is lost, however. Official gives us "Dead-End Alley", while unofficial gives us "Alley of Darkness". Pity but I failed to invent something with same double-meaning myself. "Firebolt" is translated as "Vspoloh" (which has several meanings including "flash" and "lightning") and this has an interesting allusion to JRRT (Gandalf's horse has the same name in many LOTR translations). Definitely an example of an excellent translation IMHO. Interesting, that unofficial version also translates "Privet Drive" into Russian, though I'm not sure as if it has any meaning in English. Usually geographical names that have additional meaning are translated by that meaning and only then "englified" back to sound like an English name. On the other hand, if there's no additional meaning, tradition is that the name is simply transliterated. --- FOOTNOTES ---------------------------------------------- [1]. PoA, Chapter 5 "Dementor". Draco, entering the HRH compartment in Hogwarts Express, makes fun "perverting" Harry's and Ron's family names: "Potter" and "Visli" (in Russian translation) become "Potniy" and "Visliy" ("Sweaty" and... well... don't even know how to translate that... not that it's unprintable, far from it, just lack English vocabulary to do that). [2]. Site http://rusf.ru/lukian/english/ contains Sergey Lukyanenko novel "Labirinth of Reflections" translated into English by some Russian emigrant living in US. It has a good disclaimer which is worth reading to understand Russian views on PC (Political Correctness) issue, even if you don't like cyberpunk style in general. ------------------------------------------------------------ Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, (Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed), always happy to throw weird ideas into the community. - You must make good out of evil, because you have nothing else to do it from. If Winged consider themselves good, then make them to BE good! Make them to talk about the Light, so they believe in it! Make them not only call themselves good and nice! Make them to actually become such! - How can I do it? I'm just a boy, even if I have the True sword! - I would love to see a boy who can agree that he's just a boy... Sun Kitten. (Sergey Lukyanenko, "The Boy and the Darkness"). From hollydaze at btinternet.com Sat Jan 26 15:32:02 2002 From: hollydaze at btinternet.com (Hollydaze) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 15:32:02 -0000 Subject: Number of teachers? References: Message-ID: <004b01c1a67e$9aa550a0$7b33073e@j0dhe> No: HPFGUIDX 34107 I wrote: > > I just don't see how it is possible for the 12 teachers we have to teach that number of pupils (even if it is as low > > as 280 - 10 per house per year) unless they are ALL double house classes, and with no breaks, as that would be 20 per > > class and so 14 simultaneous classes which is already more than the number of teachers we have! And we know that > > Harry's year Gryffindors only seem to have Potions and Herbology with another house, it is likely that this is > > similar with other houses, especially if it is true that Ravenclaw don't have any lessons with other houses. > One additional factor is that the kids don't have every subject every day. In > HPSS, Astronomy is just Wednesdays at midnight, Herbology is stated to be 3 > times per week, and DADA doesn't start until Friday so it's clearly not every day. > On the first day of classes in CoS, they have 3 subjects. OK that takes another teacher out of the equation, it still means that with double lessons there are 14 simultaneous lessons going on and now only 11 teachers to teach them. That leaves us with 14 classes, and 11 teachers. > If the kids have 3 classes per day it's do-able; 4 houses times 7 years is 28 > groups of kids and if they have 3 classes per day that's 84 class sessions per > week; divide by 12 teachers and that's 7 per teacher per day. Lighten that load > a bit to 5 classes per day because of the double sessions, and that's a typical > load for a US high-school teacher. Firstly as I pointed out above, it is actually only 11 teachers that we can really count as the Astronomy lessons take place at night on different (?) days (perhaps one year per night - 7 years / 7 days). That would give you around seven to eight. Where did five classes come from? Is this just for the teachers? I still don't see how that is possible 8but then I also don't see how the timetables work) Harry only has 3 classes per day and in every year they always seem to follow one another, in the 1st year he (seems) to have two lessons before lunch and 1 lesson after lunch (could be two it is not really clear - double lessons etc) followed imediatly by supper/dinner. WHere are teh "gaps" where the other classes would take place? The fact that HRH's timetables don't change as to when their lessons are placed would imply that every year has the same time table schedules and so every lesson is going on at the same time. Hence there must be a few more teachers. One other problem, so far we only know of three lessons (in Harry's year) that are tought with two houses, Potions, Herbology and Flying (may only be in one year anyway) so if this is the same in every year (these are the only double house lessons) then that only makes SNape and Sprouts work loads lighter, not any body elses. Another problem is that Muggle Studdies, Ancient Runes, Divination, Care of Magical Creatures and Arithmancy only seem to start in the 3rd year (plus some others we don't know?) that means that the time table is altered for years 1 and 2 to have extra lessons in Potions, DADA, Transfiguration, Herbology, History of Magic and Charms (plus one flying lesson as far as we know) that means that there are two years have extra of these lessons, so these teachers will have mroe tot each than there Muggle Studdies, Ancient Runes, Divination, Care of Magical Creatures and Arithmancy counterparts (who only teach a limited number of people in years 3 - 7 - people pick their subjects so not everyone does these lessons) Everyone does Potions, DADA, Transfiguration, Herbology, History of Magic and Charms (and possibly Flying) so their timetabels will be even more cramped! I'm still seeing problems with this so please clear it up if you can! HOLLYDAZE!!! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From hollydaze at btinternet.com Sat Jan 26 16:07:53 2002 From: hollydaze at btinternet.com (Hollydaze) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 16:07:53 -0000 Subject: God in HP World References: <20020126014906.89615.qmail@web21109.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <00cb01c1a683$9d229360$7b33073e@j0dhe> No: HPFGUIDX 34108 -Ron Yu wrote: > Also, there is the 'St. Mungo's' wizard hospital. What > earned Mungo the title 'saint'? If he is indeed a > saint in their muggle world at least, why name the > hospital after a saint? Now I'm not sure exactly where it is, (London? Somewhere in Scotland? I'm almost certain it is in the UK!) but there is a REAL St Mungo's Hospital, my mum told me about it. Knowing JK's like for weird sounding names (and let's face it, "St Mungo" sounds pretty odd), she probably just nicked the name of the real hospital, thinking it would fit well in her stories. HOLLYDAZE!!! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jan 26 16:49:57 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 16:49:57 -0000 Subject: Translation and Cultural Issues In-Reply-To: <14926216559.20020126163809@tut.by> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34109 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Alexander wrote: What Uranus joke? I want to hear it, as well as the place > in the text where it's located. GoF, chapter 13, page 201 US hardcover, Lavender Brown speaks: **** ..."Oh Professor look! I think I've got an unaspected planet! Oooh, which one's that, Professor?" "It is Uranus, my dear," said Professor Trelawney, peering down at the chart. "Can I have a look at Uranus too, Lavender?" said Ron. Most unfortunately Professor Trelawney heard him... **** IIRC, the astronomical term "black hole", if translated literally into Russian, becomes a very vulgar term for the referenced body part Pippin always happy to field weird ideas for the community From john at walton.vu Sat Jan 26 17:19:24 2002 From: john at walton.vu (John Walton) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 17:19:24 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Translation and Cultural Issues In-Reply-To: <14926216559.20020126163809@tut.by> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34110 Alexander wrote: > Greetings! > > DISCLAIMER. > Some parts of this post may be considered offensive to > some Western readers. Sorry in advance, but that's the way > it is. Any harm is unintentional. Consider yourself warned. None taken from this transAtlantic person, who took one year of Russian at university but got put off by the literary requirements after reading Anna Karenina. (Aside: there is no coincidence that this novel has the initials AK. Plot summary: Tolstoy whinges about the city/European influence and praises the country/Russia. Some woman throws herself under a train, too.) My own (ghastly) attempts at Russian below come with similar disclaimers to Alexander's... > Whenever mentioning "Russia" and "Russian" keep in mind > that I mean in fact Eastern Slavic region of Russia, Belarus > and Ukraine. I'm myself from Belarus, though tied culturally > with Russia (completely Russian education and Russian being > prime language). Samuel Huntington (author of "Clash of Civilizations") would love that observation. > T> How good a job did they do?How did they translate the > T> humour? (e.g. the Uranus joke wouldn't translate, I > T> imagine). > > What Uranus joke? I want to hear it, as well as the place > in the text where it's located. Okay. [Warning for the squeamish: skip this paragraph.] For this joke to work you have to understand that the anus is part of the bottom/butt/bum/arse. "Uranus" is pronounced very similarly to "Your anus". So, "can I see Uranus, Lavender?" is *very* much a schoolboy joke. > Question of school discipline has already been touched > here in the newsgroup. Compared to russian schools Hogwarts > is the Chaos itself. Actually, compared to most schools in my experience, Hogwarts is rather chaotic. Of course, you can compare that to the (IMO) discipline-less French schools I've seen, where the students who want to learn sit at the front and those who do not sit at the back and talk/play games/whatever. > It also seems that Russians perceive Wizards judgement > system much more lightheartedly than Westerners. At least it > is much more just than judicial system in my country... Perhaps this is Russia's history of authoritarianism coloring the viewpoint of the Typical Russian Reader (referred to as TRR)? What I mean to say is that TRR can personally compare Wizarding justice with a much more draconian system than can the Typical Western Reader (TWR). > I would expect Moody to be treated with much more kindness > in Russia - he is fighting for the Idea (from the capital > letter) - that's something to touch the heart of almost any > Russian. > (Those of you who think those days have passed by - forget > about it. Russia is currently searching for the new Idea, as > soon as she finds it, Lord save us all! ;) Interesting point there. > Name "Ivan" will be associated with Hollywood movies and > Russian mafia for a Western reader, but it will associate > with the most famous folklore hero for a Russian, the one > that eventually wins not due to his courage, strength or > intellect, but due to his kindness. > The list can be continued...) > About names in JKR books: two names for sure are Harry and > Ron (Ronald). Needless to say, Ron doesn't hit a string in > Russian heart at all. Harry associates with chess at best > (Harry Kasparov being world chess champion). But surely this > names convey some meaning to an English or American reader > (even if this meaning is sub-conscious and not purposefully > intended by the author). Even more, the names will convey > entirely different meanings to English and American readers, > being the result of much different upbringings and history. > Any more ideas on this issue? Alexander, would the TRR find names like Harry, Hermione, Ron, Neville, etc. more unusual than the TWR? I'm thinking particularly because of the restrictive Soviet "advice" on child-naming discouraging names with religious connotations in favor of names like Nadezhda (Hope), Tatiana (forgotten the translation...?strength?), Ivan (reason above), Viktor (Victor), etc. I'm sure you can give us more examples of these. > Yep. In Russia there is concept of "starosta", but it's > not for whole House - there are no Houses in Russian > schools, but instead each class of 20-30 pupils has it's own > "starosta". His functions are pretty the same, though. > The word was not translated but transliterated, though > (that is, prefects remained prefects in Russian). Head Boy > and Girl, however, don't exist in Russian schools at all > (the closest analog would be "pioneer leader", but they > disappeared together with pioneers and USSR...), and their > direct translation would prove to sound real stupid (in > Russian word "head" is not used to name a position of power > for more than 100 years already) - something like "boy with > the biggest head"... ;) So they were translated as "Major > Prefects", and in fact there's no hint there are TWO of > them (as they are not gender specific)... I only knew it for > the first time when I got to the Lexicon and HP4GU that > there are in fact TWO students of highest authority in > Hogwarts. Gosh, that's really interesting as a commentary on perception. >> So, if a translator tries to find an equivalent that >> works, he?d have to fall back on something more obviously >> rude like: Trelawney: ?Yes, my dear, that?s Venus in a >> very interesting position indeed: A sixty-nine degree >> conjunction with Jupiter. Very good work, Lavender!? >> Seamus: ?Oh, yeah, Venus in a sixty-nine position, can I >> see that too, Lavender?? > > Personally, I didn't understand your example at all, > probably because I haven't seen original joke yet... :) And > that considering the fact that I was school champion in > dirty jokes... ;) [Again, the squeamish should skip this paragraph] The sixty-nine position involves two sexual partners orally fellating each other, one on top of the other, head to groin. > As fas as I have understood there's wordplay by Venus > being simultaneously a planet and a... well... person. In > Russian there's quite another wordplay, based on the fact > that Russian name for Venus ("Venera") corresponds greatly > to "veneric". So Seamus asks Lavender to show him her > veneric data... That's the general idea. > Nah, there were no such attempts in Russian translations. > All names were simply transliterated by standard translation > rules. It led of course to many names being perceived > differently by ear. And of course names don't "ring bells" > in reader's mind, unless that reader has a good expertice of > European culture. > On the other hand, I have always disliked the idea of > "talking" name, hence I like our translators approach... :) I remember, back when I was doing Russian, how amused I was at the Russian "translations" -- more like "transliterations" -- of character names from the official translation. Non-Russian speakers will not know that there is no aspirated H in Russian (like the H in hotel, hedge, hey), and that H is therefore translated with a hard G (as in guest, Gimli, Google) or with a KH (the unvoiced sound as in German/Welsh "bach" or Scottish "loch"...not as in "church" or "character"). There is also no short A sound (as in "pat" or "mac"); this is usually transliterated as a short E sound (as in "pet" or "heck"). Hence English "hamburger" turns into "gemburger", and "Harry" to "Gerry". (Remember -- those Gs are "guh" sounds not "jeh" sounds.) So, IIRC, Harry Potter -- Gerry Potter Ron Weasley -- Ron Visli (pron. vee-zlee not vih-slih) i.e. the official translater did not look for the Russian version of "weasel" and play with that. --John, Myezhdunarodny Chelovyek [of Mystery...help, Alexander, I've forgotten how to say "of mystery"...] ____________________________________________ Remember: Socks then Shoes. John Walton -- john at walton.vu ____________________________________________ From fiatincantatum at attbi.com Sat Jan 26 17:01:55 2002 From: fiatincantatum at attbi.com (Fiat Incantatum) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 12:01:55 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hagrid, Moody and Violent Responses In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3C529AB3.6580.89DF2FA@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 34111 On 26 Jan 2002 at 3:04, marinafrants wrote: > If Moody had sent Draco off to scrub the > infirmary toilets with his toothbrush or something, I would've been > the first to applaud, but there was no excuse for violence, IMO. While I do agree with you somewhat, we should also keep in mind that this (the wizarding world) is a culture that thinks that flying around sans protective gear at high speed 50 or more feet in the air while being attacked by animated cannon balls is a Really Fun Game. -- 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 foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jan 26 17:51:47 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 17:51:47 -0000 Subject: Universities, inheritance and HP Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34112 People seem to find it almost incomprehensible that the HP world could not have an extensive university system. However, European universities were originally founded to teach religion, and only later branched into other fields, the first being law. The liberal arts were only studied to give the necessary background, and weren't recognized as fields in their own right. The idea of teaching technical skills at the university level came even later. At the time when wizards split off from the Muggle world, very few people had university educations. The fact that the wizards haven't much (any?) organized religion and their legal system is primitive argues against this kind of university development in the wizarding world. The population explosion caused by improved sanitation together with the disappearance of unskilled jobs due to mechanization resulted in the vastly expanded universities we have now. If corresponding developments in the wizarding world did not take place, there would be no reason for them to develop a higher education system. I would guess that crafts, small trades, shops and the like stay in the same families for generations, and that people are largely expected to go into the same fields that their parents did. This would greatly disadvantage the Muggleborn and account for their lower social status. Hmmm....perhaps it's important for us to know that the wizards have no universities because Hermione is going to found the first one! I imagine that both Gringotts and the dragon reserve where Charley works have some ministry connection. The lack of such a connection might explain Molly's distress over Fred and George's plans to open a joke shop. If Weasley connections helped Bill and Charley land their jobs, it wouldn't be considered nepotism, just business as usual. The idea that family connections shouldn't influence where you work would seem outlandish in much of the world today, and in England and America until recently) I wonder if the wizards, like the Amish, pass the family real estate to the youngest son and Ron will get the Burrow. Pippin From andrew_macian at yahoo.com Sat Jan 26 18:01:35 2002 From: andrew_macian at yahoo.com (Andrew MacIan) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 10:01:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: God in HP World In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020126180135.40338.qmail@web9503.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 34113 Greetings from Andrew! An intra-coffee response about one of my favorite, if deceased, authors. A longer one will follow after the caffeine has its way with my neural system.... --- jchutney wrote: {snip} > IMO, HP is clearly an AU not meant to line up > religiously with our > world. But then again, what Fantasy series does? {snip} The Lord Darcy series, by Randall Garret is set in an historically alternate universe (the Plantagent line never left England's throne), but the magic system he posited requires that any strong 'good' magician be at least a communicant of the Roman church. Darcy's usual assistant is a priest, and the chief of his intelligence/police agency is a bishop (the Bishop of London, IIRC). 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 your FREE holiday greetings online! http://greetings.yahoo.com From Edblanning at aol.com Sat Jan 26 18:19:24 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 13:19:24 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape, Sirius, the Dementors Message-ID: <184.2ac9bf4.29844d2c@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 34114 In a message dated 25/01/02 23:56:37 GMT Standard Time, theennead at attbi.com writes: > Cindy wrote: > > > During one of my anti-Snape rants, someone (pigwidgeon?) > > kindly informed me that Snape had every opportunity to > > turn Black over to the dementors in PoA. Snape wakes > > up, finds Black, conjures a stretcher and takes Black . . . > > to the castle, not to the dementors. Snape could have taken > > Black to the dementors (or called the dementors). This, > > according to the pro-Snape crowd, means Snape is not pure > > evil incarnate. > > Cindy then struggles to account for this decision in some way that > might allow her to continue to think bad things about Snape, but > fails to be convinced by her own theories. She finally sighs: > > > So I am left with the idea that Snape showed mercy on Black because > > Dumbledore would have wanted him to. ::hangs head in defeat:: > > No! Wait, Cindy! Don't give up! All is not lost! > > How's this? Snape takes Black back to the castle, rather than > handing him over to the dementors, because he thinks that he'll > get more *glory* that way. > > After all, any old Squib could squeal for a bunch of dementors > to come and rid the world of a dangerous criminal. But to be > the wizard who captured Sirius Black single-handed and brought > him in *alive?* That's Order of Merlin territory. > > There now. You see? Cheer up. You can keep on hating Snape, if you > want to. > > -- Elkins, who just couldn't stand to see Cindy so disheartened > > I agree, and would add that I think he sort of 'came to his senses' so to speak whilst unconscious. In the Shrieking Shack, he clearly intended to hand Sirius over at the first opportunity, but on regaining consciousness, was much more calculating. His conversation with Fudge is masterful, *sooo* understanding of those poor, confunded children, so concerned for Harry's wellbeing whilst only hinting in the most reasonable manner that he should be expelled. He's just so calm and cool about the whole thing, quite the hero ....until Sirius escapes. Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Edblanning at aol.com Sat Jan 26 18:22:08 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 13:22:08 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: God in HP World Message-ID: <28.2123d095.29844dd0@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 34115 In a message dated 26/01/02 16:05:41 GMT Standard Time, hollydaze at btinternet.com writes: > Ron Yu wrote: > > > Also, there is the 'St. Mungo's' wizard hospital. What > > earned Mungo the title 'saint'? If he is indeed a > > saint in their muggle world at least, why name the > > hospital after a saint? > > Now I'm not sure exactly where it is, (London? Somewhere in Scotland? I'm > almost certain it is in the UK!) but there is a REAL St Mungo's Hospital, > my mum told me about it. Knowing JK's like for weird sounding names (and > let's face it, "St Mungo" sounds pretty odd), she probably just nicked the > name of the real hospital, thinking it would fit well in her stories. > St Mungo, as someone has already said had the given name, 'Kentigern'. He lived cAD 518-03 and from his name I guess he was a Saxon. He is supposed to have been the grandson of a British prince, raised by St Serf in a monastery in Culross and given by him the Celtic name Mungo, which means 'my friend'. He founded a monastery near Glasgow, was Bishop of Cumbria, and after more monastery and bishopric-founding (St Asaph, in Wales), ended his life in Scotland. He is buried in Glasgow Cathedral, which is dedicated to him. JKR lives in Scotland, and I would assume it is his prominence as a Scottish saint that brought him to mind. Hospitals are frequently named after saints in the UK.....St Thomas', St Bartholomew's, St James', St Pancras', St Stephen's are just the first few that come to mind. Bear in mind that UK hospitals often started life as religious institutions or as attachments to religious houses. Now as to *why* wizards should name their hospital after a muggle saint, I just don't know and I agree that there is a lot of ambiguity about the role of religion in HP. It is akin to the discussions about Wizard-muggle relationships. If the wizarding world is as divorced from the muggle world as some would have us believe, I am very surprised indeed that they celebrate Christmas *at all* in even the most secular manner, let alone Easter, yet the short vacations, (IIRC) are named after these feasts. The familiarity with muggle Christmas customs, which are on the whole historically pretty late inventions contrasts with their unfamiliarity with many other aspects of muggle culture. Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Joanne0012 at aol.com Sat Jan 26 18:25:29 2002 From: Joanne0012 at aol.com (joanne0012) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 18:25:29 -0000 Subject: Number of teachers? In-Reply-To: <004b01c1a67e$9aa550a0$7b33073e@j0dhe> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34116 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Hollydaze" wrote: << Where did five classes come from? Is this just for the teachers? I still don't see how that is possible 8but then I also don't see how the timetables work) Harry only has 3 classes per day and in every year they always seem to follow one another, in the 1st year he (seems) to have two lessons before lunch and 1 lesson after lunch (could be two it is not really clear - double lessons etc) followed imediatly by supper/dinner. WHere are teh "gaps" where the other classes would take place?>> What "gaps" are you referring to? It seems that the kids have 3 subjects per day (plus Astronomy on Wednesday nights). But the teachers would have to teach 5 classes per day in order to cover this schedule, which is about the same number of classes that US high-school teachers have each day, which makes it plausible. The kids have breaks between classes (we've seen them clean up after herbology before going to their next class) so a five-period schedule for teachers, with each kid having classes during 3 of those periods each day, makes sense. << The fact that HRH's timetables don't change as to when their lessons are placed would imply that every year has the same time table schedules and so every lesson is going on at the same time. >> Do we really have evidence of this? IIRC, the kids are very curious about what their new schedules look like, indicating that they change very year. >> One other problem, so far we only know of three lessons (in Harry's year) that are tought with two houses, Potions, Herbology and Flying (may only be in one year anyway) so if this is the same in every year (these are the only double house lessons) then that only makes SNape and Sprouts work loads lighter, not any body elses. >> Right, but we have seen that Herbology and DADA are classes that are doubled up, so this makes sense -- the courses with the most kids taking them have to be doubled up. From blpurdom at yahoo.com Sat Jan 26 18:33:22 2002 From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 18:33:22 -0000 Subject: You must all read this. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34117 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pastafor5" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., wrote: > > http://www.bettybowers.com/harrypotter.html > > > > *laughs* It's hilarious! > > Unless it's already been posted. In which case, I apologize :P > > > > Daniel > > http://www.pixicore.org/broken/ > > Please tell me that was a joke! If not, she should be ashamed of > herself. Saying she represents a "Christian" way of thinking. > Quite the opposite, I'd say. > > It's a shame to see what JKR is up against. She wrote a > wonderful, insightful book series about the battle of good against > evil, and then has someone twist her words and work into that kind > of rubbish. As a Catholic, I suggest that betty bowers get her > mind out of the gutter. No, no, no! Betty Bowers was being pro-HP! This is satire, and it's her stock in trade. She was bashing the HP-bashers! Please reread it and understand that it is written with tongue firmly placed in cheek! (And a very cheeky cheek it is too.) In fact, I felt that BB exceeded even her usual excellent standards with this piece, and THAT'S saying a lot! --Barb From judyshapiro at earthlink.net Sat Jan 26 19:09:25 2002 From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 19:09:25 -0000 Subject: Competent Hagrid? - again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34118 I wrote: >> Hagrid also is very childlike -- emotional, impulsive, unable to >> see the consequences of his actions. I think this is supposed to be >> out of Hagrid's control... And "jenny_ravenclaw" replied: > If this is the case, my belief in his incompetence as a teacher is > confirmed even more.... > ... I am uncomfortable with the argument that characters > (or real people) are not in control of themselves and are therefore > excused from their behavior... when adults *choose* to turn > backsides > into pig tails or slam other adults into trees, or even adults who > choose to turn students into ferrets, I say that these adults are in > complete control of their behavior and know exactly what they are > doing. After re-reading my post, I realized that I never addressed the question of whether Hagrid is a competent teacher. For the record, I think Hagrid is a nice guy, but a very incompetent teacher. Also for the record, I thought Hagrid should not have tried to turn Dudley into a pig. And Fake Moody's bouncing ferret thing was way out of line (nasty though Draco is.) As for whether characters are responsible for their actions -- I think the rules are different in the Potterverse than in the real world. In the Potterverse, one can lose self-control for reasons that don't exist in the real world -- the imperiatus curse, veritaserum, insanity caused by the cruciatus curse, etc. Furthermore, the Potterverse is full of creatures that are human-looking, but unintelligent (fairies) or intelligent but not human in personality (centaurs) or even human only some of the time (werewolves.) We can't expect all these creatures (or beings) to act like humans. Hagrid is not fully human, and therefore perhaps human standards should not be applied to him. I believe that Hagrid is not to blame for his immaturity, but this has nothing to do with my beliefs concerning responsibility in the real world. From blpurdom at yahoo.com Sat Jan 26 19:52:36 2002 From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 19:52:36 -0000 Subject: God in HP World/Folktales and Religion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34119 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., John Walton wrote: > Adana Robinson wrote: > > But here's another question to add to this list: In GoF, the > > suits of armor are bewitched to sing Christmas carols (not > > Midwinter Solstice carols, as in many fantasy worlds) and one is > > singing "Oh Come, All Ye Faithful". Surely there are many non- > > religious carols that could be mentioned if God were to be left > > entirely out. What does this say to all the "HP is demonic" > > book-burners out there? Does it mean anything at all? > > The answer to your final question is basically "no". Britain tends > (he said, making a VERY sweeping generalisation) to go in much > more for the Christmas Carol singing than other countries, > particularly the USA, in schools. My school had a Christmas Carol > Service every year, for instance. I don't think we can draw many > conclusions from this apart from "Hogwarts is modelled on a > British school". Further, from what I understand, even observances of Christmas and Easter tend to be far more secular in the UK than in the US. Compared to countries around the world, the US has an unusually high percentage of the population which is religiously observant (although it is declining) and I think many times people here assume that observance of what is by definition a religious holiday indicates some deep-seated religious feeling about it. We're talking about a country where the queen is the head of the church (the Archbishop of Canterbury notwithstanding) and therefore our concept of church-state separation does not quite hold, although the sort of religious litmus tests that used to be de rigor for people seeking to hold public office no longer apply. Hogwarts celebrates Christmas and Easter because it is in Britain, and at those times of year that's simply what you DO. --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jchutney" wrote: > IMO, HP is clearly an AU not meant to line up religiously with our > world. But then again, what Fantasy series does? Perhaps I'm > wrong (and I certainly don't mean to offend re:this Delicate > Topic) but HP reminds me of the Alladin and Arabian Nights > stories. Magic is forbidden in Islam, just as it is in > Christianity, and yet Muslim children are able to read theses > stories of flying carpets, "friendly" genies, and sorcerers > without jeopardizing their faith. (Of course, I'm sure there are > fanatical Mullahs out there ready to burn Sheherazade!). In the > Arabian Nights, the characters exist in a Muslim world (just as > Harry exists in a "Christian world") and yet there are many AU > aspects to these stories. Couldn't HP be an English version of > this type of story? I could be wrong about this, but I thought that Arabian Nights predated the advent of Islam to the Middle East. Plus, not every country in the Middle East converted at the same time or uniformly, and even after individual countries did covert large parts of the population, there were many nomads and isolated areas where old beliefs persisted for a long time. And even after Islam was the rule rather than the exception in much of that part of the world, old tales were still told that would seem to contradict the new religion. Most of China is Buddhist, yet old folk tales that predate that religion still persist in much of the country. The advent of Christianity to much of Europe did not wipe out old myths, but some of them simply were converted into folk tales and fairy tales. In "Italian Folktales," selected and retold by Italo Calvino, he includes an old story that is actually an "outtake" from the Odyssey (Odysseus fooling the Cyclops). This bit of mythology was reborn as a folktale and continued to be part of an oral tradition long after Italy had become the home of the Roman Catholic Church. --Barb From hollydaze at btinternet.com Sat Jan 26 20:05:41 2002 From: hollydaze at btinternet.com (Hollydaze) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 20:05:41 -0000 Subject: Number of teachers? References: Message-ID: <002d01c1a6a4$d552b820$e955073e@j0dhe> No: HPFGUIDX 34120 I wrote: << Where did five classes come from? Is this just for the teachers? I still don't see how that is possible 8but then I also don't see how the timetables work) Harry only has 3 classes per day and in every year they always seem to follow one another, in the 1st year he (seems) to have two lessons before lunch and 1 lesson after lunch (could be two it is not really clear - double lessons etc) followed immediately by supper/dinner. Where are the "gaps" where the other classes would take place?>> joanne0012 wrote: > What "gaps" are you referring to? It seems that the kids have 3 subjects per > day (plus Astronomy on Wednesday nights). But the teachers would have to > teach 5 classes per day in order to cover this schedule, which is about the same > number of classes that US high-school teachers have each day, which makes it > plausible. The kids have breaks between classes (we've seen them clean up after > Herbology before going to their next class) so a five-period schedule for > teachers, with each kid having classes during 3 of those periods each day, makes > sense. the point I was trying to make is that five lessons for a teacher can't work! The person I was responding too seemed to be implying that the teachers taught five lessons a day (correct me if I'm wrong) and I was trying to say that that wouldn't work because there are no "gaps" where these extra two lessons would fit. Basically, if Harry only has 3 lessons a day but the teachers have five then there would have to be two "gaps" where Harry did not have lessons but these do not exist! << The fact that HRH's timetables don't change as to when their lessons are placed would imply that every year has the same time table schedules and so every lesson is going on at the same time. >> > Do we really have evidence of this? IIRC, the kids are very curious about what > their new schedules look like, indicating that they change very year. Again you have missed my point (or I did not phrase it well enough) The point was that although the lessons them selves change, the slots don't. Although in one year they might have (this is only an example) Potions, Charms and DADA on a Monday and the following year they might have, DADA then History of magic, then Herbology. The basic structure stays the same, I.E Lesson, lesson, lunch Lesson (possibly another after that?). That doesn't leave any gaps and it doesn't allow for where these "other" two lessons would take place! >> One other problem, so far we only know of three lessons (in Harry's year) that are taught with two houses, Potions, Herbology and Flying (may only be in one year anyway) so if this is the same in every year (these are the only double house lessons) then that only makes Snape and Sprouts work loads lighter, not any body else's. >> > Right, but we have seen that Herbology and DADA are classes that are doubled > up, so this makes sense -- the courses with the most kids taking them have to > be doubled up. DADA is not doubled up! Transfiguration and Charms aren't either, and neither (as far as we know) is History of Magic. We don't know about Astronomy, it may have Ravenclaws. If it had Slytherins we would have heard about it because Harry would have mentioned whatever Malfoy was up to, and there is also the possibility of Hufflepuffs being there. That means that out of the 6 lessons they seem to have in ALL years (I'm not counting flying as that is not clear) only two of them are DEFINALTY double housed. You say that "the courses with the most kids taking them have to be doubled up" and so it works but Transfiguration, Charms, DADA, and History of magic are all the lessons with the most people in (along with P and H) as they are taken in every year and yet they are not doubled -house wise- so no it does not work. I may not have made my point clear again if so then just say so and I will try to clarify. HOLLYDAZE!!! Who is not going to back down easily. Mainly due to the fact that she is trying to take her mind of her sick Hamster (Lupin). [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From aiz24 at hotmail.com Sat Jan 26 20:03:44 2002 From: aiz24 at hotmail.com (lupinesque) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 20:03:44 -0000 Subject: Cutting Characters (esp. RL) Slack (WAS Hagrid, Moody and Violent Responses) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34121 Cindy wrote: > I think I will have to adopt a new rule for myself that each beloved > character is allowed one hideous mistake, and after that, I will > cross them off my list. Lupin and Black have used their quota. > Snape probably has used his quota. Probably? *Probably?!* The man was a Death Eater! God only knows what terrible things he did, whereas dear sweet Lupin is guilty of nothing worse than carelessness. And if one of your best friends had for all intents and purposes murdered your two other best friends and has been trying to murder the son of one of them all year and now you suddenly learn that he's seconds away from catching him and it's all your fault if he kills him because you should've fessed up about his being an Animagus long ago and on top of it all, the other supposedly dead friend is alive, wouldn't you be just a wee bit in a rush to get out the door, never mind any potion, never mind any map? *pant pant* Well, suffice it to say that Lupin can make lots more mistakes before I cross him off *my* list. But Elkins is right: this is not mostly a matter of logic; I like certain characters for the same reasons I like certain people, namely, I just *do.* I will try not to cut them too much slack (nor come down too hard on the ones I don't particularly like). Amy Z --------------------------------------------------------------- "See, there was this wizard who went . . . bad. As bad as you could go. Worse. Worse than worse. His name was . . ." Hagrid gulped, but no words came out. "Could you write it down?" Harry suggested. "Nah--can't spell it." -HP and the Philosopher's Stone --------------------------------------------------------------- From hollydaze at btinternet.com Sat Jan 26 20:07:07 2002 From: hollydaze at btinternet.com (Hollydaze) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 20:07:07 -0000 Subject: God in HP Message-ID: <004a01c1a6a5$087e63c0$e955073e@j0dhe> No: HPFGUIDX 34122 I wrote: > Now I'm not sure exactly where it is, (London? Somewhere in Scotland? I'm almost certain it is in the UK!) but there is > a REAL St Mungo's Hospital, my mum told me about it. Knowing JK's like for weird sounding names (and let's face it, "St > Mungo" sounds pretty odd), she probably just nicked the name of the real hospital, thinking it would fit well in her > stories. Sorry need to add something. I thought I had added this in and only realised I hadn't when I read it after it came through. When I said it was a REAL hospital, it's not a human hospital, it is a hospital for hedgehogs! I know that sounds really odd but it is a place that looks after hedgehogs that have been run over, injured or missed hibernation. As I said above, JK may have found out about it and like the name! HOLLYDAZE!!! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From fordpr1020 at aol.com Sat Jan 26 20:42:49 2002 From: fordpr1020 at aol.com (thefortressiserlohn) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 20:42:49 -0000 Subject: HP Translations In-Reply-To: <14163021258.20020125234009@tut.by> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34123 > It is especially interesting if someone has read HP in > English FIRST and only then in some other language (that is, > original first, copy second), because as my experience with > English originals shows, if you have read copy first, it > influences your reading of the original a lot. I'm working my way through the German audio edition of PS/SS and from what I can understand, it's pretty close to the original...I remember reading a post on amazon that it's one of the better translations out there. I like the person reading on the German editon better than the American one as well =) --jc From jmmears at prodigy.net Sat Jan 26 21:11:13 2002 From: jmmears at prodigy.net (serenadust) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 21:11:13 -0000 Subject: Violent Responses (Arthur Weasley) (WAS What Does It Mean To "Like" ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34124 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "elfundeb" wrote: > Are there any adults in HP that model really appropriate behavior? > The more I look at adult characters, even those I like, I find > instances of inexcusable behavior. Then again, one thing I like > about HP characters is that they all have human weaknesses in > abundance. I can think of several offhand. Prof. McGonagall, Prof. Sprout, Dumbledore, Molly Weasley, Bill & Charlie Weasley, and Madam Pomfrey. I guess it all depends on what you mean by really appropriate behavior. Do any of the ones I've listed ever behaved inappropriately in any significant way that I can't recall right now? Jo From theennead at attbi.com Sat Jan 26 21:14:27 2002 From: theennead at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 21:14:27 -0000 Subject: Wizarding Justice, again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34125 I agree with Barb, when she writes: > Indeed, we have yet to see a really extensive depiction of > wizarding justice. We saw what we thought was a miscarriage of > justice when Crouch sent his son to Azkaban (turned out to be > perfectly right) and what seemed to be justice when Bagman was > released (there are hints from Winky that he is far more sinister > than he appeared, and the twins' opinions notwithstanding, > possibly brighter than he seemed as well). We also see an episode > that is common in the Muggle world: someone making a deal to get > released, with no intimation that they were not completely in the > wrong (Karkaroff naming names). Yes. I'd also like to add that while people keep referring to these scenes as "trials," they aren't really. What we see of Crouch and Bagman's trials are only the *sentencings.* Both parties would seem to have been already found guilty in their respective scenes (Bagman was not acquitted of the charges against him; he was merely absolved from penalty, which is not at all the same thing). What we see in both cases is the declaration of verdict and the sentencing, not the trial as a whole. And of course Karkaroff's scene isn't a trial at all. It's some kind of hearing, but it's not exactly a trial. We have no idea what evidence may have been presented over the course of Bagman or Crouch Jr.'s trials, nor what the rules of preponderance of evidence might be in the wizarding world. Sirius claims that Crouch the Lesser's trial was little more than a show-trial, but his knowledge of the event must be second-hand -- he was in prison at the time. From Dumbledore's comments on the unreliability of the Longbottoms as witnesses, and from his admission that he was not absolutely convinced of young Barty's guilt, we might infer that Dumbledore, too, feels that the evidence was scanty and the outcome possibly unjust. And it's certainly obvious that an ugly mood prevailed over the proceedings. The trial was certainly *biased.* But we can't really say that it was *improper.* It's possible that the rules of preponderance of the evidence are just not very strict in the wizarding legal system. It's also possible that the onus of proof within the system falls upon the defendant -- that it's a "guilty until proven innocent" system. While both trials do strike us as rather dubious according to the Spirit of Justice, they may well have been perfectly within bounds of the legal system itself. However... > The only other "justice" we know of is Sirius' being imprisoned > without a trial--but it seemed that his deep-seated feelings of > guilt for switching the Secret Keeper were as much to blame for > this, as we never hear of him demanding a trial. He seems to have > gone off willingly (he's said to be laughing madly). However, I don't know about this. It's possible, I suppose, that by the laws of the wizarding world, the defendant only gets a trial if he *wants* one, or that confession obviates the need for a day in court...but I don't quite believe it. Sirius certainly seems bitter enough in retrospect about having been sent to prison without trial, and he speaks of it as if it were an extraordinary event: an exception to normal legal proceedings, rather than an unfortunate by-product of his state of mind at the time of his arrest. Although if wizarding law *did* hold that a criminal who confesses his guilt does not need to stand trial, that *would* cast the Shrieking Shack scene of PoA in a somewhat different light, wouldn't it? -- Elkins From blpurdom at yahoo.com Sat Jan 26 21:41:05 2002 From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 21:41:05 -0000 Subject: Wizarding Justice, again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34126 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" wrote: > It's possible that the rules of preponderance of the evidence are > just not very strict in the wizarding legal system. It's also > possible that the onus of proof within the system falls upon the > defendant -- that it's a "guilty until proven innocent" system. > While both trials do strike us as rather dubious according to the > Spirit of Justice, they may well have been perfectly within bounds > of the legal system itself. Given that Crouch seems to be both judge and prosecutor, it seems to be somewhat loosely based on the Napoleonic system, which I believe is still used in Spain. (Possibly in other countries too, but I only have personal knowledge of Spain contuing to use this system.) > However... > > > The only other "justice" we know of is Sirius' being imprisoned > > without a trial--but it seemed that his deep-seated feelings of > > guilt for switching the Secret Keeper were as much to blame for > > this, as we never hear of him demanding a trial. He seems to > > have gone off willingly (he's said to be laughing madly). > > However, I don't know about this. It's possible, I suppose, that > by the laws of the wizarding world, the defendant only gets a trial > if he *wants* one, or that confession obviates the need for a day > in court...but I don't quite believe it. Sirius certainly seems > bitter enough in retrospect about having been sent to prison > without trial, and he speaks of it as if it were an extraordinary > event: an exception to normal legal proceedings, rather than an > unfortunate by-product of his state of mind at the time of his > arrest. > > Although if wizarding law *did* hold that a criminal who confesses > his guilt does not need to stand trial, that *would* cast the > Shrieking Shack scene of PoA in a somewhat different light, > wouldn't it? It's possible that it only occurred to Sirius with afterthought that he should have fought for a trial, but in that he was in Azkaban already, this probably would have been difficult. At the time, his feelings of guilt certainly seemed to overwhelm his ability to behave in a rational manner (the insane laughter). Also, it is unlikely that anyone on the "outside" would be willing to wage any sort of campaign to get him a trial, as most people--Dumbledore included--believed him to be guilty. --Barb From cindysphynx at home.com Sat Jan 26 22:22:48 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 22:22:48 -0000 Subject: Wizarding Justice, again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34127 Elkins wrote: > Yes. I'd also like to add that while people keep referring to these > scenes as "trials," they aren't really. What we see of Crouch and > Bagman's trials are only the *sentencings.* Both parties would > seem to have been already found guilty in their respective scenes > (Bagman was not acquitted of the charges against him; he was merely > absolved from penalty, which is not at all the same thing). What > we see in both cases is the declaration of verdict and the > sentencing, not the trial as a whole. I agree that we don't see trials for Crouch and Karkaroff, although JKR specifically calls them "trials" in the Pensieve scene. I think Karkaroff is essentially doing a plea bargain, and Crouch's proceeding is definitely a sentencing. Bagman, however, was acquitted so far as I can tell. Crouch Sr. says they have heard the evidence and "are about to reach our verdict." Then they let him off. I guess Bagman's proceedings was a return of the verdict (although I can't recall what that is called). Bagman is, IMHO, as guilty as sin and is a big bad old evil DE, and he apparated to the graveyard that night when the Dark Mark burned on his arm. I just can't prove it yet. Cindy (waiting for OoP so she find out if she is right about Bagman) From christi0469 at hotmail.com Sat Jan 26 21:57:44 2002 From: christi0469 at hotmail.com (christi0469) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 21:57:44 -0000 Subject: God in HP World/Folktales and Religion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34128 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "blpurdom" wrote: > Hogwarts celebrates > Christmas and Easter because it is in Britain, and at those times of > year that's simply what you DO. > --Barb But we see no mention of Guy Fawkes Day/Bonfire Night at Hogwarts. Certainly all the Muggle-born wizards and witches would miss such a festive celebration, with the fireworks and all. Hogwarts celebrates the more magical Halloween (I may certainly be mistaken, but I thought that Halloween was rarely celebrated in the UK). Perhaps they celebrate Christmas because it's fun. Is there a secular celebration of Easter in England? American schools just have Spring Break, which does not always coincide with the christian celebration of Easter. Perhaps it due to the seperation of church and state concept; however the Catholic schools in our area have the same spring break schedule as the public schools, and have a seperate break for the Easter Tridium. Wouldn't it be easier for Hogwarts to have a regularly scheduled break between terms rather than celebrating a holiday which moves around the calender? What do you make of the Fat Friar? I don't know where exactly, but IIRC he talks about his own days at Hogwarts. Apparently he graduated as a full wizard and went on to pursue a religious life, then came back to haunt Hogwarts. Christi From cindysphynx at home.com Sat Jan 26 22:16:27 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 22:16:27 -0000 Subject: Cutting Characters (esp. RL) Slack (WAS Hagrid, Moody and Violent Responses) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34129 > Cindy wrote: > > > I think I will have to adopt a new rule for myself that each beloved > > character is allowed one hideous mistake, and after that, I will > > cross them off my list. Lupin and Black have used their quota. > > Snape probably has used his quota. > Amy responded: > Probably? *Probably?!* The man was a Death Eater! If the pro-Snape crowd has taught me anything, it is that there is a complex backstory to Snape. All we know is that he became a DE and came back to our side to spy. I have to hear all the evidence before I can be completely sure about Snape, although I'd dearly love to cross him off my list. Amy again (about dearest Remus): >And if one of your best friends had > for all intents and purposes murdered your two other best friends and > has been trying to murder the son of one of them all year and now > you suddenly learn that he's seconds away from catching him and it's > all your fault if he kills him because you should've fessed up about > his being an Animagus long ago and on top of it all, the other > supposedly dead friend is alive, wouldn't you be just a wee bit in a > rush to get out the door, never mind any potion, never mind any map? > > *pant pant* Pant pant, indeed! :-) OK, OK, OK. You're right. I must put some slack in my standard if I'm going to make it through 3 more books. Sirius, Moody and Lupin can have another chance. Hagrid is still out of luck. That said, I should wind myself up and clarify why I think Lupin has a strike against him, and a big one. It is much more serious than forgetting his potion and forgetting the map. Hey, nobody's perfect, right? The hard cold facts are that Lupin had every reason to believe Black was a nutter intent on killing Harry, his best friend's son. He knew Black had a secret way to get into Gryffindor tower. He knew Black was an animagus. Then, Black breaks into the castle once, slashing the Fat Lady with a great big knife, presumably to kill Harry. Lupin says nothing. Then Black breaks into the castle again, almost attacking a student. Lupin says nothing. Then Lupin learns Harry has the Map and lectures Harry about not coming forward to turn the map in. And we're supposed to excuse all of this because Lupin isn't mature enough to be straight with Dumbledore about the Marauder's antics years earlier? Lupin endangers the Fat Lady, Ron and Harry, all to avoid the consequences of telling the truth about his own wrongdoing as a student. *pant pant* :-) No, Lupin's sins were serious indeed. So why do I still adore Lupin? Go figure. Cindy (still shaken from the character assaults on Moody, who she always figured was terrific and exceptionally cool) From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Sat Jan 26 20:14:09 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 20:14:09 -0000 Subject: Hagrid, Moody and Violent Responses In-Reply-To: <3C529AB3.6580.89DF2FA@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34130 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Fiat Incantatum" wrote: > On 26 Jan 2002 at 3:04, marinafrants wrote: > > > If Moody had sent Draco off to scrub the > > infirmary toilets with his toothbrush or something, I would've been > > the first to applaud, but there was no excuse for violence, IMO. > > While I do agree with you somewhat, we should also keep in mind that this (the > wizarding world) is a culture that thinks that flying around sans protective > gear at high speed 50 or more feet in the air while being attacked by animated > cannon balls is a Really Fun Game. You have a point there. Still, I don't think direct physical attack on a student is considered an acceptable method of discipline at Hogwarts, or McGonnagle wouldn't have been so apalled. Also, if it *was* acceptable, Snape would've been drop-kicking Harry up and down the corridors every day. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From cmf_usc at yahoo.com Sat Jan 26 23:19:47 2002 From: cmf_usc at yahoo.com (cmf_usc) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 23:19:47 -0000 Subject: Wizarding Justice/Bagman In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34131 Cindy wrote: > Bagman is, IMHO, as guilty as sin and is a big bad old evil DE, and > he apparated to the graveyard that night when the Dark Mark burned on > his arm. I just can't prove it yet. > > Cindy (waiting for OoP so she find out if she is right about Bagman) Ooh, Cindy, I'm with you! I don't think he can be as dumb as he tries to appear! Does anyone think it's a coincidence that he gets the Weasleys such great (expensive I'm sure) seats in the top box-- where Crouch Jr convienently steals Harry's wand? I know it was supposed to be a blind--suspect Bagman instead of Crouch/Moody during GoF-- but I just have this feeling there's more to Bagman than meets the eye. Caroline in NC From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jan 26 23:38:08 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 23:38:08 -0000 Subject: Cutting Characters (esp. RL) Slack (WAS Hagrid, Moody and Violent Responses) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34132 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lupinesque" wrote: > Cindy wrote: > > > I think I will have to adopt a new rule for myself that each beloved character is allowed one hideous mistake, and after that, I will cross them off my list. Lupin and Black have used their quota. Snape probably has used his quota. > > Probably? *Probably?!* The man was a Death Eater! God only knows what terrible things he did, whereas dear sweet Lupin is guilty of nothing worse than carelessness. << Umm, dear sweet Lupin says that his Hogwarts escapades as a werewolf resulted in a lot of near misses, and that the thought that he might have bitten somebody still haunts him. Every time he left the shack, he became a menace to human life, and he continued to do this even after he became aware of it. That's more than carelessness. The people he threatened must have been terrified. If he thought scaring innocent people was just part of the fun, he's no better than the DE's at the World Cup, IMO. Pippin From theennead at attbi.com Sat Jan 26 22:13:46 2002 From: theennead at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 22:13:46 -0000 Subject: Crouch and the Imperius Curse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34133 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "uilnslcoap" wrote: > Hey everyone, first-time writer. Hi, Devin! I'm new here, too. I tend to agree with you that we probably can deduce quite a bit about Real Moody from Crouch's masquerade, and for all the reasons you cite, while also conceding that we can't really know for sure until we see Real Moody in action. (Waffle, waffle, qualify, hedge...) About Crouch and the Imperius, you wrote: > Before I leave off on this topic, even though I know it's probably > been addressed somewhere before, I cannot for the life of me > understand why Crouch as Moody would teach Harry how to break the > Imperius Curse (or at least give him opportunities to learn how > since it seems to be a possibly un-learnable skill, more something > one empirically has as a gift). Or at least, having done so, why > he wouldn't let Voldemort know that Harry could break the curse. This has been discussed here before, at some length, but then, so have the SHIPping debates -- and besides, why shouldn't the new kids on the block get to have a bit of fun? So a quick summary of what, IIRC, people have said about this and related issues in the past. --- Question One: Surely Dumbledore didn't *really* tell Moody to teach the Unforgiveables to fourth-year students, did he? And even if he did, he didn't really authorize Moody to cast Imperius on students. Did he? Did he? Possible Answers: (a) No, Dumbledore did not really give his new DADA teacher instruction to cast Imperius on students. Crouch only did so because he's a sadist who enjoys casting Unforgivables, or because he wanted to size up the students' capabilities so that he could advise Voldemort later on which members of the younger generation would be the easiest to control. (b) Yes, Dumbledore most certainly *did* ask Moody both to teach students about the Unforgivables and to give them practical hands-on experience in shaking off the Imperius Curse. Crouch, in his role as Moody, therefore complied. Of these, I insist on (b). Crouch may be a tad deranged, but he is no fool, and he could not possibly have thought that word of what he was doing in class would not have made its way back to Dumbledore's ears. Use of the Unforgivables on human beings carries severe penalty, and Crouch is on an important mission. He just wouldn't take that risk. For that matter, if Dumbledore really hadn't authorized it, then surely he *would* have heard about it -- the entire student body was excitedly chattering about Moody's DADA class -- and he would have put a stop to it. So while Crouch may indeed have enjoyed making the students do odd things in class, and he may well have been noting carefully which of the students seemed likely candidates for later use, my vote is for (b). --- Question Two: Surely it's counterproductive to teach an enemy as useful a skill as resisting the Imperius Curse! So why does Crouch/Moody seem so pleased by Harry's talent in this arena, and why does he continue to encourage him to strengthen his resistance? Possible Explanations: (a) Crouch is deeply immersed in his role. The real Alastor Moody would have been pleased by Harry's talent and would have gone out of his way to encourage him to develop this skill. Crouch therefore does the same. (b) Little Barty Crouch, the Boo Radley of the wizarding world, *hates* Imperius, having been himself enslaved by it for over a decade. He is thrilled to see *anyone* succeed in fighting it off and takes a grim satisfaction in teaching students to resist it. (c) Crouch doesn't believe for a moment that Harry's talent at resisting the Imperius Curse will do squat for him in the long run. Voldemort plans on *killing* Harry, not controlling him. And even if he does decide to play with the boy for a little while first, it will not matter: Harry's resistance to Imperius will not save him, and may even bring greater glory to the Dark Lord's inevitable victory. So why on earth *not* teach him? And why bother to inform Voldemort of his talent in this arena? (d) Crouch would have been an excellent teacher himself, if only his life had turned out differently; like all good teachers, he takes a genuine and instinctive pleasure in helping students to succeed at difficult tasks. Of these, I prefer (e), all of the above. --- Your suggestion that resisting the Imperius Curse might be an unteachable talent is new to me. If it's come up here before, I must have missed it. Hmmm. Well, Harry obviously has unusual native talent in this arena -- he very nearly throws it off on his first try -- but I don't think that it's unteachable, or unlearnable. People can train themselves to withstand higher levels of pain and fatigue than those they could cope with before training; learning to withstand attempts at mental domination would seem to me to be much the same thing. Obviously, certain personality types are going to be better suited to this than others (I myself am a coward and a weakling, and so suspect that I would not fair well), but with the proper training, I'm sure that just about anyone can at the very least improve their *chances.* And I think that ones chances of fighting off Imperius are probably raised dramatically simply by virtue of knowing what it feels like when someone's doing it to you. ("Ah...what a pleasant feeling. Just like floating. This is lovely, really, it's very nice, it's...oh. Hold on, wait a moment. I've *felt* this before. This is...this...this...oh. OH! Oh, damn.") -- Elkins From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jan 26 20:53:01 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 20:53:01 -0000 Subject: God in HP World/Folktales and Religion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34134 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "blpurdom" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jchutney" wrote: > > IMO, HP is clearly an AU not meant to line up religiously with our > > world. But then again, what Fantasy series does? Perhaps I'm > > wrong (and I certainly don't mean to offend re:this Delicate > > Topic) but HP reminds me of the Alladin and Arabian Nights > > stories. Magic is forbidden in Islam, just as it is in > > Christianity, and yet Muslim children are able to read theses > > stories of flying carpets, "friendly" genies, and sorcerers > > without jeopardizing their faith. (Of course, I'm sure there are > > fanatical Mullahs out there ready to burn Sheherazade!). In the > > Arabian Nights, the characters exist in a Muslim world (just as > > Harry exists in a "Christian world") and yet there are many AU > > aspects to these stories. Couldn't HP be an English version of > > this type of story? > > I could be wrong about this, but I thought that Arabian Nights > predated the advent of Islam to the Middle East. Plus, not every > country in the Middle East converted at the same time or uniformly, > and even after individual countries did covert large parts of the > population, there were many nomads and isolated areas where old > beliefs persisted for a long time. And even after Islam was the > rule rather than the exception in much of that part of the world, > old tales were still told that would seem to contradict the new > religion. According to Brittanica.com, the Qu'uran and the Hadith acknowledge the existence of jinn and ifrit (an inferior class of jinn). These beings are of a lower order than angels, may be either good or evil, believers or unbelievers, and like human beings will face judgement. In Christian demonology all such spirits were considered fallen and evil, and would only invoke their magical powers on behalf of Men in order to snare them in delusion. The Arabian NIghts stories were probably first collected in the century following the establishment of Islam. I would guess Islamic elements were introduced by the scribes who recorded them in much the same way that Christian references were incorporated into Beowulf and The Mabinogion. Pippin From aiz24 at hotmail.com Sun Jan 27 00:19:54 2002 From: aiz24 at hotmail.com (Amy Z) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 19:19:54 -0500 Subject: Cutting RL slack (or not) - GF Course schedule Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34135 Cindy wrote: >Lupin endangers the Fat Lady, Ron and Harry, all to avoid the consequences >of telling the truth about his own wrongdoing as a student. Ah, right. That *is* rather worse than forgetting to take his potion. >So why do I still adore Lupin? Go figure. Maybe because he feels so guilty about it? That's what does it for me. I like it that he's so self-aware and so hard on himself, which just goes to show that some of us love the characters who are most like ourselves. Pippin wrote: >Umm, dear sweet Lupin says that his Hogwarts escapades as a werewolf >resulted in a lot of near misses, and that the thought that he might have >bitten somebody still haunts him. Every time he left the shack, he became a >menace to human life, and he continued to do this even after he became >aware of it. That's more than carelessness. The people he threatened must >have been terrified. I'm with you up to there. >If he thought scaring innocent people was just part of the fun, he's no >better than the DE's at the World Cup, IMO. I would agree if that were the case, but I don't think he did think scaring innocent people was part of the fun. There's nothing in canon to suggest it, IMO; rather, he wanted the freedom and companionship. He is guilty of repeatedly refusing to acknowledge how dangerous it was (and again, delightfully remorseful about it 15 years later), but it's thrilling despite the endangerment of others, not because of it. The iffiest line is "And there were near misses, many of them. We laughed about them afterwards," but it's not at all conclusive to my mind that that's amusement about having terrified people. -------------- FWIW, I've been working on a timeline of GF, and in the process, sorted out the course schedule for that year. Just a supplement to Hollydaze's research: the schedule is two morning classes divided by a break (possibly a double-long class taking all morning some days), lunch, then again two afternoon blocks or one Double class, followed immediately by dinner. We know of three, sometimes only two, subjects per day. There is no mention of Astronomy (I *think*--if anyone knows of one, will you send it to me offlist?). Sometimes the morning break gets a specific mention (29); sometimes it appears not to exist (13). Excepting some glitches, Harry and Ron's 4th year schedule seems to be: Monday Herbology (chapter 20) break Care of Magical Creatures (26) lunch Divination (length of class unknown) (29) Tuesday Herbology (13) break Care of Magical Creatures (13) lunch Double Divination (13) Wednesday Charms in a.m.; unknown whether first block, second block, or both (22) lunch Potions in p.m.; unknown whether first block, second block, or both (14) Thursday Transfiguration in a.m.; unknown whether first block, second block, or both (22) lunch Double Defense Against the Dark Arts (13, 29) Friday History of Magic (29) Charms (18) lunch Double Potions Questions that suggest themselves: is History held on Wednesday mornings as well as Fridays? Does Transfiguration meet only once a week, or does *it* perhaps meet on Wednesday mornings? Most important for the how-many-teachers question: which classes are shared? (The only verified ones are Herbology and Potions, with Hufflepuff and Slytherin respectively o' course, and I'm not sure whether both blocks are shared.) Amy Z ---------------------------------------------- Snape made them all nervous, breathing down their necks while they tried to remember how to make a Forgetfulness potion. -HP and the Philosopher's Stone ---------------------------------------------- _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. From aiz24 at hotmail.com Sun Jan 27 00:26:19 2002 From: aiz24 at hotmail.com (lupinesque) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 00:26:19 -0000 Subject: Erratum Re: GF Course schedule In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34136 I wrote: > Friday > > History of Magic (29) > Charms (18) > lunch > Double Potions Add in a break between History and Charms; it's specifically mentioned in chapter 29 (the Trio waits for the break to find Moody and speaks to him after History, which seems to take forever). This and chapter 22 are the specific references to break I'm aware of, though the latter causes its own problems because it implies that History comes in the afternoon. Amy Z -------------------------------------------------------- "Someone attacking you, Harry?" Seamus asked sleepily. -HP and the Goblet of Fire -------------------------------------------------------- From marybear82 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 27 00:33:04 2002 From: marybear82 at yahoo.com (Mary Shearer) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 16:33:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] James, Peter, Dumbledore, Secret-Keeper In-Reply-To: <3C521323.EDF40DC5@kingwoodcable.com> Message-ID: <20020127003305.23208.qmail@web14001.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 34137 --- Katze wrote: > I was pondering something earlier today, and I've > started to think that > perhaps James didn't trust Peter 100%. Why? We know > that Sirius > convinced James to go with Peter, but he wasn't the > first choice. James > also left his invisibility cloak in the care of > Dumbledore, along with > Harry's key to the Gringott's vault. So I wonder if > James already knew > that Peter was up to no good? He couldn't have known > anything factual, > because he still chose Peter as the Secret-Keeper. > > But why would James leave his belongings in D's > care, and yet choose > another for the Secret-Keeper? Is this even a valid > consideration? > > -Katze > Hi All! Delurking after a week or so because this post intrigued me. I too, wondered why those things had been left in Dumbledore's care instead of with Serius, who was James' dearest friend and most trusted confidant. Perhaps the scenario is even darker than Katze suggests, or maybe I just need Prozac. In SS/PS, Dumbledore gives Harry his cloak along with a note stating that "Your father left this in my possession before he died. It is time it was returned to you. Use it well." Is it possible that James left it with Dumbledore not only because his life was in danger, but because he needed to keep it from those who knew of its existence? In PoA, both Sirius and Lupin admit that each thought the other was the spy. Sirius talks James into switching the identity of the secret keeper, probably telling James that he believes Lupin to be the spy. Yet James leaves everything, including provisions for Harry's care, with D, even though that role had already been given to Sirius. If James already suspected Pettigrew, and Serius has raised doubts about Lupin, sadly, this points to the possibility that James and Lily suspected Sirius as well. They cannot trust any of their closest friends, and are now utterly alone. Wow - dark days for the Potters! In GoF, Dumbledore states (not in so many words) that sowing the seeds of mistrust among allies and undermining relationships is Voldemort's stock-in-trade. If we add these things together, this scenario becomes a real possibility, and Sirius' fierce devotion to Harry has an even sounder basis. Why? Because in retrospect, Sirius would understand that his action of insisting on another secret keeper would leave him suspect in James and Lily's eyes, and know that James' last days had to be agonizing. His friends die at Voldemort's hand because he failed to keep them safe, and he has the added burden of knowing that the Potters didn't/couldn't/shouldn't have trusted him. This makes him an even more tragic figure than before, and leaves him desperate to make it up to James somehow. Harry, who is so much like his father, becomes Sirius' shot at redemption, and the focus of his existence. That explains why he is willing to risk all to be at Harry's side as the signs of Voldemort's return become more prevalent. All of his love for James, all of his guilt over James and Lily's death, and all of the lost affection of those misspent years in Azkaban are pinned on Harry. Harry already leans pretty heavily on Sirius by the end of GoF, but I look for his role as Harry's surrogate father to deepen in the future. Well - that's it. Please feel free to poke holes, as I hate the thought of James' pain during his last days, if this was the case. If anyone has a sunnier take on these events, it would be very welcome! Mary - who is feeling slightly less depressed now, and raises a glass to JKR's ability to capture the imagination! __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com From blpurdom at yahoo.com Sun Jan 27 01:10:36 2002 From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 01:10:36 -0000 Subject: Guy Fawkes really a wizard? (was: God in HP World/Folktales and Religion) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34138 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "christi0469" wrote: > But we see no mention of Guy Fawkes Day/Bonfire Night at > Hogwarts. Certainly all the Muggle-born wizards and witches would > miss such a festive celebration, with the fireworks and all. Perhaps JKR will reveal that Guy Fawkes was a wizard, and so burning him in effigy would be the last thing the wizarding world would be inclined to do. (And he only made the Muggles think he'd been killed, but really escaped just as handily as those witches and wizards who pretended to be burned during the Middle Ages.) GF could have used magic to try to blow up Parliament, but the Muggles merely ASSUMED it was gunpowder and other ordnance.... --Barb (rewriting Muggle history constantly to explain that various historical figures were really witches and wizards) From blpurdom at yahoo.com Sun Jan 27 01:16:50 2002 From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 01:16:50 -0000 Subject: Cutting RL slack (or not) - GF Course schedule In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34139 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amy Z" wrote: > Most important for the how-many-teachers question: which classes > are shared? (The only verified ones are Herbology and Potions, > with Hufflepuff and Slytherin respectively o' course, and I'm not > sure whether both blocks are shared.) Actually, we also know that Care of Magical Creatures is shared (Gryffindor and Slytherin). Also, since Hermione is the only Gryffindor in her year taking Arithmancy, there must be students from other houses in that class as well. Since it is also an elective, I'm also assuming that Muggle Studies has students from more than one house (but unlikely to have any Slytherins ). I also believe that sometimes Divination has been referred to as "Double Divination," so at those times one can assume that it will take up the amount of time that two classes would usually use. --Barb From fiatincantatum at attbi.com Sat Jan 26 23:57:09 2002 From: fiatincantatum at attbi.com (Fiat Incantatum) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 18:57:09 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hagrid, Moody and Violent Responses In-Reply-To: References: <3C529AB3.6580.89DF2FA@localhost> Message-ID: <3C52FC05.12299.22F280@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 34140 On 26 Jan 2002 at 20:14, marinafrants wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Fiat Incantatum" > wrote: > > On 26 Jan 2002 at 3:04, marinafrants wrote: > > > > > If Moody had sent Draco off to scrub the > > > infirmary toilets with his toothbrush or something, I would've > been > > > the first to applaud, but there was no excuse for violence, IMO. > > > > While I do agree with you somewhat, we should also keep in mind > that this (the > > wizarding world) is a culture that thinks that flying around sans > protective > > gear at high speed 50 or more feet in the air while being attacked > by animated > > cannon balls is a Really Fun Game. > > You have a point there. Still, I don't think direct physical attack > on a student is considered an acceptable method of discipline at > Hogwarts, or McGonnagle wouldn't have been so apalled. Also, if it > *was* acceptable, Snape would've been drop-kicking Harry up and down > the corridors every day. No argument there! I was thinking more of the bouncing than the actual transfiguration. That seemed to be what upset McGonnagle, the fact that Malfoy had been *turned into* something, not the subsequent bouncing around. That being said, why is it then considered *funny* when the twins start selling trick sweets that turn people into canaries, albeit for only a minute or so at a time? And lastly, given Snape's dismissive attitude towards "wand waving", I suspect his Transfiguration marks weren't as high as they could have been. So maybe he *couldn't* turn anyone into anything even if he wanted to Fiat, who could think of a few good uses for Canary Creams, if only some were available ... -- 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 jbryson at richmond.infi.net Sun Jan 27 02:02:56 2002 From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 02:02:56 -0000 Subject: God in HP World/Folktales and Religion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34141 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "christi0469" wrote: > What do you make of the Fat Friar? I don't know where exactly, but > IIRC he talks about his own days at Hogwarts. Apparently he > graduated as a full wizard and went on to pursue a religious life, > then came back to haunt Hogwarts. My guess is that he served people both as a religious and as a wizard. I doubt the two conflict except in the mind of Church authority. He could visit the sick and do religious stuff (I'm not sure the friars could do communion), plus cook up a potion or spell to help the illness. Common sense would prevent him putting on too much show with his wand. Sort of what a modern doctor might do as an M.D. , if he has also taken Holy orders. Some how, this jibes with my idea of Hufflepuff people. From jbryson at richmond.infi.net Sun Jan 27 02:13:43 2002 From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 02:13:43 -0000 Subject: Hagrid, Moody and Violent Responses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34142 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" wrote: > Still, I don't think direct physical attack > on a student is considered an acceptable method of discipline at > Hogwarts, or McGonnagle wouldn't have been so apalled. Also, if it > *was* acceptable, Snape would've been drop-kicking Harry up and down > the corridors every day. It's one of the funniest lines in the series, IMHO. "Oh no, professor Moody, we don't use transfiguration for punishment. We give detentions." What a gulf! Tex. Who thinks transfiguration would have a positive influence on a lot of kids I have Met. From maidne at yahoo.com Sun Jan 27 02:51:31 2002 From: maidne at yahoo.com (maidne) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 02:51:31 -0000 Subject: Absurdly young age for marriage.. In-Reply-To: <000001c1a628$fb345ca0$5d59fea9@c8b5v1> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34143 You're right, of course, but consider people's life expectancy in relation to the ages they married, and the life expectancy of wizards. People of 18 or 20 would seem to me to be viewed as much more mature when they have an overall life expectancy of say 50 than when they have an expectancy of 200 or so years. --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Terri Lyn Layman" wrote: > I have seen a few people say that they think James and Lilly married too > young... > > But, really... ask yourself this: "What age were my parents when they > married?" > > The current (1990) statistical age for marriage is 25 for women, and 27 for > men. source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/releases/95facts/fs_4312s.htm In 1996, > I got married at 21, which > in retrospect was "an absurdly young age". However, back in 1972, my > parents married when > they were 22. Their parents married at the age of 18 (give or take), and > even further back Laura > Ingalls Wilder (another fine female author), got married at 17 (according to > the TV series). While > discussing literary females, the fictional Juliet was 14 and beginning to be > considerd an "Old Maid". > > Now, if we are to assume that Harry at this point is 14 (just a year younger > than my nephew), I see > it as completely plausible that his parents may have married when they were > in their late teens to > early 20's From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Sun Jan 27 03:08:11 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 03:08:11 -0000 Subject: Hagrid, Moody and Violent Responses In-Reply-To: <3C52FC05.12299.22F280@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34144 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Fiat Incantatum" wrote: > > You have a point there. Still, I don't think direct physical attack > > on a student is considered an acceptable method of discipline at > > Hogwarts, or McGonnagle wouldn't have been so apalled. Also, if it > > *was* acceptable, Snape would've been drop-kicking Harry up and down > > the corridors every day. > > No argument there! I was thinking more of the bouncing than the actual > transfiguration. That seemed to be what upset McGonnagle, the fact that Malfoy > had been *turned into* something, not the subsequent bouncing around. I don't have my copy of GoF handy for checking (I lent it to my mom), but I distinctly remember having the impression that it was the bouncing that bothered her. I could've been a combination of both things, though.l > > That being said, why is it then considered *funny* when the twins start selling > trick sweets that turn people into canaries, albeit for only a minute or so at > a time? The short time limit probably has a lot to do with it, plus the fact that Gred and Forge don't bounce the canaries. The generally cavalier attitude toward the creams does kinda support my point that it was the bouncing McGonnagal was getting worked up about. > > And lastly, given Snape's dismissive attitude towards "wand waving", I suspect > his Transfiguration marks weren't as high as they could have been. So maybe > he *couldn't* turn anyone into anything even if he wanted to ducking the slings and arrows of outraged Snapeniks> > Dismissive attitude or not, every time we actually saw Snape engage in wand waving (the Dueling Club chapter in CoS, floating four people on conjured stretchers in PoA, etc), he seemed thoroughly competent at it. But even if he sucks at transfiguration, it seems to me that if you really want to bounce somebody, it is not absolutely necessary to turn them into a small, furry animal first. (It's just more fun.) Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From fiatincantatum at attbi.com Sun Jan 27 03:46:08 2002 From: fiatincantatum at attbi.com (Fiat Incantatum) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 22:46:08 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hagrid, Moody and Violent Responses In-Reply-To: References: <3C52FC05.12299.22F280@localhost> Message-ID: <3C5331B0.5089.F49CFC@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 34145 On 27 Jan 2002 at 3:08, marinafrants wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Fiat Incantatum" > wrote: > > transfiguration. That seemed to be what upset McGonagall, the > fact that Malfoy > > had been *turned into* something, not the subsequent bouncing > around. > > I don't have my copy of GoF handy for checking (I lent it to my > mom), but I distinctly remember having the impression that it was > the bouncing that bothered her. I could've been a combination of > both things, though. Hmm, I just reread that page ... it may be *implied*, but it definitely isn't said. The only thing she protests about is the transfiguration itself, saying that they don't use transfiguration as a punishment, they give detentions instead. I really don't get the idea that the bouncing is the issue. At least, if it *was* the issue, it seems to be something that needs to be read in, rather than being specifically stated. It would make sense, but I still get the idea that it's the transfiguration magic that disturbed McGonagall "What -- what are you doing?" said Professor McGonagall, her eyes following the bouncing ferret's progress through the air. "Teaching," said Moody. "Teach -- Moody, is that a student?" shrieked Professor McGonagall, the books spilling out of her arms. "Yep," said Moody. "No!" cried Professor McGonagall, running down the stairs and pulling out her wand; a moment later, with a loud snapping noise, Draco Malfoy had reappeared, lying in a heap on the floor with his sleek blond hair all over his now brilliantly pink face. He got to his feet, wincing. "Moody, we never use Transfiguration as a punishment!" said Professor McGonagall weakly. "Surely Professor Dumbledore told you that?" "He might've mentioned it, yeah," said Moody, scratching his chin unconcernedly, "but I thought a good sharp shock -- " "We give detentions, Moody! Or speak to the offender's Head of House!" "I'll do that, then," said Moody, staring at Malfoy with great dislike. That's the extent of McGonagall's discussion of the incident with Moody. Probably more went on 'off camera' than this, at least one would assume this to be the case, but the book doesn't say. -- 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 jmmears at prodigy.net Sun Jan 27 04:44:45 2002 From: jmmears at prodigy.net (serenadust) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 04:44:45 -0000 Subject: James, Peter, Dumbledore, Secret-Keeper In-Reply-To: <20020127003305.23208.qmail@web14001.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34146 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Mary Shearer wrote: > > > In SS/PS, Dumbledore gives Harry his cloak along with > a note stating that "Your father left this in my > possession before he died. It is time it was returned > to you. Use it well." Is it possible that James left > it with Dumbledore not only because his life was in > danger, but because he needed to keep it from those > who knew of its existence? In PoA, both Sirius and > Lupin admit that each thought the other was the spy. > Sirius talks James into switching the identity of the > secret keeper, probably telling James that he believes > Lupin to be the spy. Yet James leaves everything, > including provisions for Harry's care, with D, even > though that role had already been given to Sirius. If > James already suspected Pettigrew, and Serius has > raised doubts about Lupin, sadly, this points to the > possibility that James and Lily suspected Sirius as > well. They cannot trust any of their closest friends, > and are now utterly alone. Wow - dark days for the > Potters! In GoF, Dumbledore states (not in so many > words) that sowing the seeds of mistrust among allies > and undermining relationships is Voldemort's > stock-in-trade. If we add these things together, this > scenario becomes a real possibility, and Sirius' > fierce devotion to Harry has an even sounder basis. > Why? Because in retrospect, Sirius would understand > that his action of insisting on another secret keeper > would leave him suspect in James and Lily's eyes, and > know that James' last days had to be agonizing. His > friends die at Voldemort's hand because he failed to > keep them safe, and he has the added burden of knowing > that the Potters didn't/couldn't/shouldn't have > trusted him. This makes him an even more tragic figure > than before, and leaves him desperate to make it up to > James somehow. Harry, who is so much like his father, > becomes Sirius' shot at redemption, and the focus of > his existence. That explains why he is willing to > risk all to be at Harry's side as the signs of > Voldemort's return become more prevalent. All of his > love for James, all of his guilt over James and Lily's > death, and all of the lost affection of those misspent > years in Azkaban are pinned on Harry. Harry already > leans pretty heavily on Sirius by the end of GoF, but > I look for his role as Harry's surrogate father to > deepen in the future. Well - that's it. Please feel > free to poke holes, as I hate the thought of James' > pain during his last days, if this was the case. If > anyone has a sunnier take on these events, it would be > very welcome! > Wow, Mary! You nearly had me in tears with this scenario. I don't recall anyone else coming up with this exact take on how the last weeks of the Potters lives played out, but your explanation certainly rings true for me. Great first post! Jo, feeling even more warmly toward poor, poor Sirius > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! > http://auctions.yahoo.com From tabouli at unite.com.au Sun Jan 27 05:51:26 2002 From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 16:51:26 +1100 Subject: Wizard weddings and lifespans, translation issues Message-ID: <002001c1a6f6$dda49140$e026ddcb@price> No: HPFGUIDX 34147 Terri: > The current (1990) statistical age for marriage is 25 for women, and 27 for men. The other thing that intrigues me is the lifespan question. At what point do wizards start ageing slower than Muggles? They're considered of age at 17, and from available evidence, are known to marry and have kids in their late teens and early twenties, at least in the late seventies. By British Muggle standards in the same era, (was it the 1970s when the age of legal adulthood was reduced from 21 to 18?) I'd say these ages are both a bit on the young side. By contrast, wizards seem to live substantially longer than muggles... Dumbledore is still kicking away at 150. Perhaps the ageing slowdown starts around 20? Another thought - if wizards marry at 20, they might have 130 years or more of married life to live! Phew! Makes you think, eh? --jenny from ravenclaw, wondering if Tabouli has an acronym for those of not who are *not* Hagrid fans ************ Ever ready to oblige. Let's see. Can I assume that anti-Hagrid types find him irritating? How about: I.R.R.I.T.A.N.T. (Indiscreet Rubeus Represents Irresponsibility, Teacherly Abandon and Needless Tippling)? Alexander: > What Uranus joke? I want to hear it, as well as the place in the text where it's located. There are some jokes based on play-on-words, which surely were very different in English origin [1], so I think it's compensated.< John's already covered this particular joke, but a couple more thoughts... I have a little collection of copies of "Alice Through the Looking Glass" in different languages, a book which is full of double entendres and wordplay. From these I've seen a few illustrations of managing wordplay jokes in translation. One way is to translate directly and put in a footnote (NB: In the original English, this sentence is a play on words, where Uranus=your anus), another is to try to come up with a wordplay joke along the same lines in the language of translation (preferable, surely), and another sadly common ploy is to just translate directly with no explanation at all. In this last case, I have to wonder whether the translator missed the point (as the readers certainly will), but ah well. How'd they go with the Sorting Hat and Hogwarts school songs? Rhyming poetry is another challenge for the translator. (Jabberwocky translations are always fun in my little Carrollian collection, because there are all those nonsense words to reckon with as well, though I suppose they provide a handy way of rigging the rhyming issue). I disapprove stridently of translators who wimp out and just translate directly, without any attempt to retain rhyme or rhythm (for example in my copy of Bilbo le Hobbit the misty mountains song is just translated: I frowned darkly). If they're not up to it, I say they should take it upon themselves to find someone who is! Obviously maintaining regular rhyme and rhyme along with meaning will mean taking some liberties with the text, but IMO unless the exact word for word meaning is crucial, this is a lesser crime than ruining the original author's poetic intent and atmosphere (and honestly, can't they send a direct translation of their new version to the original author for comment, to ensure their liberties are OK? Ghh. I wonder how much consulation there is in the translation process? Couldn't the Russian translator have asked JKR which of the sound and meaning of "Weasley" was the more important?) The translator can make or break a new market... the first translation of Michael Ende's "Momo" from German into English was "The Grey Gentlemen", which, from the abominable attempt to translate the riddle-poem near the end I glanced at, was a shocker (not that I could read the original German, but the second translator of the novel did it so well you'd think it had been originally written in English). Praise be that someone agreed with me and hired someone else to try again and produce what then turned out to be a popular, bestselling (?) children's book... (any comments from the Germans on the list? To OT, of course...) Alexander: > For example, it would never occur to a Russian to sit down and calculate just how often does a female or an african (or whoever else) appears in the books and takes an active part in the plot. Yep, sure I know it's a hot subject "out there" but it surely doesn't hit any strings in my own soul (almost all issues covered by Political Correctness rule are simply "not perceived" here in ex-USSR) [2]. Ahahaaa! (chuffs Tabouli, who has spent many a cross-cultural training session on 'political correctness', both explaining this peculiar Anglophone concept to baffled international students and explaining to Anglophones that this concept they take for granted *really is* totally alien to most people outside the Anglophone world...) Eloise: >St Mungo, as someone has already said had the given name, 'Kentigern'. He lived cAD 518-03 and from his name I guess he was a Saxon. < In closing, an evil aside about the perils of translation... there have been a couple of posts from Japanese email addresses on the list in the last few weeks, which reminds me of something a Japanese friend taught me when I was in Japan... the sound "Mungo" is more or less identical to the sound of the rudest word in the Japanese language (which corresponds to the rudest word in the English language: think female intimate anatomy). Wonder how the Japanese translator managed this one? Heh heh heh... I once met a man called Mungo who was thinking of going to Japan to teach English (lucky for him my Japanese friend gave me a swearwords lesson, and that I met and warned him before he headed for Tokyo...) Tabouli. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From aiz24 at hotmail.com Sun Jan 27 11:15:38 2002 From: aiz24 at hotmail.com (Amy Z) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 06:15:38 -0500 Subject: Ferret scene - Translation - GF schedule/mixed-House classes Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34148 Fiat Incantatum wrote re: McGonagall: >The only thing she protests about is the transfiguration itself, saying >that they don't use transfiguration as a punishment, they give detentions >instead. I really don't get the idea that the bouncing is the issue. At >least, if it *was* the issue, it seems to be something that needs to be >read >in, rather than being specifically stated. It would make sense, but I >still >get the idea that it's the transfiguration magic that disturbed McGonagall I agree, and I think it's a bit of a joke on JKR's part: this kid is being slammed against the floor repeatedly and McGonagall's chief concern is that he's been turned into a ferret. I've never been able to laugh at the scene ("squealing in pain," etc. ) , even though it does not incline me to believe anything nice about Malfoy, such as that he missed Harry on purpose. I can feel sorry for him without thinking any better of him. Tabouli wrote: >From these I've seen a few illustrations of managing wordplay jokes in >translation. One way is to translate directly and >put in a footnote (NB: In the original English, this sentence is a play on >words, where >Uranus=your anus), another is to try to come up with a wordplay joke along >the same lines in the >language of translation (preferable, surely) Hmm, not necessarily preferable, IMO. With a joke as old and, frankly, adolescent as Uranus, sure, but with brilliant wordplay like Carroll's (and other cases of JKR's), I can't help feeling the reader of a translation is being shortchanged with this approach, even if the translator almost matches his/her linguistic talent. All in all, I'd prefer both: come up with one's own version and provide a footnote explaining the original. I have got to get the French HPs. Barb corrected the GF schedule: >Actually, we also know that Care of Magical Creatures is shared >(Gryffindor and Slytherin). D'oh! I knew that. >Also, since Hermione is the only >Gryffindor in her year taking Arithmancy, there must be students >from other houses in that class as well. That gets into the vexed question of how many Gryffindors are in Harry's year, which I won't touch. But it is also possible that Arithmancy is a course students may begin in 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, or 7th year, in which case Hermione might have been the only Gryffindor 3rd year to take it when she began, but be in with Gryffs of other years. (Also, there are the two invisible Gryffindor girls, in whom I believe as an article of faith in Saint Jeralyn--interested folks, see the Lexicon http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/hogwarts_students.html#Gryffindor girls). I reckon the same as you, though, that it's a mixed group. We know Ernie was taking Muggle Studies (PA 12). >I also believe that sometimes Divination has been referred to >as "Double Divination," so at those times one can assume that it >will take up the amount of time that two classes would usually use. It's double on Mondays in GF (first page of chapter 13); it's inconclusive whether it's also double in its Tuesday meeting. Actually, now I'm trying to figure out how I even know it meets on Tuesdays . . . drat drat drat, misplaced the folder with the timeline notes, but it's here somewhere. LOONily yours, Amy ------------------------------------------------------------- "As-tu tue le Jaseroque? Viens a mon coeur, fils rayonnais! O jour frabbejais! Calleau! Callai!" Il cortule dans sa joie. -from the amazing Frank L. Warrin's translation of Jabberwocky (N.B. that he wisely surrenders the rhyme scheme, though not the meter, in order to have more latitude in creating great wordplay) ------------------------------------------------------------- _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. From Caeser56 at si.rr.com Sun Jan 27 06:25:46 2002 From: Caeser56 at si.rr.com (caes56) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 06:25:46 -0000 Subject: Moody was really Crouch, Jr.(And Ron's death?) In-Reply-To: <3C5219A5.724C862D@kingwoodcable.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34149 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Katze wrote: > I don't think the gleam of triumph was a hint in the other direction, > and here's why. When Crouch questioned Harry, he "hissed" when he found > out that V had taken Harry's blood. So my logic is as follows. Crouch is > on V's side, and must've have seen an problem with taking Harry's blood, > why would he hiss otherwise? So if crouch is bad, and he thought it was > bad for V to take Harry's blood, then Dumbledore's triumph must mean > that it's good for his team that V took Harry's blood. If taking Harry's > blood is actually bad for V then it explains both sides. And if D were > really on the bad side, then he would've hissed too. > > I also take it on faith that Rowling truly meant what she said...D is > the epitome of good. > > Does that make sense? > -Katze I do agree, Katze, but i also wish to point out a VERY big point that i don't think you or anybody else recently touched upon about this: if you remember the past books- in this case, it comes out best in PS/SS- the curse V cast upon HP gave HP some of Voldemort's powers(only notable one so far is Parseltoungue) as well as some weird new Abilities(his scar's burns to warn him of danger). could it also be that when V took Harry's blood, that some of harry's personailty was transferred to LV? if this is the case, i see one important foreshadowing- that of JKR foreshadowing the way LV can finally, once and for all, be defeated- through the following method: Ok, so we assume LV must get some new powers- the first and most obvious being the ability to harm harry. the second- ok, well, maybe LV could be a good Seeker. but as a distant third- could we also assume that maybe LV has been made a bit...how do i say this? more inclined to do good? we can't say that LV would take on every trait of harry, but we know Harry is essentially a good person, maybe this will make LV be affected in some way. i think that this si the most likely outcome, and that is why DD 'glinted'- he knew LV would be less evil, and therefore easier to attack. of course, i could be wrong... maybe? possibly? i don't know. but i think it could be a small foreshadowing of exactly how DD, HP, and company eventually overcome LV. also, on another topic, which i haven't seen mentioned lately and- though i've tried searching through the archives, i haven't noticed any mention of in the theories of which character will die and be 'horrible to write'- how about this ron death theory(however much i hate to say it, because i do like ron's character). we see a lot of foreboding and hints that JKR drops in her books- like the mention of Sirious Black's motorcycle in PS/SS. well, in PoA, during the Initial Divination class, Prof. Trelawney(did i spell it right? do i care?:-)) tells Pavarti Patil to 'beware a red-headed man'. this outright is not enough- but when she comes down to christmas dinner, she mentions that if 13 people sit at a table, the first to rise will be the first to die. well, harry and ron get up both around the same time- and they never mention which exactly got up first. now we can assume, i think, that if harry dies it won't be until book 7- but what is ron was the first to rise? i know PT's predictions are supposed to be jokes- but even her regular predictions- not the blank stare prediction in PoA- have come true (with the exception of Harry's death). the Oct 16th prediction, the "around easter one of our number will leave forever" prediction, and the best one i think- the predicition of neville dropping two tea glasses. i know- she says he will drop a pink one, but then to take a blue one because she likes the pink one more- but why ask him to take a blue one unless he was going to drop it again? i'd like to see what you think, and i hope i haven't repeated anything in this post! -Vin From elfriede.schaden at chello.at Sun Jan 27 09:11:11 2002 From: elfriede.schaden at chello.at (gypaetus16) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 09:11:11 -0000 Subject: Cutting Characters (esp. RL) Slack (WAS Hagrid, Moody and Violent Responses) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34150 Umm, dear sweet Lupin says that his Hogwarts escapades as a > werewolf resulted in a lot of near misses, and that the thought > that he might have bitten somebody still haunts him. Every time > he left the shack, he became a menace to human life, and he > continued to do this even after he became aware of it. That's > more than carelessness. The people he threatened must have > been terrified. If he thought scaring innocent people was just part > of the fun, he's no better than the DE's at the World Cup, IMO. > > Pippin When Remus undertook his "Hogwarts escapades" he was young and stupid, just as a lot of us are young and stupid in this age. Have a look on our own muggle newspapers. A number of crimes are comitted by youngsters at the age between 13 and 16. This should not be an excuse for what they do but you have to handle a crime comitted by a child in a different way than one, comitted by a grownup (at least in civilised countries it should be done!!). I do not believe that Remus was careless when he became older. In his Hogwarts days he had friends for the first time in his life, who were supporting him and running with him in the pack. So he and also his friends felt strong and nothing could hurt them - stupid but very human. I do not believe that real Death Eaters are between 13 and 16 or 17 years of age, but older and well trained to torture, humiliate and kill all those people and wizards, who are not fitting to their horror regime. Gabriele From djdwjt at aol.com Sun Jan 27 12:25:39 2002 From: djdwjt at aol.com (elfundeb) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 12:25:39 -0000 Subject: Wizarding Justice, again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34151 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" wrote: > I agree with Barb, when she writes: > > > Indeed, we have yet to see a really extensive depiction of > > wizarding justice. > > We have no idea what evidence may have been presented over the course > of Bagman or Crouch Jr.'s trials, nor what the rules of preponderance > of evidence might be in the wizarding world. > > And it's certainly obvious that an ugly mood prevailed > over the proceedings. The trial was certainly *biased.* > > But we can't really say that it was *improper.* It's possible > that the rules of preponderance of the evidence are just not very > strict in the wizarding legal system. It's also possible that the > onus of proof within the system falls upon the defendant -- that > it's a "guilty until proven innocent" system. While both trials > do strike us as rather dubious according to the Spirit of Justice, > they may well have been perfectly within bounds of the legal system > itself. > > > > It's possible, I suppose, that > by the laws of the wizarding world, the defendant only gets a trial > if he *wants* one, or that confession obviates the need for a day > in court...but I don't quite believe it. Sirius certainly seems > bitter enough in retrospect about having been sent to prison without > trial, and he speaks of it as if it were an extraordinary event: > an exception to normal legal proceedings, rather than an unfortunate > by-product of his state of mind at the time of his arrest. > > > -- Elkins I doubt we can examine the manner in which justice was or was not meted out to Sirius, Crouch Jr., etc. as a model of the wizarding legal system. These trials were the outcome of a war against the wizarding world by Voldemort and his army of Death-Eaters. History is full of examples where governments act to suspend or tighten civil liberties during times of war, and based on the liberties granted to Aurors to use curses on Death-Eaters, this appears to have been one of those times. Holding suspects without trial, or conducting "guilty till proven innocent" trials is justified by the need to reassure the public that they will be safe from attack in the future. The capture and prosecution of the Death-Eaters seems to me to have had some witch-hunt elements to it, and the trials have the air of special, Nuremburg-like tribunals with all of the "good" side assembled to pass judgment on war criminals. Our glimpse at the trials in the Pensieve indicates that they were in fact biased: Crouch Sr.'s request for the jury's verdict on his son makes clear that he was telling them to find him guilty. This is not what an impartial judge tells a jury. So I would be very hesitant to even speculate on the rules of wizarding evidence or the effect of confessions on the right to a trial generally based on what we see in the Pensieve or what happened to Sirius. As for Sirius, my conjecture is that he was jailed without trial in a big rush to capture the remaining Death-Eaters; Sirius was already in custody and he was deemed to be very dangerous. There were multiple eyewitnesses; however, those witnesses were Muggles and it would have been very difficult to summon them to a wizarding courtroom, not to mention the number of memories that would have needed to be modified afterwards (actually, their memories had already been modified, I believe, so they would think it was a gas explosion so they were probably unavailable as witnesses). So they shipped him off to Azkaban, instead focusing their energies on capturing and prosecuting those Death-Eaters with less evidence against them. By the time that was over, I doubt anyone in the wizarding world did not believe Sirius was guilty. So why put him on trial, especially without your key witnesses? Just leave him in jail. Now here's another wizarding justice question: Why can't they just use Veritaserum to determine who is and is not guilty? I know its use is restricted, but wouldn't this be a legitimate use for it, rather than our Muggle justice system (which could never be fully accurate)? Debbie From john at walton.vu Sun Jan 27 14:00:29 2002 From: john at walton.vu (John Walton) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 14:00:29 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ferret scene In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34152 Amy Z wrote: > I've never been able to laugh at the scene ("squealing in pain," etc. > ) , even though it does not incline me to believe anything nice > about Malfoy, such as that he missed Harry on purpose. I can feel sorry for > him without thinking any better of him. I have to say that I feel *no* sympathy for Draco here. Mind you, I feel no sympathy for Draco in canon at all. He is, as we've said before, a bigoted little racist with deeply-flawed morals. The *only* redeeming feature is that he's young and can thus possibly be changed -- though he's been at Hogwarts for four years now, and there's no sign of his evil abating. Essentially, I look at this scene as an instance of major karma coming back to bite Draco. Then again, I tend to believe that teenagers should be held completely accountable for their actions. Draco, formerly the powerful (just look at the symbolism of Crabbe and Goyle as strongmen) becomes powerless because Mad-Eye Moody is a stronger wizard -- much in the way that the 12-year-olds who were at the top of the "food chain" in primary school turn into the 13-year-olds at the bottom of the food chain in secondary school This could be an important message for the series -- magic as an empowering tool, turning the Weak into the Strong. You are the Strongest Wiz. Goodbye. --John ____________________________________________ Ai! Lantar i Mindonu ilcalar, || Alas! The gleaming Twin Towers are falling, Helwa Menello, uryala || Out of the pale blue sky, blazing Mir mallennar analye. || Into the richest streets --from Quenya poem, Minqu?a Yavanni?, "September Eleventh", by Kai MacTane John Walton -- john at walton.vu ____________________________________________ From hollydaze at btinternet.com Sun Jan 27 14:14:00 2002 From: hollydaze at btinternet.com (Hollydaze) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 14:14:00 -0000 Subject: Floating Holiday - Easter in Britain References: Message-ID: <003801c1a73c$de8f63a0$cced7ad5@j0dhe> No: HPFGUIDX 34153 Christi wrote: > Perhaps it due to the separation of church and state > concept; however the Catholic schools in our area have the same > spring break schedule as the public schools, and have a separate > break for the Easter Tridium. Wouldn't it be easier for Hogwarts to > have a regularly scheduled break between terms rather than > celebrating a holiday which moves around the calendar? Ok first I'm not trying to offend any one! Basically I see it that this is (again) the case that you have to keep in mind that the original audience of these books (apart form JK herself) were British people (I'm not going to say Adult/child cos I don't want to start that up again!). This means she will stick to something that is familiar, (not just to her but to others in that audience) if she wants it to get published, otherwise she would have to spend a couple of pages explaining how their school day/year actually works. The British school year is very similar in every school although days may change every so often, like one school may split up for a holiday one or two days before another one, but it is never usually more than 3 days. The days also change each year because of different dates being on different days (example, the 1st of September one year might be a Tuesday so you would go back on Tuesday the 1st, but another year it might be a Saturday in which case you would go back on Tuesday the 4th). Below are the recent dates for my school just to give you an idea about how the school day works and what I will be referring to: AUTUMN TERM: Term starts: Tuesday 4th Sept. Halfterm Holiday: Monday 22nd Oct - Friday 26th Oct. Term Ends: Friday 21st Dec. SPRING TERM: Term Starts: Monday 7th of Jan Halfterm Holiday: Monday 18th Feb - Friday 22nd Feb. Term Ends: Friday 22 March. SUMMER TERM: Term Starts: Monday 8th April. Halfterm Holiday: Monday 3rd June - Friday 7th June. Term Ends: Friday 19th July. Now admittedly the Summer holiday at Hogwarts does seem to be slightly longer than the one that "Muggle" schools would have as they seem to split up somewhere near the end of June rather than in the Middle of July but this could be because Hogwarts does not appear to have the Halfterm holidays (week long breaks in the middle of each term, see above) which Muggle schools have, so they get a longer break at the end of the year to compensate. The reason I say it appears to end near the end of June is that in book 3, Harry has his last exam on June the 6th, and the exam results come out a week alter (June the 11th) it is unlikely they would stay at school much longer. The "around" is because (as you'll see if you look at Lexicon) the exam dates don't really fit with those days for that years so the exam may actually have been the 6th to the 10th, getting the results on the 17th (which is how Lexicon has it - it marks down both) and then leaving on the 18th. this is about 4 weeks earlier than muggle schools would split up. But Muggle schools get the 3, weeklong holidays through out the year (plus about five teacher training days) which equals the two up - Hogwarts does not appear to have Teacher training days!!! In Muggle schools, the Autumn term is basically the same every year (maybe starting a few days earlier and finishing a few days earlier), but the spring and summer terms change because of this "floating holiday" that is Easter. So one year you might have a REALLY short Spring term and a REALLY long Summer term, while another year they will both be about the same length (Spring is ALWAYS either the same or shorter than summer, never longer!), it all depends on where Easter falls. As JK taught in England (as well as in Portugal) she would be quite familiar with the British school year and that is probably why she used it as her basis for the Hogwarts school years. Of course this leads us into discussions about the problem of what the school day would have been like before they had muggle schools and other such things. But I think that is the basic reason that The Hogwarts school year is a distorted reflection of the British Muggle school year (distorted in that the Summer holidays don't quite match up). That and the fact that if she changed it she would have to include one of those pages they have at the front of books to explain things that are different (I know a book that explains about the times of Breakfast, Lunch, Tea and Dinner -although I can't remember/find which one it is now- because they are referenced in the book but are different to what they are now.) It was probably just easier to write it that way. HOLLYDAZE!!! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From fiatincantatum at attbi.com Sun Jan 27 14:02:11 2002 From: fiatincantatum at attbi.com (Fiat Incantatum) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 09:02:11 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Acronyms and translation issues In-Reply-To: <002001c1a6f6$dda49140$e026ddcb@price> Message-ID: <3C53C213.10936.328B4D0@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 34154 On 27 Jan 2002 at 16:51, Tabouli wrote: > > I.R.R.I.T.A.N.T. (Indiscreet Rubeus Represents Irresponsibility, Teacherly > Abandon and Needless Tippling)? That reminds me ... F.I.D.E.L.I.U.S Fleur Is Definitely Enchanting Laddies, If Unflatteringly Snooty > > How'd they go with the Sorting Hat and Hogwarts school songs? Rhyming poetry is > another challenge for the translator. Some parallel translation sites for HP that I have run across are: http://www.cjvlang.com/Hpotter/index.html (Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese) http://www.eulenfeder.de/int/gbint.html (a number of European languages) -- 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 john at walton.vu Sun Jan 27 14:40:45 2002 From: john at walton.vu (John Walton) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 14:40:45 +0000 Subject: ADMIN: Remember -- Weekly Chat Today (Sunday) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34155 Dear HPFGUers, Every week, we have a chat in a Yahoo Chat Room (HP:1) which usually starts between 3 and 4 pm US Eastern Time and ends at 7, 8, 9 or even later! (UK time: add five hours. US Pacific Time: subtract three hours) The subject is usually off-topic -- and occasionally lewd, so squeamish, beware -- To get there: Go to any Yahoo Chat Room, e.g. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/chat Type "/join hp:1" (without the " marks) If there's nobody around, you're probably early ;) Alternatively, you can use the program CheetaChat (for PCs) and miChat (for Macs). Consult www.versiontracker.com for the latest upgrades to these, as old versions (particularly old miChat versions) may not work. Generally, all you will need is your Yahoo ID, password and the room name (HP:1). If you have problems with setting these programs up, please contact the Mods at HPforGrownups-Owner at yahoogroups.com. We look forward to seeing you there! --John, for the Magical Moderator Team ____________________________________________ *"Quidditch Through The Ages" by Kennilworthy Whisp: 14 Sickles 3 Knuts *New Firebolt Broom: just over 100 Galleons *Watching Draco Malfoy being bounced up and down after being turned into a ferret: Priceless The best things in life are free. For everything else, there's Harry Potter. John Walton -- john at walton.vu ____________________________________________ From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Sun Jan 27 13:59:30 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 13:59:30 -0000 Subject: Hagrid, Moody and Violent Responses In-Reply-To: <3C5331B0.5089.F49CFC@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34156 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Fiat Incantatum" wrote: > On 27 Jan 2002 at 3:08, marinafrants wrote: > > I don't have my copy of GoF handy for checking (I lent it to my > > mom), but I distinctly remember having the impression that it was > > the bouncing that bothered her. I could've been a combination of > > both things, though. > > Hmm, I just reread that page ... it may be *implied*, but it definitely isn't > said. The only thing she protests about is the transfiguration itself, saying > that they don't use transfiguration as a punishment, they give detentions > instead. I really don't get the idea that the bouncing is the issue. At > least, if it *was* the issue, it seems to be something that needs to be read > in, rather than being specifically stated. It would make sense, but I still > get the idea that it's the transfiguration magic that disturbed McGonagall You're right, she only explicitly objects to the transfiguration. Thanks for the quote (I really need to get the book back so I can look this stuff up myself). Still, I can't help but feel that if Moody had turned Draco into a ferret and then cuddled him and gave him some tasty ferret treats, there would've been a lot less outcry from McGonnagal (and none at all from us). Note that your quote does establish that critter-bouncing is not considered appropriate punishment at Hogwarts, and that Dumbledore had pointed this out to Moody. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From hollydaze at btinternet.com Sun Jan 27 16:00:20 2002 From: hollydaze at btinternet.com (Hollydaze) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 16:00:20 -0000 Subject: GF Course schedule References: Message-ID: <001d01c1a74b$d2773ca0$9a00073e@j0dhe> No: HPFGUIDX 34157 >>Monday Herbology (chapter 20) break Care of Magical Creatures (26) lunch Divination (length of class unknown) (29) Tuesday Herbology (13) break Care of Magical Creatures (13) lunch Double Divination (13)<< OK I have compared this with what I have written down and although I agree with your Wednesday - Friday, I have a problem with Monday and Tuesday You have mentioned the chapter numbers (references) that "prove" where each lesson is after each lesson. When I wrote down my lessons to work out the timetable, I wrote down what you have from chapter 13 without giving it a specific day as no specific day is mentioned other than that it is their first day back at school (properly i.e. with lessons). I did not presume they had come to school on Monday as they arrive at school on September the 1st and the day that September the 1st falls on changes every year, so I left the date clear until I had found confirmation of what that day was. So had written down: "Herbology (13) Break Care of Magical Creatures (13) lunch Double Divination (13)" Without mentioning a day! When I reached other references that mentioned these lessons in that SEPCIFIC order, I then took that as a confirmation of exactly what day they were on. This way I ended up with: Herbology (13) break Care of Magical Creatures (13) lunch Double Divination (13) All confirmed in later chapters where these lessons always happen in this order on a MONDAY (this happens in about 3 of them that cover this day again and again, it is never mentioned that they have this lessons SPECIFICALLY on a Tuesday, chapter 13 only mentions them as on their first day back at school and "the following morning"). This is also backed up by the fact that History of Magic is their first lesson on a Tuesday (see Pg 304 UK, chapter "The First Task") not Herbology. Therefore they do not have the same sets of lessons on a Tuesday as they do on a Monday. I also find it highly unlikely that they would have the same set of lessons in the same order two days running, the same lessons is plausible but not in the same order. >>Wednesday Charms in a.m.; unknown whether first block, second block, or both (22) lunch Potions in p.m.; unknown whether first block, second block, or both (14) Thursday Transfiguration in a.m.; unknown whether first block, second block, or both (22) lunch Double Defence Against the Dark Arts (13, 29) Friday History of Magic (29) Charms (18) lunch Double Potions << This I agree with completely, even down to the not knowing EXACTLY where the Trans' and Charms lessons are. HOLLYDAZE!!! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From catlady at wicca.net Sun Jan 27 16:04:21 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 16:04:21 -0000 Subject: Translation / Lord Darcy / Wizard Lifespan / Harry's Blood Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34158 Alexander wrote: > Harry associates with chess at best (Harry Kasparov being world > chess champion). Ouch! I knew that there is this THING about H and G in Russian (which John has explained phonetically) but it never before occured to me that you wouldn't notice that Harry (as in Potter, or Truman) is a different name than Gary (as in Kasparov). Gary is quite a common given name in US, as far as I know not derived from Russian but from a nickname of Gareth, one of the Knights of King Arthur's Round Table. (Speaking of which, what's your nickname? Alex, Lexie, Sandy, Sasha?) Drieux wrote: > but the magic system posited requires that any strong 'good' > magician be at least a communicant of the Roman church. Correction: the Lord Darcy universe is as remarkable for [monotheistic] religions [I can't recall mention of any other kind] not beating up on each other as for [monotheistic] religions being perfectly aligned with Goodness. There are Roman monks, priests, and bishops at the wizards' convention, but also rabbis and imams. Tabouli wrote: > At what point do wizards start ageing slower than Muggles? They're > considered of age at 17, and from available evidence, are known to > marry and have kids in their late teens and early twenties, at > least in the late seventies. By British Muggle standards in the > same era, (was it the 1970s when the age of legal adulthood was > reduced from 21 to 18?) I'd say these ages are both a bit on the > young side I can't make it work that wizards at first mature faster than Muggles, so I would guess that the ages of majority is just an example of arbitrariness and the wizarding love of prime number. >From what we have seen in canon, it seems to me that they age at much the same rate as Muggles (a *little* slower from 11 to 17, with a sudden catch-up on 17th birthday?) until age 20 or 21 --- 20 is easier to calculate with, but 21 is a magic number. Or maybe age 19 because it's a prime. And then age at one half the rate of Muggles. Like this: Dumble is 150. 150 - 20 = 130 130 / 2 = 65 65 + 20 = 85 It seems plausible to me that an 85 year old Muggle could have a long white beard and be starting too look tired. McGonagall is 70. 70 - 20 = 50 50 / 2 = 25 25 + 20 = 45 Sure, a 45 year old Muggle's hair could still be black: I'm 44 and have only a few gray hairs that show. JKR's own drawing of McGonagall (in Photos section of this group, with Dumbledore and Hagrid leaving baby Harry on the doorstep) looks *intensely* younger than Maggie Smith. > Another thought - if wizards marry at 20, they might have 130 years > or more of married life to live! Phew! Makes you think, eh? Maybe that is why the spouses of married teachers live elsewhere: maybe Mesdames Sprout and Pomfrey took those live-in jobs on purpose to get away from boring husbands. Caesar wrote: > the curse V cast upon HP gave HP some of Voldemort's powers(only > notable one so far is Parseltoungue) (snip) so we assume LV must > get some new powers- the first and most obvious being the ability > to harm harry. the second- ok, well, maybe LV could be a good > Seeker. Consider the possibility that Harry got his remarkable ability to fly without being taught how and to Seek better than his competitors FROM V along with the Parseltongue. Think how awful Harry would feel if he discovered that what he believes to be his one talent not only isn't even his, but came from his enemy. From lav at tut.by Sun Jan 27 15:46:41 2002 From: lav at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 17:46:41 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Translation and Cultural Issues In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8116067263.20020127174641@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 34159 Greetings! p> IIRC, the astronomical term "black hole", if translated literally into p> Russian, becomes a very vulgar term for the referenced body p> part It doesn't, it just sounds weird. But now I understand that joke at last... :) p> Pippin p> always happy to field weird ideas for the community HEY! Competitors!!! :) Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, (Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed), always happy to throw weird ideas into the community. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Jan 27 19:01:21 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 19:01:21 -0000 Subject: Translation / Lord Darcy / Wizard Lifespan / Harry's Blood In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34160 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "catlady_de_los_angeles" wrote: > Consider the possibility that Harry got his remarkable ability to fly without being taught how and to Seek better than his competitors FROM V along with the Parseltongue. Think how awful Harry would feel if he discovered that what he believes to be his one talent not only isn't even his, but came from his enemy. Horrid thought! I've had it too, but consoled myself that if T.R.'s name was on a Quidditch trophy, the trio would have noticed it when they were checking up on his history. Pippin From frodoyoda at aol.com Sun Jan 27 19:53:39 2002 From: frodoyoda at aol.com (frodoyoda_2000) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 19:53:39 -0000 Subject: Translation / Lord Darcy / Wizard Lifespan / Harry's Blood In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34161 >> wrote: >> >> > Consider the possibility that Harry got his remarkable ability >>to >> fly without being taught how and to Seek better than his >> competitors FROM V along with the Parseltongue. Think how >> awful Harry would feel if he discovered that what he believes to >> be his one talent not only isn't even his, but came from his >> enemy. > > Horrid thought! I've had it too, but consoled myself that if T.R.'s > name was on a Quidditch trophy, the trio would have noticed it > when they were checking up on his history. > > Pippin Also, the diary-T.R. from CS would likely have listed their shared ability when he told Harry about all their other similarities. We can probably assume he knew of Harry's skill because it would have been one of the things Ginny wrote to him about. Molly From midgiecat at aol.com Sun Jan 27 20:29:56 2002 From: midgiecat at aol.com (midgiecat at aol.com) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 15:29:56 EST Subject: Cutting Characters Slack / Ludo Message-ID: <70.16cdfee8.2985bd44@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 34162 A lurking newbie, only second time responding. With reference to Cindysphinx thoughts: On cutting characters some slack: I have to check my book to see, but what if Lupin was "away" during the times when Sirius got into the castle as an animagus. He also might not believe that it was Sirius at all. There were some who thought it might be Voldy. On Bagman: I think that he was highly nervous and easily frightened because of his indebtedness to those horrible goblins. The fact that the Weasleys were in the top box with him is certainly because that is where all the peoplewho were guests of members of the MOM were assembled. You will recall that the Malfoy's were guests (of who, I don't recall) as well as the Ambassador from Bulgaria, an honored guest. I don't believe he'll be found to be a DE. He's also too proud of his former greatness as a quidditch star to destroy his rep. A bit too much ego for my taste, there. Brenda W. (still trying on suitable nom de plume's) From lav at tut.by Sun Jan 27 21:15:49 2002 From: lav at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 23:15:49 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Bagman is a DE? - Voldie with HP Blood In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8318847511.20020127231549@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 34163 Greetings! --- Cindy wrote: ------------------------------------------- c> Bagman is, IMHO, as guilty as sin and is a big bad old c> evil DE, and he apparated to the graveyard that night c> when the Dark Mark burned on his arm. I just can't prove c> it yet. Personally I find it unlikely. After all he was not accused of being a DE, but only of passing important intel to one of DE's. Did he know who is getting that intel is another matter. Bot even more important, Bagman's actions (not behavior, it's simulated too easily) don't give a hint that he might be one of those hideous evil guys in masks. --- Vin wrote: --------------------------------------------- c> Could it also be that when V took Harry's blood, that c> some of harry's personailty was transferred to LV?... c> ...i think that this si the most likely outcome, and that c> is why DD 'glinted'- he knew LV would be less evil, and c> therefore easier to attack. of course, i could be c> wrong... I have my own idea here - maybe Voldemort will become less cunning and more relying on luck and his supporters, just like Harry? And Voldie's supporters are not the ones to be relied upon... (chuckling evilly). Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, (Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed), always happy to throw weird ideas into the community. - Are you still trying to choose between the Light and the Darkness? - Yes... - It's not worth the effort. Don't compare the truths that stand behind the people - compare people instead. - Why? - Because it's not faith that makes us, but it's we who make the faith. Fight for those you love. And if you happen to be on the side of Light - let the Light be proud of it... Sergey Lukyanenko, "The Boy and the Darkness". From finwitch at yahoo.com Sun Jan 27 22:38:59 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 22:38:59 -0000 Subject: Wizard Lifespan Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34164 Well - a wizard's lifespan is magically altered, a magic that's unaware, wandless magic. As magic goes, it has more to do with what the wizard wants, rather than with maths. A child wants to grow up - but once an adult, aging doesn't have many benefits... (physical age). So um- while aging/growing has benefits, a child grows and learns slightly faster with the help of magic (but, since their powers aren't that great yet, not by much - ending to adulthood at 17). Adults, around certain age, don't wish to age physically - and as their powers are greater, they're able to slow physical aging for longer. So - Molly is fertile still at 60-70 etc.. From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Jan 28 00:26:45 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 00:26:45 -0000 Subject: Fictional vs factual people, translation and cultural issues In-Reply-To: <001a01c1a617$6c9be820$4b27ddcb@price> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34165 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Tabouli" wrote: > Gwen (on why smart Hermione could easily make bad relationship decisions): > > I have seen intelligent, attractive, powerful women sublimate themselves for > a petty, immature, jealous guy more times than I can count.< > > Absolutely. I've said it before, but I'll say it again: I've *never* understood why some people imagine that academic intelligence is insurance against choosing a disastrous romantic partner. The former is of the intellectual, rational domain, and the latter of the emotional, irrational domain, and to a large degree these operate independently of each other! It is entirely possible and even *common* for an intelligent woman to fall for and cling to someone disastrous... (one of the reasons I never have any trouble finding Scarlett's behaviour in Gone With The Wind entirely plausible and understandable). Agreed. And, I just loved Gone With The Wind - one of the books that make me cry... > jchutney: > > This reminds me of Henry James' famous edict about the relationship of > plot to character (they are the same thing). Minerva and Dumbledore > are great but if everyone were like them, we'd have no story! LOL! > It seems to me that the "whiter" or "blacker" a character the less > interesting. It's the "grey" like Sirius and Snape that provoke > discussion (so, is he good OR bad?) and of course, "greys" keep > readers guessing. We have no idea what Snape will do next. The one > time we all went crazy for Dumbledore was in analyzing his "grey" > moment (gleam of triumph). Could Dumbledore actually be NOT all > good? Stop the presses!< > > Hear hear. This is the main reason why I separate "what I like in a character" and "what I like in a person"... I can't *stand* terminally nice pure noble upstanding brave flawless Good Guys in fiction. So boring. So predictable. So unrealistic. Give me some interesting flaws and weaknesses any day. (Of course, in real life terms, the terminally nice are a rare and cherished breed - and make impeccable friends, excellent employees and parents, etc.) Let Dumbledore have his vanity and his quirky sense of humour, I say. No Potterverse Aslan-equivalent for me. And there's nothing like a good villain in fiction (sadly, Voldemort is cutting it less and less for me). Bring on the deliciously scheming nastiness... Quite. A character simply MUST have faults to be a character instead of a stereotype. To be a living person. > Alexander: > > It has occurred to me today, when I finally finished an > English translation of my favourite Russian sci-fi book, > just how _different_ translation is from the original.< > > Ahaaaa! Thanks Alexander, this reminds me of a musing I've long intended to raise on this list... those of you who've read HP in other languages, what are the translations like? I find them quite good in Finnish. The translator changed few names. Like Quidditch is huispaus - where I associate that huispaus both with speed and with broomsticks. And, in this case, a Finnish term was necessary because of linguistic structure. A name Snape turned into Kalkaros (immediate association with rattle snake), plus, it half-rhymes with Severus (left as it was...) to replace the SS connection. And, Sn - beginning just doesnt fit with the language. McGonagall turned into McGarmiva (Karmiva is finnish word descrabing something that's scary, but you can still control that fear...) Sirius Black is Sirius Musta (Musta means black in Finnish) - and, again linguistics needs it. Diagon Alley - Viistokuja (goes quite with the meaning) Galleon - Kaljuuna (I imagine it sounds near - Kaljuuna is a big ship) Sickle - Sirppi (meaning translated) Knut- Sulmu (To associate Knot-Solmu) Hogwarts - Tylypahka Hogsmeade - Tylyaho Some sort of meaning-translation. Houses also translated: Gryffindor - Rohkelikko (derivative from 'rohkea' meaning brave) Hufflepuff - Puuskupuh (refers to the sound of hard, sweaty worker twice, and gets the half-begin-rhyme, too) Ravenclaw - Korpinkynsi (literal translation) Slytherin - Luihuinen (It means kind of sly - a person not to be trusted with a diminutive ending, making it sound like a surname) Broom-names translated like Firebolt: Tulisalama Some names, like Albus Dumbledore, Rubeus Hagrid and Remus Lupin aren't touched. And I love the sound of Dumbledore! It sounds almost like Dumle for the first part (a kind of candy and we all know how much the old man likes candy - even has them for passwords!) Also - prefect is valvojaoppilas (would explain it's meaning) - and, Percy's sweater had the letter V - not P (and his name was Percy all along - none of the Weasley names are translated)... Some like Weasleyn Welho Witsit I think it's even better than the original... Witsit 'jokes', in oldish style V - instead of 'Wheezers'... Still keeping WWW (wonder if Rowling thinks internet as a big joke?) From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Jan 28 00:46:17 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 00:46:17 -0000 Subject: Hagrid, Moody and Violent Responses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34166 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" wrote: > > You're right, she only explicitly objects to the transfiguration. Well - She is the transfiguration teacher. This 'penalty' has to do with HER subject of teaching! It could have been partly that. Also - being transformed might hurt almost as much as Cruciatus! Just think - it hurts to break a bone - having EVERY CELL IN YOUR BODY to alter at the same time and stay in altered form - it must hurt - and hurt worse than switching or bouncing. And I'm not so sure that McGonagall would object that much to switching Draco Malfoy as punishment... It might also be that only few people know the reversion spell (McGonagall, Sirius and Lupin do(they've done so), as did James Potter - Rita Skeeter (animaguses), Dumbledore(who knows nearly everything), possibly Crouch Jr. (who turned Malfoy - I think he knows counterspell)and Moody(paranoid Auror would learn any counter- spell he can)) From lav at tut.by Sun Jan 27 21:26:29 2002 From: lav at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 23:26:29 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Translation and Cultural Issues (long) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <14019488209.20020127232629@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 34167 Greetings! Answering all current messages along the "Translation" subject. --- John Walton wrote: ------------------------------------- JW> None taken from this transAtlantic person, who took one JW> year of Russian at university but got put off by the JW> literary requirements after reading Anna Karenina. JW> (Aside: there is no coincidence that this novel has the JW> initials AK. Plot summary: Tolstoy whinges about the JW> city/European influence and praises the country/Russia. JW> Some woman throws herself under a train, too.) [OT] What? You didn't like "Anna Karenina"? Russian analog of the "Pride and Prejudice" so popular within this group? (Personally I HATE P&P, not because I don't like the movie in general, but because my mother is upgrading her English, she bought untranslated P&P and is watching it EVERY DAY!). JW> My own (ghastly) attempts at Russian below come with JW> similar disclaimers to Alexander's... JW> Okay. [Warning for the squeamish: skip this paragraph.] JW> For this joke to work you have to understand that the JW> anus is part of the bottom/butt/bum/arse. "Uranus" is JW> pronounced very similarly to "Your anus". So, "can I see JW> Uranus, Lavender?" is *very* much a schoolboy joke. Ah, thanks... JW> What I mean to say is that TRR can personally compare JW> Wizarding justice with a much more draconian system than JW> can the Typical Western Reader (TWR). That's my point exactly, though basing on recent events I'm starting having doubts that Russian judicial system is more severe than, say, US one... :) JW> Alexander, would the TRR find names like Harry, JW> Hermione, Ron, Neville, etc. more unusual than the TWR? JW> I'm thinking particularly because of the restrictive JW> Soviet "advice" on child-naming discouraging names with JW> religious connotations in favor of names like Nadezhda JW> (Hope), Tatiana (forgotten the JW> translation...?strength?), Ivan (reason above), Viktor JW> (Victor), etc. I'm sure you can give us more examples of JW> these. Harry, Ron and Neville sound strictly English. Hermione is as weird-sounding for Russian as it's for Western. About Russian names: there's classic trio (Vera, Nadezhda, Lubov'), which translate into (Faith, Hope, Love). All three are female names. Tatiana and Viktor have no meaning in Russian, both names have greek origins. JW> I remember, back when I was doing Russian, how amused I JW> was at the Russian "translations" -- more like JW> "transliterations" -- of character names from the JW> official translation. Cross-cultural barrier is too strong between Russia and England. To translate _names_ one has to translate the whole book as if it took place in Russia and with primary heroes being Russians. If you only translate the names you'll get a very weird (and unbelievable) England populated by Ivans and Igors... Unfortunately, translators capable of such a job usually write their own books. In the whole history of Russian translations there were only few such works: Carrol's "Alice in Wonderland" (translation took less than 100 years in total... ;) "Wizard of Oz" (became "Wizard of Emerald City"); "Pinoccio" (became "Buratino"); Yep, that's all, though IMHO there was one more book... You've got my point. JW> Harry Potter -- Gerry Potter JW> Ron Weasley -- Ron Visli (pron. vee-zlee not vih-slih) Not quite correct here. Not [Gerry] but [Garry], and Visli is pronounced as [Visli] (if there was "z" I would write it that way - in Russian "s" is not converted into "z" under any circumstances). JW> i.e. the official translater did not look for the JW> Russian version of "weasel" and play with that. There would be a BIG ambiguity involved. Weasel, being translated as "laska" into Russian, means both an animal and "caress"/"petting", latter being much more obvious... I'm not sure JKR meant it _that_ way! :) JW> --John, Myezhdunarodny Chelovyek [of Mystery...help, JW> Alexander, I've forgotten how to say "of mystery"...] Mezhdunarodniy Tainstvenniy Chelovek? Mezhdunarodniy Chelovek Tayn? --- Tabouli wrote: ----------------------------------------- T> How'd they go with the Sorting Hat and Hogwarts school T> songs? Rhyming poetry is another challenge for the T> translator. Of course they wrote their own poetry along the same lines - it's standard translation method. Very rarely (and only in extremely elite translations) they also include original poem in the footnote (HP series have none, pity). T> Couldn't the Russian translator have asked JKR which of T> the sound and meaning of "Weasley" was the more T> important? Look above. Personally I don't think "weasel" allegory is that important (unless we learn that some of them is animagi turning into a weasel, of course :). --- Cat Lady wrote: ---------------------------------------- CL> Ouch! I knew that there is this THING about H and G in CL> Russian (which John has explained phonetically) but it CL> never before occured to me that you wouldn't notice that CL> Harry (as in Potter, or Truman) is a different name than CL> Gary (as in Kasparov). Both are identical in Russian. :) CL> Gary is quite a common given name in US, as far as I CL> know not derived from Russian but from a nickname of CL> Gareth, one of the Knights of King Arthur's Round Table. This confusion comes from the fact that Kasparov's name is an English-like (it was a fashion several decades ago to give children Western names). How it translates into English is entirely different story (until I changed my passport, my name was officially translated into English as "Aliaksandr") [horrified look on the face]. Hope you've got my point? CL> (Speaking of which, what's your nickname? Alex, Lexie, CL> Sandy, Sasha?) Sasha, or Alex for you westerners (in Russian Alex is short version of Alexey, not Alexander). :) For those who are really interested... Alexander, Sasha, Shurick, Shura, Sashka, Sashok, Sashik, Shurka are what come to mind immediately. And mind it that my name is not the most "modifiable"... ;) Of these, only Sasha and Shura can be used by those not close friends or relatives without causing embarassment. 8) Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, (Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed), always happy to steal weird ideas from the community. Save hedgehogs! Drive off-road! Greenpeace. From mjollner at yahoo.com Sun Jan 27 23:10:34 2002 From: mjollner at yahoo.com (mjollner) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 23:10:34 -0000 Subject: James, Peter, Dumbledore, Secret-Keeper In-Reply-To: <20020127003305.23208.qmail@web14001.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34168 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Mary Shearer wrote: Mary wrote in response to Katze: > In SS/PS, Dumbledore gives Harry his cloak along with > a note stating that "Your father left this in my > possession before he died. It is time it was returned > to you. Use it well." Is it possible that James left > it with Dumbledore not only because his life was in > danger, but because he needed to keep it from those > who knew of its existence? In PoA, both Sirius and > Lupin admit that each thought the other was the spy. > Sirius talks James into switching the identity of the > secret keeper, probably telling James that he believes > Lupin to be the spy. Yet James leaves everything, > including provisions for Harry's care, with D, even > though that role had already been given to Sirius. If > James already suspected Pettigrew, and Serius has > raised doubts about Lupin, sadly, this points to the > possibility that James and Lily suspected Sirius as > well. They cannot trust any of their closest friends, > and are now utterly alone. Wow - dark days for the > Potters! [Mod Note: Quoted material snipped.] Ooh, Mary, you gave me goosebumps! And I think that your interpretation of events is spot on...I can see James starting to be uncertain of Sirius - if the latter was so insistent on James' changing the Secret Keeper to Pettigrew, James might well have wondered why Sirius didn't think he was trustworthy. Add that to Sirius' and Remus' possible suspicions of one another, and I can see why James would start handing over treasured possessions to Dumbledore for safekeeping. It makes me wonder what made James suffer more: being killed by Voldemort or not knowing who his friends really were. Mjollner From andrew_macian at yahoo.com Mon Jan 28 02:12:49 2002 From: andrew_macian at yahoo.com (Andrew MacIan) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 18:12:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hagrid, Moody and Violent Responses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020128021249.74360.qmail@web9505.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 34169 Greetings from Andrew! --- finwitch wrote: {snip} > > Also - being transformed might hurt almost as much > as Cruciatus! Just > think - it hurts to break a bone - having EVERY CELL > IN YOUR BODY to > alter at the same time and stay in altered form - it > must hurt - and > hurt worse than switching or bouncing. {snip} And yet...from CoS, the transformation/transfiguration due to the Polyjuice is painless. I suppose that an argument about relative timescales could be made, but I don't see 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!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com From cindysphynx at home.com Mon Jan 28 02:30:59 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 02:30:59 -0000 Subject: Ludo Bagman Is Ever So Evil (WAS Cutting Characters Slack / Ludo) In-Reply-To: <70.16cdfee8.2985bd44@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34170 Brenda W. wrote: > On Bagman: I don't believe he'll be found > to be a DE. He's also too proud of his former greatness as a quidditch star > to destroy his rep. Alexander added: > Personally I find it unlikely. After all he was not > accused of being a DE, but only of passing important intel > to one of DE's. Did he know who is getting that intel is > another matter. > Bot even more important, Bagman's actions (not behavior, > it's simulated too easily) don't give a hint that he might > be one of those hideous evil guys in masks. Oh, I was really going to sit this Bagman discussion out, but Alexander provoked me with his comment that there's no hint that Bagman is a DE. :-) So here we go again! As I said before, I'm convinced that Bagman will turn out to be an evil DE after all. Caroline is on board, ::waves to Caroline:: but maybe a few others can be persuaded to see Bagman as the Longstanding Devoted Servant of the Dark Lord that he really is. We can start with the really obvious evidence, and then move to the more subtle points. First, Bagman may have been among the DEs in the graveyard. He was present at the start of the third task, but not when Harry returned. Second, he doesn't search for Bertha Jorkins -- possibly because he knew she was dead. If he knows she is dead, then why not search anyway just to avoid looking suspicious? Because Wormtail kidnapped Bertha, and instigating an investigation might uncover a witness who saw something. Third, Rita Skeeter and Winky both think Bagman is bad news, and both have access to inside information on the issue. Rita covered the trial, and Winky was privy to the doings at Crouch's home. Crouch Sr., who is devoted to catching dark wizards, also delivers a rather chilling line: "The day Ludo Bagman joins us will be a sad day indeed for the Ministry . . ." I know what you're thinking -- it's all misdirection to make us suspect Bagman instead of Crouch/Moody. But consider the following less obvious clues that don't fit the misdirection JKR set up: First, there is the Goblet of Fire scene. Bagman was not sufficiently concerned when Harry's name came out of the goblet. If he's the head of magical games, you'd think he would be frantic, shell-shocked, or speechless that things were so very messed up. Instead, he is depicted as being delighted: "smiling" at Harry, "beaming" as though the matter were now closed, looking "rather excited." None of this can be explained by Bagman's alleged gambling motive for helping Harry -- at this point, he had not placed a bet on Harry. No, it is more likely that Bagman is thrilled because the first phase of the plan to restore Voldemort worked perfectly. Second, at Hogsmead, Bagman asks Harry to keep quiet about Crouch's illness. Why would Bagman care? Crouch Sr. is not in Bagman's department. There's no reason for Bagman's concern unless Bagman knows Crouch Sr. has been overpowered. Third, early in GoF, JKR spends time establishing that Bagman, this minor character, can apparate. He apparates in "Bagman and Crouch" and again in the "Dark Mark" chapter when he comes across the trio in the woods. The book is really long; why use any space to discuss a minor character who apparates other than to establish a foundation that Bagman left the Hogwarts grounds and then apparated to the graveyard? Fourth, there's no reason to believe Fred and George's explanation for Bagman's absence after the third task. They state (Ch. 37) that Bagman had a bet on Harry, and Bagman ran from the goblins. The twins imply that they learn this from Lee Jordan's dad, to whom Bagman also owes money. This doesn't add up. How would Fred and George know Bagman bet on Harry? Well, Bagman could have told them or told Lee Jordan's dad. But why would Bagman do that? He was always careful to conceal his efforts to help Harry (lowering his voice to a whisper, etc). And it isn't logical that the Head of Magical Games, who is also a judge, would up and tell the twins (or anyone else) that he is not impartial. Nobody is that dumb, not even Bagman. This suggests that Fred and George have simply guessed (or heard) incorrectly -- Bagman really helped Harry for the same reason Crouch/Moody did. But let's say the twins heard this information some other way, and Bagman really did bet on Harry. The second problem is the twins say the goblins play dirty and considered the result of the tournament a tie and refused to pay Bagman, so that's why he fled. (They offer no explanation for how they know this.) But Bagman couldn't possibly know who won or how the goblins would view things when he fled, which was during or right after the third task. Fred and George's statements are supposition -- it is more plausible that Bagman left when he did to apparate to the graveyard. Next, when Harry has a dream, it usually means something important. Harry had a dream (beginning of Ch. 9) in which Bagman appears and delivers the following line: "I give you . . . Potter!" Why is this little dream in the book if not to show that Bagman worked with Crouch/Moody to give Potter to Voldemort. Finally, the reason Bagman bet his few remaining galleons on Harry is because he knew of the plot for Harry to win and Crouch/Moody's efforts. It was a "sure thing." Otherwise, with so much at stake, why on earth would Bagman bet on the one underage and undereducated contestant when it was so important that Bagman be correct? In fact, there's a chance that Bagman is the means of communication between Voldemort and Crouch/Moody. That would explain why he's in Hogsmeade when there's no judging, and it would help Crouch/Moody learn of details about the Tournament without pestering Dumbledore and arousing suspicion. ::insert scary music here:: Now, if Bagman is in fact a DE, things are going to get interesting in OoP in a hurry. Let's say something unfortunate happens to Fudge, like he is assassinated. MoM would have to select a new Minister of Magic. Bagman is a celebrity and (assuming he gets his goblin problem sorted out) high up in the Ministry. Crouch Sr. is dead; Percy Weasley has no hope of being selected to run MoM. Diggory heads Magical Creatures, and Arthur Weasley heads Muggle Artifacts; neither appears to be on the fast track to the top job. Bagman would get the top job on the strength of his celebrity, which would leave Voldemort with a closeted DE running MoM. Bwahahahaha! Cindy From theennead at attbi.com Sun Jan 27 00:04:39 2002 From: theennead at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 00:04:39 -0000 Subject: Hagrid, Moody and Violent Responses (WAS What Does It Mean To "Like" ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34171 Cindy wrote: > Am I forgiving Moody just because I like him? Uh, this is the part > where I'm supposed to come up with all kinds of impressive reasons > why Moody can be forgiven a violent response, but Hagrid cannot. No, no, Cindy! *This* is the part where you're supposed to smile sheepishly and say: "Well...yeah, okay. I guess I *am* just forgiving Moody because I like him." But since you refused to cooperate with my cunning plan... > I also think that Moody had authority over Draco that Hagrid does > not have over Karkaroff. A teacher who disciplines a student and > acts to protect another student from the offending student is > entitled to some leeway. I tend to agree with Marina on this one: the degree of authority that Crouch/Moody already held over Draco in that scene was a large part of what made it seem so horrific to me. But I can see your point, and I recognize that my own emotional response to the scene was probably informed in large part by both my own personal neuroses (I confess to a somewhat instinctive mistrust of authority in general) and by my own cultural assumptions. My own parents never used corporal punishment, and I've never attended a school that even *permitted* the use of corporal punishment, so I'm culturally conditioned to read an adult's use of physical means to reprimand a child as "assault," rather than as "discipline." It's quite likely that had I grown up someplace where corporal punishment was more commonly used (is it still used in British schools?), then I wouldn't have reacted to the scene in the same way at all. > Also, by the time Karkaroff is slammed into the tree and Draco is > bounced, we have very different amounts of information about these > two antagonists. First, Karkaroff at this point isn't really an > antagonist. Karkaroff's only crime up to that point was showing up > wearing fur. :-) Heh. Well, fur-wearing aside, there's also Sirius' claim that he (a) used to be a Death Eater, and (b) ratted out a whole bunch of his old DE buddies to the ministry. IIRC, Sirius tells Harry about all of that in the head-in-the-fireplace scene, which comes long before Hagrid smashes the poor guy up against the tree. So while Karkaroff may not be an antagonist per se, he's certainly someone the reader has cause to mistrust and suspect at the time of the attack. Also, he's been oleaginous and smarmy and unpleasant since the moment he first arrived. Not, of course, that any of that justifies *assault.* And also you're quite right: Draco does have three whole books of unpleasantness stacked against him, while Karkaroff only has a few hundred pages. And firing off a curse at someone's back is a rather more serious offense than spitting at someone's feet. So okay. > To be fair, though, I suppose Moody could have just transfigured > Draco without bouncing him in the air. Yeah, OK, that part wasn't > justified. But it was very, very funny. See, I did recognize that it was *supposed* to be funny. But I just found it horrifying, myself. Something about the way the ferret was described as lashing and squealing, perhaps. Or perhaps I just found myself imagining all-too-vividly what it might feel like to get bounced around like that. I've taken a lot of flack for refering to the ferret-bouncing as "torture" -- and I concede that my use of the word was probably unwarranted -- but that really was how it came across to me when I first read that scene: as not only violent, but as extremely brutal and cruel. I *winced* when I read that scene; I was profoundly relieved when McGonagall came by to intervene; and I felt genuinely uncomfortable whenever one of our protagonists gloated over Draco about it. Maybe I'm just overly sensitive. Or maybe I just readily identify with muscalids. I dunno. > While we are on the subject of violent responses, there is another > scene that really bothered me. I didn't like it all in CoS when > Arthur Weasley and Lucius Malfoy fought each other with fists. See, here's another place where mileages vary. I found that scene absolutely hilarious. I don't know, something about the image of mild-mannered government official Arthur Weasley and haughty blue-blooded aristocrat Lucius Malfoy actually engaging in *fisticuffs!* And in a public place, no less! It was just so utterly incongruous, and so profoundly undignified, that it struck me as funny. I feel certain that both men were absolutely mortified over it later. Especially Lucius Malfoy. Which is, of course, largely why I found it so funny. I mean, you're Lucius Malfoy, right? And this...this *clerk* suddenly attacks you in a bookstore. Not even honorably, like a proper wizard, with a wand. No. No, he attacks you with his *fists.* What in God's name are you supposed to do about this? In a Right and Proper Universe, of course, your servants would just take the miserable little serf aside and give him a good thrashing, but alas, things don't work that way anymore, and besides, your servants aren't there. So what are you supposed to do? Let yourself get pummelled? Not good. Call the authorities? Lord no, you'd look like the worst sort of weakling if you did that! Descend to his level and hit back? Probably the best of a host of bad options, but still utterly *degrading.* There was just no way for Lucius to emerge from that situation with his dignity intact, and I guess maybe I am mean-spirited enough to have got a bit of a chuckle out of that fact. > Aside from the fact that it didn't seem believable that two wizards > would use their fists to fight instead of wands, I wasn't plesed > that Arthur would lunge at Lucius over a petty insult. I'm under the impression that drawing wands is *serious* for adult wizards, the equivalent of drawing weapons. Had they gone for their, wands, then their altercation would have been a *duel,* rather than merely an exchange of blows. And that wouldn't have been funny to me at all. That would have been extremely scary and disturbing. But I do know what you mean about Arthur. I was rather disappointed in him as well. I assumed that it was old school boy habits taking over: I'm firmly in the camp that believes that Arthur and Lucius were contemporaries at Hogwarts. > I guess that reaction makes me a pacifist, unless of course 14 year > old boys are being attacked by fully grown men. :-) Well, that's *different.* 14 year old boys deserve what's coming to them. > I think I will have to adopt a new rule for myself that each > beloved character is allowed one hideous mistake, and after that, I > will cross them off my list. Lupin and Black have used their > quota. Snape probably has used his quota. Probably? The man was a _Death Eater,_ Cindy. I think he ran out his quota a long, long time ago. Besides, he picks on Trevor. And while picking on Neville might be excusable, picking on his poor long-suffering toad is utterly unforgivable. -- Elkins (who wonders why she always seems to be handing Cindy reasons to hate Snape) From racjom at yahoo.co.uk Mon Jan 28 03:23:02 2002 From: racjom at yahoo.co.uk (racjom) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 03:23:02 -0000 Subject: Translation and Cultural Issues Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34172 delurks I'm from Slovenia and I must say that I'm quite happy with our translation. It does have certain little problems and there are some differences and of course the original is better, but I like it anyway. The thing that bothered me in the Slovenian HP translation is that the names of spells, curses in the original all seem to come from Latin and sometimes some English additions. A good translated one IMO is Expeliarmus! = Zroxis! (z = short for ''out of'', roka = a hand, and a latin or foreign sound is added with the suffix ?is and with the letter x, which doesn't exist in Slovene alphabet), however some of the new ones in GoF were translated as imperative form of the verb and I am really annoyed by it. It doesn't sound like a magical word to me at all. I'm taking points from the translator's house for that! What I like in the translation are the names' translations. So they aren't completely faithfull to the original, but I don't always understand the meaning of the name in English. The thing he usually does is, he takes a Slovene word, sometimes he plays with it a bit and spells it in a weird English. So you don't usually get the meaning untill you read it out loud. They're fun. One that really made me laugh was in GoF that I read in the original first. Crouch calls Percy ''Weatherby''. To me that in itself is not funny at all (only the twins make it a joke). But translator chose Puysie, which sounds similar to Percy and the meaning is what you would call a pet pig :) (Piggy). The translator knew when to change the names and when not (Sirius, Dumbledore and some others stayed the same and in the trio only Hermione was changed to Hermiona, since all female names in Slovene end with ?a) Some things are untranslatable. I'm so sorry right now, because I can't think of examples of jokes right now. I can't remember what happened with the Uranus in Slovene Grr why don't I have the book here!? The only part of the books I compared word by word was the mirror scene and I felt much more emotion in the original based only on the words that described Harry's emotions. Also I found the atmosphere in the GoF much darker than in the translation. I think that the difference is in the details. As Freud wrote in a very interesting text I read for my History of Art class two years ago the raplicas of great works of art can be very much like the original from a faraway look, but the real difference is visible from the closer look ?in the details the great artist's touch can't be faked. The cultural background of the books is of course English. The translation could in no way be put in our country. There are no boarding scools here (there are dorms for those who live further away from the schools and don't want to have to drive to school every day, but they go home for the weekends). The houses and perfects and Head Boy/Girl? we don't really have the equivalent. There is the student representative but that is not the same thing. There are also some of the holiday festivities that are different ? like the crackers at christmas (not a custom here). The Bertie Bott's every flavour beans - I recently ate jelly beans for the first time when a friend brought some over from London (you don't get them around here) and I thought to myself ''Oh, this is what JKR thought of, when she was making them up!'' Alexander: > For example, it would never occur to a Russian to sit down and calculate just how often does a female or an african (or whoever else) appears in the books and takes an active part in the plot. Yep, sure I know it's a hot subject "out there" but it surely doesn't hit any strings in my own soul (almost all issues covered by Political Correctness rule are simply "not perceived" here in ex-USSR) [2]. Ahahaaa! (chuffs Tabouli, who has spent many a cross-cultural training session on 'political correctness', both explaining this peculiar Anglophone concept to baffled international students and explaining to Anglophones that this concept they take for granted *really is* totally alien to most people outside the Anglophone world...) I can only agree with this. It's probably because I live in a country, where being a different rase is so rare it's exotic. (There was only one black person (no asian) in my year in my primary school and the same happened in highschool.) What I really would like to know is how the German and Spanish speaking members of this group liked their translations. I'm thinking of perhaps reading one of them ? that is, if I'll find them in the library. (A good excuse to reread the series : I'm practising the language:) Although I'm not entirely sure that putting another set of names in my head is a good idea, I am having trouble with two already! The English won the battle because of this list and when I talk with my Slovenian friends, who mostly read only the translations, in my mind things go something like this: wait, who's Raws again? oh right: Snape. Mojca (who could go on and on, but really needs to go to sleep now ? it's 4 a.m.) By the way: my first post here ? hi everyone! *relurks* From meboriqua at aol.com Sun Jan 27 14:41:42 2002 From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 14:41:42 -0000 Subject: Not So Secular Potterverse Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34173 Hey everyone - I've been following some of the thread on God in HP and have read other threads on religion in HP and there is one thing people keep saying that really bothers me. In JKR's world of witches and wizards, her characters all seem to celebrate Halloween, Christmas and Easter (or at least have an Easter break). People have said a number of times that even though the Potterverse celebrates these holidays, it is done in a secular manner. I have to say that I think there is no such thing as celebrating certain holidays in a secular way. I am Jewish and not a very religious one. My family goes all out for Halloween but if we were Orthodox Jews, we wouldn't acknowledge the day at all. We do *not* celebrate Christmas and never did. There are no Christmas caroles sung in our home, no Christmas feasts and no Christmas decorations. This does not mean that I don't like Christmas; I do. I think it is a beautiful holiday and I get excited to see the decorations, hear the music and get the vacation. :-) However, Christmas is not a Jewish holiday, and neither is Easter Jews celebrate Chanukkah, and I see no mention of a menorah at Hogwarts. Jews also celebrate Passover, yet Hogwarts students don't eat matzoh for a week in the spring. That does not bother me at all, but it does bother me when people here insist that HP uses these holidays without a religious undertone. Considering that Christmas and Easter are specifically religious holidays, the fact remains that the Potterverse is overwhelmingly a Christian one. Not Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist. Christian. I still love the suits of armor not knowing the words to the caroles, though, and Peeves coming to their aid and singing words of his own. :-) --jenny from ravenclaw ***************** From IAmLordCassandra at aol.com Mon Jan 28 03:46:54 2002 From: IAmLordCassandra at aol.com (IAmLordCassandra at aol.com) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 22:46:54 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Not So Secular Potterverse Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34174 Jenny from ravenclaw writes: > Considering that Christmas > and Easter are specifically religious holidays, the fact remains that > the Potterverse is overwhelmingly a Christian one. Not Jewish, > Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist. Christian. Also, many of the traditions of Christmas and Halloween are taken from pagan rituals. The most recognizable example is the putting of presents under the tree during Yule. Halloween, from what I understand-is majorly pagan and American. At least I've assumed the going door to door/dressing up/candy deal was American. Correct me if I'm wrong, of course. It seems they celebrate the pagan aspect of the holidays (excluding Easter, perhaps). There is no mention of specifically celebrating the birth of Christ (which a friend of mine says wasn't even in Decemeber...I've never really read the Bible, I don't know) So, I wouldn't say it's "Overwhelmingly" Christian ^^ ~Cassie~ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From snowwy54 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 28 03:50:10 2002 From: snowwy54 at yahoo.com (Susan Snow) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 19:50:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Voldie with HP Blood In-Reply-To: <8318847511.20020127231549@tut.by> Message-ID: <20020128035010.64191.qmail@web14703.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 34175 > c> Could it also be that when V took Harry's blood, > that > c> some of harry's personailty was transferred to > LV?... > > c> ...i think that this si the most likely outcome, > and that > c> is why DD 'glinted'- he knew LV would be less > evil, and > c> therefore easier to attack. of course, i could be > c> wrong... > > I have my own idea here - maybe Voldemort will > become less > cunning and more relying on luck and his supporters, > just > like Harry? And Voldie's supporters are not the ones > to be > relied upon... (chuckling evilly). > I think we already see it at the cemetery when V states look at me getting sentimental __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com From john at walton.vu Mon Jan 28 04:42:26 2002 From: john at walton.vu (John Walton) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 04:42:26 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] (Not So) Secular Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34176 jenny_ravenclaw wrote: > In JKR's world of witches and wizards, her characters all seem to celebrate > Halloween, Christmas and Easter (or at least have an Easter break). People > have said a number of times that even though the Potterverse celebrates these > holidays, it is done in a secular manner. I have to say that I think there is > no such thing as celebrating certain holidays in a secular way. I disagree. It is entirely possible to celebrate Christmas without ever celebrating the "christ" aspect. I certainly do: though I am a Pagan, I Reclaim the holiday* and celebrate the secular aspects of it while separately celebrating the seasonal aspects of it. (without wanting to turn the thread into a religious debate, there is a large corpus of at least anecdotal evidence that Western Christianity "placed" various holidays near to Equinoctial and Solsticious [is that a word?] times: All Souls/All Saints over Samhain (31 Oct), May Day over Beltane (1 May), Christmas over Yule (21 Dec), etc. Many Pagans adapt or "Reclaim" the old seasonal holidays and celebrate the Christian ones, using God as a metaphor for deity.) > I am Jewish and not a very religious one. My family goes all out for > Halloween but if we were Orthodox Jews, we wouldn't acknowledge the day at > all. We do *not* celebrate Christmas and never did. There are no Christmas > caroles sung in our home, no Christmas feasts and no Christmas decorations. > This does not mean that I don't like Christmas; I do. I think it is a > beautiful holiday and I get excited to see the decorations, hear the music and > get the vacation. :-) Which is, really, all that the Hogwarts students do -- remember that only a handful are still there by Christmas anyway -- they like Hagrid's pretty trees, they like the singing ghosts, they *really* like the vacation. They don't go to a church service or even mention the fact that it's a Christian holiday. > However, Christmas is not a Jewish holiday, and neither is Easter Jews > celebrate Chanukkah, and I see no mention of a menorah at Hogwarts. Jews also > celebrate Passover, yet Hogwarts students don't eat matzoh for a week in the > spring. That does not bother me at all, but it does bother me when people > here insist that HP uses these holidays without a religious undertone. The point that many made is that *Britain* in general (uh oh, generalisation...) doesn't go for the religious inclusiveness demonstrated by menorahs that we in the more liberal parts of the States do. A practicing Jew in my small town of about 15,000, for instance, would have serious trouble finding Kosher for Passover food. Compare that with my town at home (about 4,000), where there is an enormous variety of Kosher for Passover food at Passover-time. I assume that it's because the population percentage of Jews in northeast Scotland is relatively small, but I do wonder how Jews keep Kosher -- and how observant Muslims, who also have dietary requirements, follow their prescribed diets. > Considering that Christmas and Easter are specifically religious holidays, the > fact remains that the Potterverse is overwhelmingly a Christian one. Not > Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist. Christian. I think the point that many were trying to make is that the Christianity in the Potterverse is *overwhelmingly* secular and unobservant. The Potterverse is actually much *less* religious than many boarding schools which are not church-funded -- mine had a Carol Service, Assemblies with hymns and prayers, etc. I actually find that refreshing. I'm quite interested that, coming from our non-Christian viewpoints, Jenny and I have such opposite views of the "Christianness" (?Christianity?) of the Potterverse. I'm sure there's a very interesting commentary on perspective relating to life experience to be drawn from that. :D > I still love the suits of armor not knowing the words to the caroles, > though, and Peeves coming to their aid and singing words of his own. Me too! --John ____________________________________________ "You take, Zathras die. You leave, Zathras die. Either way, it is bad for Zathras." --Zathras, Babylon 5 John Walton || john at walton.vu ____________________________________________ From monika at darwin.inka.de Mon Jan 28 07:32:14 2002 From: monika at darwin.inka.de (agassizde) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 07:32:14 -0000 Subject: Translation and Cultural Issues In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34177 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "racjom" wrote: > delurks > > I'm from Slovenia and I must say that I'm quite happy with our > translation. Well, then you're very lucky. Unfortunately, not all translations are that good. > What I really would like to know is how the German and Spanish > speaking members of this group liked their translations. I have already mentioned a while ago that I *hate* the German translation of the books. Being a professional translator myself, I know very well that it is not easy to translate a text full of invented words. Not to speak of the cultural differences. But if I have to pay for a product, I want it to be as good as possible, and the German translations are full of mistakes (things that really alter the sense), there are whole passages and even pages (!) missing, and I have to repeat it again, the character of Sirius has been mangled in PoA to show someone a lot more calm and "nice" by leaving out whole scenes where he gets really angry and by deliberately changing some words. There have even been things added to make up for the missing passages. This contradicts everything I learned during my formation, a translator should always respect the original. Apart from this, there's a lot of bad grammar and poor word choice in the books. They are a huge success nevertheless, I think because people either don't know better or don't care and prefer a bad translation to no translation at all. Sorry for the rant, but I just had to say this. Monika -- Monika's HP fanfiction site, home of the German translation of "A Sirius Affair": http://sites.inka.de/darwin/fanfic From meckelburg at foni.net Mon Jan 28 07:51:16 2002 From: meckelburg at foni.net (mecki987) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 07:51:16 -0000 Subject: Language and cultural issues Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34178 Hi! Delurking again! I read the first three books in Germanfirst and I rather liked them as good children's books. I enjoy reading children's books sometimes, when they are good and have some points hidden for the adult. My favorite authors here are Michael Ende and the children's books of Erich K?stner. but I wanted to read the fourth book without waiting another three months for the translation, so I read GoF in English first. It was such a difference! I bought and read the other books in English too and that's when I really became a HP-fan. I didn't look for contents-differences in the first three books, but the language in the german translation is a lot more simple. Clearly the translator wants to use the kind of language he believes todays children use- except many of these words were used when he was a kid and are completly out of the question today! In GoF however there are some real mistakes! One for instance is interesting for our weekly/daily SHIP discussion. In the german translation Fleur does not kiss Ron! Instead the Translator writes " Fleur kisses Harry and Hermione frowns"- paraphrasing, I don't have the book with me now. It just doesn't make sense! I think I noticed a couple more of those differences but I never touched the german books again, so I don't quite remember. So, anyone who wants to brush up their German by reading HP :go ahead! The language, the sentence structure and the grammar is nice and simple and you'll enjoy it- but *never* use a german translation for LOON- discussions- you'll get laughed at! Believe me! By the way, I used the english books to brush up my language and it really seemed to work! I think my first post back in march last year took me about ten minutes to translate nearly every single word- things certainly go faster, but not necessarily better now :) Mecki From rachrobins at hotmail.com Mon Jan 28 05:25:04 2002 From: rachrobins at hotmail.com (tangawarra1) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 05:25:04 -0000 Subject: Translation and Cultural Issues - UK and US differences In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34179 This may be a dumb question - but how do readers in the US feel about the slight translations that have occurred in the US versions? the most obvious being the PS / SS substitution (if anyone can shed any light on why "philosopher" was not deemed appropriate for the US market i'd greatley appreciate it - i'm very curious). In australia we have the UK version with no translation or substitution even though our form of spoken english is a little different to the UK and the US. (our spelling does conform to the UK standard however). I guess what i'm trying to ask is - is the reading experience affected by changing small sections of the text? I've had a look at a few of the lists of substitutions and can't see why "baker's" would be changed to "Bakery" when the stem of the word at least is the same. Simarly "bogey flavoured" and "booger flavoured" surely its still obvious what we are talking about here (in australia its known as snot or sometimes boogies(usually by very young children), but a translation was not thought necessary. anyway - I'm just interested in others' perspective on this - do big HP fans prefer one version over another?? rachel [Mod Note: Newer members may want to search the message archives for older members' thoughts on this -- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hpforgrownups/messages --John] --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "racjom" wrote: > I'm from Slovenia and I must say that I'm quite happy with our > translation. It does have certain little problems and there are some differences and of course the original is better, but I like it > anyway. From jmmears at prodigy.net Mon Jan 28 04:54:24 2002 From: jmmears at prodigy.net (serenadust) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 04:54:24 -0000 Subject: Ludo Bagman Is Ever So Evil (WAS Cutting Characters Slack / Ludo) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34180 Cindy, You are absolutely right about Bagman and all your excellent points from GoF confirm that Bagman is just as much a DE as Crouch Jr was. I fully expect that he will be a big player in book 5, and that the "dumb jock" act is a cover for his true evil nature. I have one more example of evidence to indicate that your theory is spot on. In GoF, Chapter 7 Bagman and Crouch, Arthur Weasley is explaining to the kids the names and occupations of the various wizards passing by the campsite. "Everyone," Mr. Weasley continued, "this is Ludo Bagman, you know who he is, it's thanks to him we've got such good tickets--" Now everyone knows (as Malfoy Sr. nastily points out) that there's no way the Weasleys could have afforded to buy so many tickets to the World Cup and to have taken Hermione and Harry, too. The top box would have been totally out of reach. It is because of Bagman that they are all there at the same time Barty C. Jr is there under the invisibility cloak, and I believe this was set up so that Crouch Jr. could be near enough to Harry to take his wand. There are just way too many occasions where Bagman is perfectly situated to help move things along so that Harry can be delivered to Voldemort at the end of the Triwizard Tournament. Jo From mjollner at yahoo.com Sun Jan 27 23:31:47 2002 From: mjollner at yahoo.com (mjollner) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 23:31:47 -0000 Subject: Bagman is a DE? - Voldie with HP Blood - & DEs In-Reply-To: <8318847511.20020127231549@tut.by> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34181 > --- Cindy wrote: ------------------------------------------- > > c> Bagman is, IMHO, as guilty as sin and is a big bad old > c> evil DE, and he apparated to the graveyard that night > c> when the Dark Mark burned on his arm. I just can't prove > c> it yet. I wonder, too, about Bagman, and personally find his "dumb" routine unconvincing. He reminds me of famous athletes in the US who get away with wrongdoing simply because they are famous athletes. > --- Vin wrote: --------------------------------------------- > > c> Could it also be that when V took Harry's blood, that > c> some of harry's personailty was transferred to LV?... > > c> ...i think that this si the most likely outcome, and that > c> is why DD 'glinted'- he knew LV would be less evil, and > c> therefore easier to attack. of course, i could be > c> wrong... To which Alexander responded: > I have my own idea here - maybe Voldemort will become less > cunning and more relying on luck and his supporters, just > like Harry? And Voldie's supporters are not the ones to be > relied upon... (chuckling evilly). I was confused by the infamous "glint" scene until it hit me that the fact that Voldemort is now Alive means that he can now be Dead. I believe the glint is Dumbledore's recognition of this possibility, a consequence that would not occur to a megalomaniac like Voldemort. But I *like* the thought of Voldemort being forced to depend on his followers for help just like Harry depends on his friends! It also really makes me think about the aftermath of the graveyard scene toward the end of GoF: just what did the DEs think of their Lord and Master after HP faced him and survived yet again?! Mjollner From theennead at attbi.com Mon Jan 28 08:33:23 2002 From: theennead at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 08:33:23 -0000 Subject: Ludo Bagman Is Ever So Evil (WAS Cutting Characters Slack / Ludo) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34182 Cindy wrote: > As I said before, I'm convinced that Bagman will turn out to be an > evil DE after all. Caroline is on board, ::waves to Caroline:: > but maybe a few others can be persuaded to see Bagman as the > Longstanding Devoted Servant of the Dark Lord that he really is. So...Cindy. Tell me now, in all honesty. Do you *like* Ludo Bagman? Wow. You know, you really do make a good case for this? I think that I'm starting to believe it. Dammit. Because you see, I really don't *want* Bagman to be guilty. I really, really don't. Not because I have any particular liking for the man (I have no feelings at all about him one way or the other; he's an utter flat-liner for me), but because I would like to believe that somewhere, somewhere out there, there is at least *one* person who honestly *was* bewitched or threatened or coerced or just plain duped into serving Voldemort's cause. One. Just one. One would be nice. I mean, we've got Malfoy and Avery, right? Both of them acquitted because they claimed to have been acting under the Imperius Curse. Guilty, guilty, guilty. And then we've got all their DE buddies, similarly acquitted. Guilty. And then we've got Pettigrew, who claimed to have been terrorized and browbeaten and threatened until he agreed to pass on information to Voldemort...but who actually turns out to have been deeply enough involved to be sporting the Dark Mark. Oh, SO guilty! And then there's young Master Crouch, who even Sirius thought *might* have been caught in the wrong place in the wrong time, and who even Dumbledore thought *might* have really been innocent, and who screamed his innocence at the top of his lungs all the way through his trial... Oh, no. He's guilty. And mad, to boot. You see where I'm going here, I trust. It's a little disturbing, isn't it? Was there really *no one* serving this guy unwittingly, or even unwillingly? Didn't anyone really get duped? For heaven's sake, where are all of the patsies and the weaklings? Yeah, yeah. I know. The patsies and the weaklings are all hanging out in the Green Room, getting sympathy hugs and cookies from the Bleeding Hearts. -- Elkins, patting one of Mulciber's Imperius victims on the back while murmuring soothingly: "Now, now...there, there...I know, I know...it wasn't your *fault*..." From judyshapiro at earthlink.net Mon Jan 28 11:41:54 2002 From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 11:41:54 -0000 Subject: Ludo Bagman Is Ever So Evil,& Kudos to Finwitch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34183 Lots of interesting stuff on Bagman! I'm now becoming convinced he is evil. Of course, we will need an acronym for this. We could go with D.E.V.I.L. (Death Eater, Verily, Is Ludo.) Or, Tabouli could do a longer, more elaborate one. Elkins said while patting one of Mulciber's Imperius victims on the back [and] murmuring soothingly: "Now, now...there, there...I know, I know...it wasn't your *fault*...": >... I would like to believe that > somewhere, somewhere out there, there is at least *one* person who > honestly *was* bewitched or threatened or coerced or just plain > duped into serving Voldemort's cause. One. Just one. Excellant point! Just whom did Mulciber put under the Imperius curse, if everyone and his uncle was really a willing Death Eater? We haven't seen anyone who actually turned out to be Imperio'ed during Voldy's first period in power. This also reminds me of a related question -- just who are all those wizards in Azkaban? Sirius talks as if there are lots of Voldemort supporters there, and we hear about Moody catching dark wizards, but in the Death Eaters chapter of GoF, Voldy mentions only the Lestranges as being in Azkaban. Maybe Voldy only mentioned people who were killed or captured since the last time the circle was formed? Or maybe there are lower-level followers who aren't Death Eaters? "serenadust" said: > It is because of Bagman that they are all > there [at the QWC] at the same time Barty C. Jr is there under the > invisibility cloak, and I believe this was set up so that Crouch Jr. > could be near enough to Harry to take his wand. I'm not so sure about this. At that point, Crouch Jr. had not yet re-established contact with Voldy, I believe. So, how could Crouch Jr.'s theft of the wand be part of Voldy's plan? I think Crouch Jr. just sent up the Dark Mark on his own initiative. On an unrelated topic, Finwitch, I loved your explaination that wizards use magic to age rapidly until adulthood, and then use magic to slow down the aging process. Unfortunately, this is still more proof that I'm a muggle -- I've been an adult a long time, and I'm aging quite fast. -- Judy From lav at tut.by Mon Jan 28 06:07:35 2002 From: lav at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 08:07:35 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Evil Ludo Bagman - G.I.L.B.E.R.T. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1895656036.20020128080735@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 34184 Greetings! > Cindy (sphynx) wrote to us: c> Oh, I was really going to sit this Bagman discussion out, c> but Alexander provoked me with his comment that there's c> no hint that Bagman is a DE. :-) So here we go again! c> We can start with the really obvious evidence, and then c> move to the more subtle points. c> First, Bagman may have been among the DEs in the c> graveyard. He was present at the start of the third task, c> but not when Harry returned. Do you think it's "obvious evidence"? IMHO this is only absence of alibi, which in itself proves nothing at all. And as we will see below there can be pretty good reason for him not to be there. c> Second, he doesn't search for Bertha Jorkins -- possibly c> because he knew she was dead. If he knows she is dead, c> then why not search anyway just to avoid looking c> suspicious? Because Wormtail kidnapped Bertha, and c> instigating an investigation might uncover a witness who c> saw something. If, as you say, he is indeed a DE, then it's only logical to DO search. Being the head of department, and having all possibilities to head the search, he has all chances to make the search go in any direction he wants without: a) risking that Bertha will be found; b) letting things slip from his control; c) causing suspicions like the one you have. :) c> Third, Rita Skeeter and Winky both think Bagman is bad c> news, and both have access to inside information on the c> issue. Rita covered the trial, and Winky was privy to the c> doings at Crouch's home. I wouldn't believe a word from Rita Skeeter even if she was saying I'm male... :) Winky is another matter. However we must remember that she does not give us any certain facts, only that Crouch, Sr. did dislike Bagman a lot - and that we know without her, and even know reasons enough to justify Crouch hatred to Bagman. c> Crouch Sr., who is devoted to catching dark wizards, also c> delivers a rather chilling line: "The day Ludo Bagman c> joins us will be a sad day indeed for the Ministry . . ." Personally, I think this _justifies_ Bagman. Surely if Crouch would actually _believe_ that Bagman is a DE he would be MUCH more emotional on this idea... And anyway, that day indeed was sad - especially for those wizards who had to wash the brains of muggles on the World Tournament... :) c> I know what you're thinking -- it's all misdirection to c> make us suspect Bagman instead of Crouch/Moody. But c> consider the following less obvious clues that don't fit c> the misdirection JKR set up: Even _less_ obvious? ;) c> First, there is the Goblet of Fire scene. Bagman was not c> sufficiently concerned when Harry's name came out of the c> goblet. If he's the head of magical games, you'd think he c> would be frantic, shell-shocked, or speechless that c> things were so very messed up. Instead, he is depicted as c> being delighted: "smiling" at Harry, "beaming" as though c> the matter were now closed, looking "rather excited." c> None of this can be explained by Bagman's alleged c> gambling motive for helping Harry -- at this point, he c> had not placed a bet on Harry. No, it is more likely that c> Bagman is thrilled because the first phase of the plan to c> restore Voldemort worked perfectly. Given Bagman's character, he could probably be just very happy of the commotion, no matter the reason that caused it. And why he should be frantic or shell-shocked? Such a person with no sense of duty? I would really suspect him if he WAS looking shocked - that would be totally out-of-character for Ludo. c> Second, at Hogsmead, Bagman asks Harry to keep quiet c> about Crouch's illness. Why would Bagman care? Crouch Sr. c> is not in Bagman's department. There's no reason for c> Bagman's concern unless Bagman knows Crouch Sr. has been c> overpowered. _This_ is interesting. IMHO this is the most interesting piece of evidence in your collection. Now that I have reread the situation it comes as follows: 1) HRH visit Hogsmead and find Ludo there with goblins. 2) Ludo is speaking with goblins in hushed tones, he looks worried. As soon as he sees Harry he beams with smile. 3) Bagman and Harry talk. When Harry asks what Ludo is doing here, he stumbles but then comes with explanation that goblins are searching for Crouch. His explanation seems to be invented on the spot. 4) Ludo doesn't want to tell Harry that Crouch has disappeared, but he has no exact information - everything he tells Harry is second-hand info from Percy and rumours. 5) He also asks Harry to keep mouth shut on this or MoM will have more troubles with Rita Skeeter. 6) He mentions Bertha Jorkins, IMHO accidentally. However, when Harry asks him about Bertha there's an expression of fear (or smth) on his face. This can have multiple explanations. However it can be easily explained from the "Ludo Is Innocent" position. c> Third, early in GoF, JKR spends time establishing that c> Bagman, this minor character, can apparate. He apparates c> in "Bagman and Crouch" and again in the "Dark Mark" c> chapter when he comes across the trio in the woods. The c> book is really long; why use any space to discuss a minor c> character who apparates other than to establish a c> foundation that Bagman left the Hogwarts grounds and then c> apparated to the graveyard? Do you mean that everyone who can apparate and has no alibi for the end scene of Third Task are Death Eaters? A bit of overstretching here, IMHO. Anyway, his ability to apparate does not mean anything - it has to do with magical abilities, not with his alignment. c> Fourth, there's no reason to believe Fred and George's c> explanation for Bagman's absence after the third task. c> They state (Ch. 37) that Bagman had a bet on Harry, and c> Bagman ran from the goblins. The twins imply that they c> learn this from Lee Jordan's dad, to whom Bagman also c> owes money. The idea that Ludo could bet on Harry is very probable, but from whom and how did the twins know this? This is indeed an interesting question. c> This doesn't add up. How would Fred and George know c> Bagman bet on Harry? Well, Bagman could have told them or c> told Lee Jordan's dad. But why would Bagman do that? He c> was always careful to conceal his efforts to help Harry c> (lowering his voice to a whisper, etc). Let's say first that if he had any competence in conspiracy he would never lower his voice. There's nothing more suspicious than two persons staying far from the crowd and whispering to each other... So it's possible he indeed told Jordan's dad about his bet, or maybe twins knew it some other way, or simply guessed... multitude of possibilities here. c> And it isn't logical that the Head of Magical Games, who c> is also a judge, would up and tell the twins (or anyone c> else) that he is not impartial. Nobody is that dumb, not c> even Bagman. This suggests that Fred and George have c> simply guessed (or heard) incorrectly -- Bagman really c> helped Harry for the same reason Crouch/Moody did. Given Moody's attitude towards Bagman, I find it likely that he is indeed _that_ dumb. But your guess may be right. c> But Bagman couldn't possibly know who won or how the c> goblins would view things when he fled, which was during c> or right after the third task. Fred and George's c> statements are supposition -- it is more plausible that c> Bagman left when he did to apparate to the graveyard. Here we come. There is no mentioning of Ludo Bagman at the scene when Harry arrives with the Cup back to the stadium. Yep, sure there's none. But if we view the situation from the point of view of _innocent_ Bagman, we come to the same result: exactly at the moment when Harry and Cedric touch the Cup (and probably their names become known to the public, highlighting in the air or something) Ludo goes searching for goblins to get his money! Or do you mean that _innocent_ version of Ludo could be so bothered with Harry/Cedric/Cup disappearance? I would not give this idea a 5-cents credit. c> Next, when Harry has a dream, it usually means something c> important. Harry had a dream (beginning of Ch. 9) in c> which Bagman appears and delivers the following line: "I c> give you . . . Potter!" Why is this little dream in the c> book if not to show that Bagman worked with Crouch/Moody c> to give Potter to Voldemort. First, this is not a dream in the sleep - Harry just thinks how cool it would be if it was HE who was riding the broom while the crowd applauds and goes mad over him... This has little to none connection to Harry's predictions ability and doesn't prove a bit to me. c> Finally, the reason Bagman bet his few remaining galleons c> on Harry is because he knew of the plot for Harry to win c> and Crouch/Moody's efforts. It was a "sure thing." c> Otherwise, with so much at stake, why on earth would c> Bagman bet on the one underage and undereducated c> contestant when it was so important that Bagman be c> correct? Let's assume the betting coefficient was the largest for Harry? (which it probably was). If you already owe more than you have, it doesn't matter taking large risks - you don't really risk anything while the gains may make your life. The person who has nothing to lose is the most prone to take risks. So there's nothing surprising here. c> In fact, there's a chance that Bagman is the means of c> communication between Voldemort and Crouch/Moody. That c> would explain why he's in Hogsmeade when there's no c> judging, and it would help Crouch/Moody learn of details c> about the Tournament without pestering Dumbledore and c> arousing suspicion. Indeed, why should he be in Hogsmeade when there's no judging? Surely not because they serve good ale there! :) If you want I can provide a lot of reasons, there's no trouble with it. c> ::insert scary music here:: ::which converts into a pop-dance after a few tacts:: 8) c> Now, if Bagman is in fact a DE, things are going to get c> interesting in OoP in a hurry. Let's say something c> unfortunate happens to Fudge, like he is assassinated. c> MoM would have to select a new Minister of Magic. Bagman c> is a celebrity and (assuming he gets his goblin problem c> sorted out) high up in the Ministry. Crouch Sr. is dead; c> Percy Weasley has no hope of being selected to run MoM. c> Diggory heads Magical Creatures, and Arthur Weasley heads c> Muggle Artifacts; neither appears to be on the fast track c> to the top job. Bagman would get the top job on the c> strength of his celebrity, which would leave Voldemort c> with a closeted DE running MoM. Bwahahahaha! The only problem with this scenario is that Ludo is very unlikely to be chosen, too. He seems to have even less supporters in the MoM than Arthur or Diggory have. With such a personality it's real hard to get a position of power. I find this idea highly unlikely. Of course, if Diggory will happen to be one of DE's, that will be real cool... :) c> Cindy G.I.L.B.E.R.T. (Good Innocent Ludo Bagman Earns Readers' Trust). Huh! 8-P Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, (Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed), always happy to thrash overweird ideas in the community. - You are not good, Kitten! And your Light is no better than the Darkness! - Do you think I like it, Danny? It's only in fairy tales if a man is good he does no evil. But in real life, if Light is going to fight with the Darkness, it has to be ruthless... Sun Kitten. (Sergey Lukyanenko, "The Boy and the Darkness"). From judyshapiro at earthlink.net Mon Jan 28 10:57:23 2002 From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 10:57:23 -0000 Subject: Secular Christmas in the Potterverse? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34185 > jenny_ravenclaw wrote: > > In JKR's world of witches and wizards, her characters all seem to > > celebrate Halloween, Christmas and Easter (or at least have an > > Easter break). People have said a > > number of times that even though the Potterverse celebrates these > > holidays, it is done in a secular manner. I have to say that I > > think there is no such thing as celebrating certain holidays in a > > secular way. and John Walton responded: > I disagree. It is entirely possible to celebrate Christmas without > ever celebrating the "christ" aspect. I certainly do: though I am a > Pagan, I Reclaim the holiday* and celebrate the secular aspects of > it while separately celebrating the seasonal aspects of it. On the topic of religion and Hogwarts, this is what the British participants here seem to be saying: In England, just about everyone celebrates Christmas, even people who do not consider themselves religious. Therefore, the fact that Hogwarts has a Christmas celebration (and an Easter break), tells us nothing about the religiosity (or lack thereof) of the wizarding world. That makes sense to me. However, this leaves the question of *why* Christmas is celebrated in England even by non-religious people. I suspect that it is due to the fact that the overwhelming majority of people in Britain are of Christian ancestry. (Christianity is even the official state religion in Emgland, is it not?) So, this still raises questions about why Christmas is celebrated at Hogwarts. Did the wizarding world pick up this custom from Muggles? As others have noted, this seems odd because wizards keep so separate from the Muggle world. Maybe wizards *used* to be practicing Christians, but are less devout now? We really don't know. Now, I feel very strongly on the topic of whether there is such a thing as a "secular Christmas." I, like Jenny, am Jewish, and I, like Jenny, say that Christmas is intrinsically a Christian holiday and can not be made secular. Let me clarify what I mean by that. Are there people who consider themselves non-religious, who celebrate Christmas? Of course; lots of them. But is it fair to ask someone who is an observant member of another faith to celebrate Christmas? I definitely don't think so. I've often been pressured by well-intentioned people who assure me that Christmas isn't really religious and that therefore I should go ahead and celebrate it. Sorry, no way. My religion forbids it. Maybe this is what Jenny meant -- don't ask *her* to celebrate Christmas, even in a "secular" way; non-Christians shouldn't be required to celebrate Christmas at all. It seems that Jenny, John, and I all self-identify as non-Christian. So, why is celebrating Christmas a hot-button issue for me (and maybe Jenny) but not for John? Well, I'm no Paganism expert, but I see several interesting possibilities. The first reason is that Paganism isn't a monotheistic religion (as far as I know), and strictly avoiding other religions is usually more important to monotheists than to practitioners of polytheistic (or pantheistic?) faiths. The second reasom is, as John notes, that Christmas celebrations ofetn have a number of Pagan elements, such as the Christmas tree. Also, Christmas is celebrated at the time of the winter solstice, which I believe is extremely important to Pagans. The situation is quite different in Islam and Judaism, which vigorously reject Pagan elements, and have no major holidays at the winter solstice. Judaism has all its important holidays at the equinoxes. (Hanukkah is *not* an important holiday; a lot of observant Jews don't even celebrate it.) Islam is not tied to the solar calendar at all; its holidays shift throughout the year. So, Jews and Muslims don't have the "cover" of celebrating one of their holidays at the same time as Christmas. (By the way, the whole idea of adding Menorahs and other Hanukkah elements to Christmas celebrations drives me up the wall. It seems to be something that Christians came up with, not Jews. Usually, Hannukah is long over by Christmastime, anyway.) The third possible reason is that Jenny and I were raised in non-Christian religions. John, I can be pretty sure that your *cultural* background is Christian, even if that is not your current religion. Why? Because John is very much a Christian name. (It is the Christian version of the Jewish name Elijah [in Hebrew, Eliyahu], which means "My God Is Jah." I believe the closest Muslim equivalent is Ali, "My God", which unlike Elijah and John does not contain a form of God's personal name.) Ok, so how does this apply to the Potterverse? Is Christmas a hot-button issue for any of the students? Well, we haven't seen anyone named Moshe Cohen or Abdul Mohammed, so we don't know how they'd feel. The only people we've seen who are apparently from a non-Christian background are the Patil sisters. I think we can be certain that they come from a Hindu background. Parvati is a very important Hindu goddess -- often described as the wife of "Shiva the Destroyer," she could also be seen as Shiva personified as a wife and mother. I can't imagine a non-Hindu having the name Parvati. However, Hinduism, as a polytheistic faith, probably wouldn't emphasize avoiding other religions to the extent that the three "religions of the Book" (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) do. Also, I believe there is an important Hindu festival in mid-winter. So, maybe Christmas isn't an issue for the Patils. We can't be sure that Cho is non-Christian; Christianity is rare in China but is more common among ethnic Chinese living in the west. If Cho followed traditional Chinese religions (Buddhism/ Taoism/ Confucianism/ Animism), adding a Christian celebration probably wouldn't bother her. Traditionally, most Chinese belonged to several religions simultaneously. (There was tremendous conflict between Christian missionaries and local people in Imperial China, but adding in Christian celebrations wasn't the problem.) By the way, the spelling of Cho's name implies that her family left China before the Communists took over, so her being a "devout Communist" and objecting to Christmas as "the opiate of the masses" is very unlikely. (No one in China seems to believe that any more, anyway.) And, let me also try to answer a question John asked: > A practicing Jew in my small town of about 15,000, for instance, > would have serious trouble finding Kosher for Passover food > ...I do wonder how Jews keep Kosher... I can answer this, as I grew up in the only Jewish family for miles around. (This was in rural New York State.) There are two options for keeping kosher in an area where certified Kosher food is unavailable. The first is to get kosher-certified food from elsewhere -- travel a long distance or order food via mail. We would make a journey once a month to buy kosher meat, which we kept in a freezer. The second possibility is to prepare food from scratch. Only meats and prepared food need to be certified as kosher. (And many Jews are vegetarian.) Most non-meat raw materials are considered kosher without an inspection. This would include all fruits, vegetables, nuts, fish that have scales and fins, milk or butter as long as you are sure it is from a cow or sheep or goat, chicken eggs, and I think flour. (Don't quote me on flour.) I think many other raw materials (spices, salt, honey) are considered fine, too. (Cheese is not; it often has animal enzymes in it.) So, we didn't starve. It was very frustrating, though, not to be able to buy baked goods, tv dinners, canned foods, mixes, etc. From lucy at luphen.co.uk Mon Jan 28 12:44:02 2002 From: lucy at luphen.co.uk (Lucy Austin) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 12:44:02 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Painless Polyjuice (WAS Hagrid, Moody and Violent Responses) References: <20020128021249.74360.qmail@web9505.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <01da01c1a7f9$771bf220$b0ae1e3e@stephen> No: HPFGUIDX 34186 Drieux said: >And yet...from CoS, the transformation/transfiguration due to the Polyjuice is painless. I suppose that an argument about relative timescales could be made, but I don't see that. Erm, from CS Chapter 12: 'His insides started writhing ... doubled up, he wondered whether he was going to be sick ... a burning sensation spread rapidly from his stomach ... next, bringing him gasping to all fours, came a horrible melting feeling ... his shoulders stretched painfully ... his feet were in agony in shoes four sizes too small'. Doesn't sound painless to me!! :-) Lucy the Drifty [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From midwife34 at aol.com Mon Jan 28 12:48:57 2002 From: midwife34 at aol.com (jrober4211) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 12:48:57 -0000 Subject: Wizard Lifespan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34187 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "finwitch" wrote: > > So um- while aging/growing has benefits, a child grows and learns > slightly faster with the help of magic (but, since their powers > aren't that great yet, not by much - ending to adulthood at 17). > Adults, around certain age, don't wish to age physically - and as > their powers are greater, they're able to slow physical aging for > longer. So - Molly is fertile still at 60-70 etc.. I just have to laugh at this and "sigh"....poor,poor Molly. I don't remember reading any canon based text to verify this. If they mention the parents' age of the wizard children at all, they are in their twenties when they procreate. If this were indeed the case, then the population ratio of muggle/wizards would soon be about equal because the wizard fecundity would be twice as long, assuming no wizarding birth control measures were used and you did not factor in the difference in death rates between the two populations. Jo Ellen From aiz24 at hotmail.com Mon Jan 28 12:58:48 2002 From: aiz24 at hotmail.com (lupinesque) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 12:58:48 -0000 Subject: Secular Christmas anywhere? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34188 Judy wrote: > Now, I feel very strongly on the topic of whether there is such a > thing as a "secular Christmas." I, like Jenny, am Jewish, and I, like > Jenny, say that Christmas is intrinsically a Christian holiday and can > not be made secular. Let me clarify what I mean by that. Are there > people who consider themselves non-religious, who celebrate Christmas? > Of course; lots of them. But is it fair to ask someone who is an > observant member of another faith to celebrate Christmas? I > definitely don't think so. I've often been pressured by > well-intentioned people who assure me that Christmas isn't really > religious and that therefore I should go ahead and celebrate it. > Sorry, no way. My religion forbids it. > > Maybe this is what Jenny meant -- don't ask *her* to celebrate > Christmas, even in a "secular" way; non-Christians shouldn't be > required to celebrate Christmas at all. I agree, and this is why it seems off to me to describe Hogwarts's celebrations as secular. If their spring break were called the Passover break, would we still be saying "but it's purely secular"? It's an example of the invisibility of the dominant religion. Christianity is so dominant in Britain (as here in the U.S.) that people can say "Easter break is purely secular"--unless they're sensitized by having, say, grown up Jewish, in which case they don't quite see it that way. I think we just have a language problem; "secular" is the closest word for describing the Hogwarts celebrations, but it falls short because it implies a complete separation from the religious that just doesn't jibe with suits of armor singing "O come let us adore Him, Christ the Lord." Let's try to make the distinction between Hogwarts's celebrations and a Christmas mass without also blurring the distinction between a secular holiday (e.g. Armistice Day) and a mostly-secularized celebration of Christian holy days. I have some thoughts about why the issue rankles for Jews and not for Pagans (or at least the one Pagan representative who's spoken up ), but that's for OTChatter. Amy Z -------------------------------------------------- The [Chudley Cannons'] motto was changed in 1972 from 'We shall conquer' to 'Let's all just keep our fingers crossed and hope for the best'. -Quidditch Through the Ages -------------------------------------------------- From aiz24 at hotmail.com Mon Jan 28 13:06:13 2002 From: aiz24 at hotmail.com (lupinesque) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 13:06:13 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: We are experiencing delays... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34189 Hello all, Some list members have experienced recent lags in the time between posting and seeing their posts appear. In some cases, post B may appear long before post A, even though post A was sent earlier. It seems to be a Yahoo weirdness; it crops up now and then when the CEO's juvenile delinquent nephew gets hold of a Time-Turner.* Please hold off on resending posts, as the posts do eventually turn up. If yours don't, or you run into any other forms of this problem, please e-mail hpforgrownups-owner at yahoogroups.com and we'll do what we can to help. Thanks! Amy Z for the Magical Moderators *Dear Yahoo Administrators: This is a joke, and a rather feeble one at that. I know nothing whatsoever about the CEO or his/her family and any resemblance to actual juvenile delinquents is purely coincidental. From aiz24 at hotmail.com Mon Jan 28 12:44:45 2002 From: aiz24 at hotmail.com (lupinesque) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 12:44:45 -0000 Subject: GF Course schedule In-Reply-To: <001d01c1a74b$d2773ca0$9a00073e@j0dhe> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34190 ***Warning*** Non-LOONs: keep a safe distance from this post, or you too may be sucked into LOONdom . . . Hollydaze wrote: > You have mentioned the chapter numbers (references) that "prove" where each lesson is after each lesson. When I wrote down my lessons to work out the timetable, I wrote down what you have from chapter 13 without giving it a specific day as no specific day is mentioned other than that it is their first day back at school (properly i.e. with lessons). I did not presume they had come to school on Monday as they arrive at school on September the 1st and the day that September the 1st falls on changes every year, so I left the date clear until I had found confirmation of what that day was. So had written down: > > "Herbology (13) > Break > Care of Magical Creatures (13) > lunch > Double Divination (13)" > > Without mentioning a day! > > When I reached other references that mentioned these lessons in that SEPCIFIC order, I then took that as a confirmation of exactly what day they were on. This way I ended up with: > > Herbology (13) > break > Care of Magical Creatures (13) > lunch > Double Divination (13) > All confirmed in later chapters where these lessons always happen in this order on a MONDAY (this happens in about 3 of them that cover this day again and again, it is never mentioned that they have this lessons SPECIFICALLY on a Tuesday, chapter 13 only mentions them as on their first day back at school and "the following morning"). Okay, I've figured out the problem, and it's all Jo's fault. We do have specific confirmation that lessons begin on a Monday and that that day's lessons are Herbology, CoMC, and Double Divination, on the first page of chapter 13: "Today's not bad . . . outside all morning," said Ron, who was running his finger down the Monday column of his timetable, "Herbology with the Hufflepuffs and Care of Magical Creatures . . . damn it, we're still with the Slytherins . . . " "Double Divination this afternoon," Harry groaned, looking down. It couldn't be more explicit. And you're right, I don't find a mention of this schedule being repeated on Tuesday (just going by a quick perusal), whereas we do have that mention of History being first thing on a Tuesday, the day of the first task. So, I ask myself, why did I think they had Herbology-CoMC-Divination on a Tuesday. And I answer myself, "because of *(#$% chapters 10 and 11" (25 points to the house of whoever knows who I'm quoting, btw). Chapter 10 starts the trouble with this line: "It's been absolute uproar," Percy told them importantly, the Sunday evening before they were due to return to Hogwarts. This is ambiguous in itself, but we know they return the very next day by reading on to the end of the chapter and the beginning of the next. Arthur returns home, people squabble about house-elves, Molly shoos them upstairs, Ron and Harry discover their dress-robes, bang, end of chapter. Chapter 11 begins with: There was a definite end-of-the-holidays gloom in the air when Harry awoke the next morning. Heavy rain was still splattering against the window as he got dressed in jeans and a sweatshirt; they would change into their school robes on the Hogwarts Express. They arrive at school that evening, of course, and lessons begin the next day: (Dumbledore, end of the welcoming feast): "And now, it is late, and I know how important it is to you all to be alert and rested as you enter your lessons tomorrow morning." (chapter 12) (chapter 12 ends with them going to bed) (chapter 13 begins with "The storm had blown itself out by the following morning," and abovementioned discussion of first lessons ensues) So it's a Flint: they go to Hogwarts on a Monday and begin lessons the very next day, a . . . Monday. And now I have to go fix my whole schedule file because I built in the assumption that lessons began on a Tuesday all over the bleeping thing. Amy ---------------------------------------------- . . . summoning the memory of the day I had been voted President of the local Gobstones Club, I performed the Patronus Charm. -Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them ---------------------------------------------- From Joanne0012 at aol.com Mon Jan 28 13:50:31 2002 From: Joanne0012 at aol.com (joanne0012) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 13:50:31 -0000 Subject: Translation and Cultural Issues - UK and US differences In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34191 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "tangawarra1" wrote: > This may be a dumb question - but how do readers in the US feel about > the slight translations that have occurred in the US versions? the > most obvious being the PS / SS substitution (if anyone can shed any > light on why "philosopher" was not deemed appropriate for the US > market i'd greatley appreciate it - i'm very curious). > > A Scholastic VP decided to "dumb down" HPSS for American audiences, ostensibly so Americans could read the book and have "the same experience" as British readers -- i.e., not get slowed down by encountering unusual or confusing terms. Sheesh! Sorry, the link to the interview, which appeared on Scholastic's own pages, doesn't work any more; the VP's last name was Levine and his condescending attitude towrads his audiences was absolutely appalling for someone involved in educational publishing. BTW, I put together a poll in the HPFGU-Movies list that asks whether respondents are American or not, and whether they'd heard of the Sorcerer's Stone or not. Turns out that nearly half of the Americans hadn't heard of it (and that's among the select, intellectual grownups on that board!), so the editor was right about Americans not recognizing the term, though that's not necessarily justification for making the changes. I certainly prefer the British versions, myself. From midwife34 at aol.com Mon Jan 28 14:03:34 2002 From: midwife34 at aol.com (jrober4211) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 14:03:34 -0000 Subject: Translation and Cultural Issues - UK and US differences In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34192 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "tangawarra1" wrote: > > anyway - I'm just interested in others' perspective on this - do big > HP fans prefer one version over another?? > > rachel > >I have never liked the character Madam Pomfrey because I thought she was a poor stereotype for a "nurse" and provided a poor role model for nursing in general. I was corrected by an english person who told me that in the original UK version, Madam Pomfrey is called "matron" which may or may not be a nurse employed by the British school system. Someone in the American publishing company thought for some reason that Americans would not see a difference between "matron" and "nurse" when there actually is a big difference in the role and duties provided. I have never read the original versions, but it irritates me to no end that the American publishing company assumed that the US population was too ignorant to follow the British slang used in the original versions. The only reason that I can think of that this was done is because, statistically speaking, US students are behind in reading comprehension and other areas when compared to their European and Japanese counterparts, but that is only my assumption. I am sure that the American publishing company must have done market studies before hiring someone to go through the text and change certain words so that they would be familiar to US children. Considering that the US imports many movies and television programs for children from Great Britain, I can't imagine that most US children have not been exposed to British slang at some point, so it makes me wonder what areas of the country, what statistical information, and what age groups were used for this market study? Jo Ellen From cindysphynx at home.com Mon Jan 28 15:45:32 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 15:45:32 -0000 Subject: Ludo Bagman Is Ever So Evil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34193 Elkins wrote: > Because you see, I really don't *want* Bagman to be guilty. I >really, > really don't. Not because I have any particular liking for the > man (I have no feelings at all about him one way or the other; he's > an utter flat-liner for me), but because I would like to believe that > somewhere, somewhere out there, there is at least *one* person who > honestly *was* bewitched or threatened or coerced or just plain duped > into serving Voldemort's cause. One. Just one. Oh, there probably are some innocent people who were only evil because of Mulciber's Imperius curse. Where are they, Elkins asks (through a cloud of pipe smoke)? Rotting in Azkaban, of course. Wizard justice stinks. You know it, and I know it. Wizard justice results in the innocent being locked up for life (Sirius), and the evil-to-the-core getting off (Avery, Karkaroff, Pettigrew, Malfoy). Oh sure, Mrs. Lestrange and her gang are in Azkaban. But they, too, talked their way out of Azkaban before going off to torture the Longbottoms. They were returned to Azkaban because Mrs. Lestrange shot off her big mouth at the trial. That said, I really must invite Elkins to put her feet up and have a brandy while she explains why it is so important that someone in canon be absolved of guilt because of the Imperius Curse? In the meantime, I will scour canon for an example of someone who served the Dark Lord only because they were under the Imperius Curse ::cough::VictorKrum::cough:: Apparently, serving the Dark Lord is so rewarding on its own merits that DEs serve voluntarily and don't have to be coerced. As for this Mulciber person, perhaps he uses Imperius sparingly because a wizard can throw it off with a bit of concentration, which would prove awkward if it happens at the wrong moment. So the Dark Lord probably did not give the really evil jobs to those acting under the Imperius Curse. Wizards acting under Imperius probably drove the getaway broom or something. ****** Although Alexander has given us a delightful acronym in G.I.L.B.E.R.T., I feel compelled (OK, provoked) into making just one more attempt to convince Alexander that Bagman is evil and to head off any defections from the Bagman-Is-Evil boat: Alexander wrote (about Bagman's absence at the end of the Tournament): > But if we view the situation from the point of view of > _innocent_ Bagman, we come to the same result: exactly at > the moment when Harry and Cedric touch the Cup (and probably > their names become known to the public, highlighting in the > air or something) Ludo goes searching for goblins to get his > money! Tweeeeeeet!!! ::Referee throws yellow flag, which bounces off of Alexander's helmet:: Alexander, the referee has just flagged you for Illegal Procedure. IIRC, there is nothing in canon to suggest that the spectators and judges know that Harry and Cedric touched the Cup or that this fact was highlighted in the air. Ludo, like everyone else, probably doesn't know what is going on in the maze. If Ludo left then, he probably didn't leave to go collect his winnings. And if Bagman is confident enough to leave to go collect his winnings at that point (when he is supposed to be presiding over the event), then Ludo may have had inside information that Harry was going to win because he was in on the whole plot. But let's say Ludo did make a bet. Bagman owed money to the goblins. To repay it, he supposedly bet "against the goblins" that Harry would win. Let's say Bagman thinks he won his bet (based on seeing Harry and Cedric both sprawled on the ground at the entrance to the maze), so he practically steps over their bodies on his way to the front gates of Hogwarts. Well, what's the hurry to get to the goblins, since they are going to keep some or all of his winnings anyway to retire the debt? Since Bagman doesn't have two galleons to rub together, perhaps he placed the bet on credit or borrowed the money to place the bet. Well, logic suggests that he wouldn't place a bigger bet than he needed to pay off the goblins -- unless he had some reason to be sure his long-shot bet on Harry was a sure thing. Also, if Bagman really went to the goblins and had this conversation in which they claimed he didn't win, how does he get away to flee from them? He still owes them a bunch of money and was "in big trouble" with the goblins. Goblins are tough and not to be trifled with, so why do they let Bagman just waltz off? It doesn't add up for me. Alexander wrote (about how the twins learned of the bet): > Let's say first that if he had any competence in > conspiracy he would never lower his voice. There's nothing > more suspicious than two persons staying far from the crowd > and whispering to each other... Eh, I can think of something more suspicious than two people whispering: two people talking loudly about how one of them is the Head of Magical Games and Sports and has a bet on one of the contestants. Bagman keeps his voice low whenever he does something suspicious, as he does when offering to help Harry. Why would he be secretive about offering help but have loose lips about the bet? Alexander again (about the twins' knowledge of the bet): > So it's possible he indeed told Jordan's dad about his > bet, or maybe twins knew it some other way, or simply > guessed... multitude of possibilities here. There are other possibilities, true. One possibility I hadn't considered is that the twins learned of the bet from the goblins themselves. But that doesn't work because goblins speak Gobbledegook and their English isn't so hot. And there is no scene in canon in which the twins are seen with the goblins, IIRC. If the twins are just guessing about the bet, then that just gives us another reason to think there might not be a bet. There is something else that bugs me about the twins' knowledge of the bet. When did the twins find out about Bagman's bet? If they knew about Bagman's bet during the tournament, they would probably have told Harry (or Dumbledore) because the twins don't like Bagman, right? That suggests that they learned about it after the Tournament. But how would they have acquired this information? The twins don't speak Gobbledegook and aren't in contact with the goblins, and Bagman is supposedly on the run and presumably not in a position to tell the twins or Lee Jordan's dad that the goblins refused to pay. I don't know if this incriminates Bagman, but it doesn't make sense to me. Alexander wrote (about Ludo's prospects for Minister of Magic): > The only problem with this scenario is that Ludo is very > unlikely to be chosen, too. He seems to have even less > supporters in the MoM than Arthur or Diggory have. On what basis can we say that Ludo doesn't enjoy support at MoM? Arthur Weasley likes Ludo ("Mr. Weasley jumped to his feet, waving and grinning at [Bagman].") I think it is likely that Ludo would have MacNair-the-DE's vote as well, and Lucius Malfoy seems to have a fair bit of influence. Sure, Percy would head up the opposition, but who would listen to wet-behind-the-ears Percy? And canon suggests that Ludo is wildly popular outside the Ministry, as jurors at his trial applauded him and gushed openly. Indeed, if Fudge were replaced, who would his likely successor be? We don't know all of the department heads at MoM, and we don't know how the Minister is selected, of course. Nevertheless, Ludo seems the most experienced and popular of the candidates that we do know, so I think his chances are excellent. Cindy (who just noticed that Crouch Sr. was in charge of organizing the Portkeys for the QWC, which probably gave Crouch Jr. lots of exposure in the art of making Portkeys) From keegan at mcn.org Mon Jan 28 15:50:08 2002 From: keegan at mcn.org (Catherine Keegan) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 07:50:08 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Not So Secular Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.20020128074422.00a38a50@mail.mcn.org> No: HPFGUIDX 34194 At 10:46 PM 1/27/02 -0500, I am Lord Cassandra wrote: >Halloween, from what I understand-is majorly pagan and >American. At least I've assumed the going door to door/dressing up/candy deal >was American. Correct me if I'm wrong, of course. We visited France last year during Halloween. I can't speak for the reset of Europe, but France loves the holiday. They have the best decorations. Cool, motion-detecting spiders that scurry up and down their monofilament webs, excellent paper stuff, the usual filamentous webbing so dear to every haunted house. Entire small villages were decorated with pumpkins and little displays. I have no idea as to whether they do the trick-or-treat thang but they do hold open parties with prizes for costumes. Catherine in California where it's supposed to snow (!?) today here on the coast. From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Mon Jan 28 15:55:13 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 15:55:13 -0000 Subject: God in HP World/Folktales and Religion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34195 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" wrote: > According to Brittanica.com, the Qu'uran and the Hadith > acknowledge the existence of jinn and ifrit (an inferior class of > jinn). These beings are of a lower order than angels, may be > either good or evil, believers or unbelievers, and like human > beings will face judgement. In Christian demonology all such > spirits were considered fallen and evil, and would only invoke > their magical powers on behalf of Men in order to snare them in > delusion. Not necessarily. The elves/fairies etc. are more ambiguous than that (and correspond, I think, to the jinn). Though more clear cut people throughout the ages did try to establish the "demonology" aspect, folklore tends to steer away from it.... A fascinating topic, but not immediately connected with HP, since Rowling seems to have completely cut that aspect of European legend out of her stories. > The Arabian NIghts stories were probably first collected in the > century following the establishment of Islam. I would guess > Islamic elements were introduced by the scribes who recorded > them in much the same way that Christian references were > incorporated into Beowulf and The Mabinogion. Ahem, Christian references incorporated into Beowulf? I am sorry, but I have always found that argument unconvincing, and hold with J.R.R. Tolkien on that matter. Check out his "Beowulf: The Monster and the Critics", by far still the most important essay on the story. Eileen From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Mon Jan 28 16:01:46 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 16:01:46 -0000 Subject: Guy Fawkes really a wizard? (was: God in HP World/Folktales and Religion) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34196 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "blpurdom" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "christi0469" wrote: > > But we see no mention of Guy Fawkes Day/Bonfire Night at > > Hogwarts. Certainly all the Muggle-born wizards and witches would > > miss such a festive celebration, with the fireworks and all. > > Perhaps JKR will reveal that Guy Fawkes was a wizard, and so burning > him in effigy would be the last thing the wizarding world would be > inclined to do. (And he only made the Muggles think he'd been > killed, but really escaped just as handily as those witches and > wizards who pretended to be burned during the Middle Ages.) GF > could have used magic to try to blow up Parliament, but the Muggles > merely ASSUMED it was gunpowder and other ordnance.... Explaining why Dumbledore has a pet named after Fawkes. This puts another spin on the religion in HP argument, since Fawkes was responding to the supression of Catholics by the gov't. I'm not sure I want to go there. About religion in general, I've heard a whole lot of awfully unconvincing arguments about the references to God, saints etc. in HP, running along the lines of, "Well, in the UK, we are very secular and still mention these things." However, no matter how secular the UK, Christianity still exists there. The wizarding world could be extremely secular, and Christianity will still be a part of it. Eileen From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jan 28 16:17:54 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 16:17:54 -0000 Subject: Cutting RL slack (or not) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34197 I wrote: >>If [Remus Lupin] thought scaring innocent people was just part of the fun, he's no better than the DE's at the World Cup, IMO.<< Amy Z said: >I would agree if that were the case, but I don't think he did think scaring innocent people was part of the fun. There's nothing in canon to suggest it, IMO; rather, he wanted the freedom and companionship. it's not at all conclusive to my mind that that's amusement about having terrified people.<< IMO, the iffiest line is "roaming the village and the school grounds." They could have stayed in the Shack or stuck to the Forbidden Forest. Remus knew he was endangering people and felt guilty about it, which answers Gabriele's point about whether he was old enough to feel morally responsible. Then he decided that his pleasure was more important than his own and others' safety. There is, as Gabriele admits, no excuse for that. I'm not entirely sure he's learned his lesson, either. Giving the map back to Harry at the end of PoA was the same kind of decision. Okay, he's not Harry's teacher anymore, so he hasn't got a responsibility to Dumbledore. But what about his duty to protect Harry and the other children? He put Harry's pleasure first, even though he knew that Harry was not a safe guardian for the Map and it would be a threat if it ever fell into enemy hands, which of course it did. I didn't mean to imply that young Lupin had racist or sadistic motives. Although, if he harbored no animus at all toward the society that shunned him, he was a saintly young man indeed. However, the fact that menacing people was only incidental does not excuse him from criminal responsibility. At least where I live, if you assault a bank guard in the course of a robbery, you aren't allowed to claim you didn't intend any harm. The fact that you were already engaged in a crime is considered conclusive. I'm convinced that a werewolf who plots to break custody and roam in an inhabited area is, by wizard law, committing a crime. Does anyone think otherwise? Pippin From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Jan 28 16:23:53 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 16:23:53 -0000 Subject: Translation and Cultural Issues In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34198 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "agassizde" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "racjom" wrote: > > delurks > > > > I'm from Slovenia and I must say that I'm quite happy with our > > translation. > > Well, then you're very lucky. Unfortunately, not all translations > are that good. Yes - fortunately Finnish translations of Potters are quite good. I have come across some bad ones on other books, though. > > What I really would like to know is how the German and Spanish > > speaking members of this group liked their translations. > > I have already mentioned a while ago that I *hate* the German > translation of the books. Being a professional translator myself, > I know very well that it is not easy to translate a text full of > invented words. Not to speak of the cultural differences. But if I > have to pay for a product, I want it to be as good as possible, and > the German translations are full of mistakes (things that really > alter the sense), there are whole passages and even pages (!) > missing, and I have to repeat it again, the character of Sirius > has been mangled in PoA to show someone a lot more calm and "nice" by > leaving out whole scenes where he gets really angry and by > deliberately changing some words. There have even been things added > to make up for the missing passages. This contradicts everything I > learned during my formation, a translator should always respect the > original. Apart from this, there's a lot of bad grammar and poor > word choice in the books. They are a huge success nevertheless, I > think because people either don't know better or don't care and > prefer a bad translation to no translation at all. Well - I did that when I wasn't skilled enough in English to read a novel in English, but once I managed that, I really did and do prefer the original. Even good translations are bound to lose something. From Edblanning at aol.com Mon Jan 28 16:54:47 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 11:54:47 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Christian culture (was Secular Christmas anywhere?) Message-ID: <143.886cbc6.2986dc57@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 34199 In a message dated 28/01/02 13:00:15 GMT Standard Time, aiz24 at hotmail.com writes: > Christianity is so dominant in Britain (as here in the > U.S.) that people can say "Easter break is purely secular"--unless > they're sensitized by having, say, grown up Jewish, in which case they > don't quite see it that way. > > I think we just have a language problem; "secular" is the closest word > for describing the Hogwarts celebrations, but it falls short because > it implies a complete separation from the religious that just doesn't > jibe with suits of armor singing "O come let us adore Him, Christ the > Lord." Let's try to make the distinction between Hogwarts's > celebrations and a Christmas mass without also blurring the > distinction between a secular holiday (e.g. Armistice Day) and a > mostly-secularized celebration of Christian holy days. > > The problem I have is that however we define 'secular' we still seem to have wizards and the school in particular basing their calendar around Christian/ muggle feasts. Why? British schools have their three term pattern determined by the religious holidays at Easter and Christmas. (In addition, the spring half term used to be determined by Pentecost (Whitsun).) Now, Britain is an increasingly secular state, but *culturally* I think a majority of people not actively of other faiths would still regard themselves as 'Christian', hence the large number of people who uses the church to 'hatch, match and dispatch' or attend Christmas services, but who would never attend at other times or regard themselves as 'religious'. Christianity is the background culture, even if poorly understood. It is this use of Christian *culture* as a backdrop to the school year and celebrations that strikes a false note to me. If wizards are are presumed not to, either now or in the past, be religiously Christian, then why should they apparently be even to the smallest extent culturally so? Many people seem to assume that the wizarding world separated from the muggle world some considerable time ago, this accounting for the lack of familiarity with muggle dress codes etc. The Christmas customs we see at Hogwarts, trees, carols, crackers, 'traditional' Christmas dinner etc mostly date (in the UK) from the 19th century on, long after this assumed break. ( The Christmas tree came from Germany via Prince Albert) I am English, so not fully qualified to comment, but I did spend part of my childhood in Scotland, ( in the late 60s) and, at least in the region where we lived, Christmas was a very low key thing indeed: Hogmanay was the main winter celebration. What I am saying is that before the rampant commercialism of recent years, not all Christian British muggles celebrated the full-blown Victorian Christmas that Hogwarts seems to emulate so to me it seems quite discordant. Cassie >Also, many of the traditions of Christmas and Halloween are taken from pagan >rituals. The most recognizable example is the putting of presents under the >tree during Yule. Halloween, from what I understand-is majorly pagan and >American. At least I've assumed the going door to door/dressing up/candy deal >was American. Correct me if I'm wrong, of course. I was unaware of the presents under the tree having a Pagan significance. For Christians, the giving of presents echoes the gifts of the Magi. Hallowe'en is of course a bone of contention, having both Christian and Pagan ancestory: I have heard both Christians and Pagans vigorously claim ownership and complain that it has been hi-jacked by the other faith. The name is Christian, being the Eve of All Hallows' (Saints') Day. Yes, the modern manifestation is largely American, but we have plenty of indigenous customs, including in the north, 'guising', where children go from house to house in costume, perhaps saying a party piece, in return for sweets or money (no threats attached!). I actually did this with Sunday School!!! What I want to know is why we *don't* see wizards celebrating their own winter festival, something that seems pretty basic to most cultures. I increasingly feel that this interaction between the wizard and muggle worlds is an aspect of the Potterverse that JKR has not worked out with as much vigour as other aspects of the books. But then she's not God, despite our tendencies to expect from her a God-like control of her creation. Eloise PS Someone asked about the Fat Friar My guess is that he was an alchemist. Joining religious orders was one of the few ways of becoming educated in the middle ages and I believe it was not uncommon for monks to be involved in scientific research (cf The Name of the Rose). In fact, even Mendel in the 19th century (the one who stidied inheritance in peas) joined the Augustinians for this reason. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Joanne0012 at aol.com Mon Jan 28 16:55:48 2002 From: Joanne0012 at aol.com (joanne0012) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 16:55:48 -0000 Subject: Translation and Cultural Issues - UK and US differences In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34200 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jrober4211" wrote: > I have never read the original versions, but it irritates me to no > end that the American publishing company assumed that the US > population was too ignorant to follow the British slang used in the > original versions. The only reason that I can think of that this was > done is because, statistically speaking, US students are behind in > reading comprehension and other areas when compared to their European > and Japanese counterparts, but that is only my assumption. I am sure > that the American publishing company must have done market studies > before hiring someone to go through the text and change certain words > so that they would be familiar to US children. . . . what > areas of the country, what statistical information, and what age > groups were used for this market study? Sorry, Jo Ellen, you are SERIOUSLY overestimating the decision-making process over at Scholastic! One of their VP's took it upon himself to dumb-down Rowling's text on the ASSUMPTION that it needed to be done because US kids should have the same "evperience" in reading it that British kids did. In other words, don't make them stretch or learn anything. As I recall from the no-longer-available interview, he claims to have sat down with JKR and gotten her approval for each change. But at that point in her career, she was in no position to assert herself about it! Scholastic ships over 1 million books PER DAY. With such idiots playing major roles in the company, I suspect that Scholastic is a significant contributor to the decline of American educational standards, along with the many others who make educational policy and decisions without the solid evidence that you so generously assume they seek. From cindysphynx at home.com Mon Jan 28 17:05:45 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 17:05:45 -0000 Subject: Cutting RL slack (or not) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34201 Pippin wrote: > Remus knew he was endangering people and felt guilty about it, > which answers Gabriele's point about whether he was old > enough to feel morally responsible. Then he decided that his > pleasure was more important than his own and others' safety. > There is, as Gabriele admits, no excuse for that. I'm not entirely > sure he's learned his lesson, either. Giving the map back to > Harry at the end of PoA was the same kind of decision. > Aw, gee, poor Remus can't buy a break, can he? He went roaming around as a student when he shouldn't have. OK, that's true. But for the first several years he was a student, he transformed all by himself in the Shrieking Shack, suffering terrible pain, biting and scratching himself, wrecking the furniture and generally bringing down property values. It wasn't until his friends became animagi that he went along on the adventures. That shows that Lupin would never deliberately endanger anyone. Also, Lupin wasn't as dangerous on these adventures as some suggest. He says, "I became less dangerous. My body was still wolfish, but my mind seemed to become less so while I was with them." That suggests to me that these antics weren't criminal, but were just the same sort of thoughtlessness that infects many teens. Yes, Lupin's conduct was bad, but it was far better than what Sirius did to Snape, which was willful and knowing endangerment of Snape just for fun. And if you're not going to cut Lupin some slack, then you have to hold Sirius, Peter and James equally responsible. Remus' main sin was in not showing maturity beyond his years by refusing to accompany his friends on their adventures. I can forgive that. As for the Map, why shouldn't Lupin give it back to Harry? The Map itself is not evil; it's just a harmless aid for mischief-making. Indeed, until Moody confiscated the Map, Harry was using it in a perfectly reasonable way -- using it to complete his Triwizard preparation. Cindy (insisting that Lupin only has one big strike against him) From absinthe at mad.scientist.com Mon Jan 28 17:44:41 2002 From: absinthe at mad.scientist.com (milztoday) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 17:44:41 -0000 Subject: Christian culture (was Secular Christmas anywhere?) In-Reply-To: <143.886cbc6.2986dc57@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34202 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote: > If wizards are are presumed not to, either now or in the past, be religiously > Christian, then why should they apparently be even to the smallest extent > culturally so? That's the key. Wizards are PRESUMED not to be Christians, Jews, Buddists, etc. nor are the PRESUMED to interact with Muggles and Muggle society. I think the Potterverse Magicals are like Muggles: some have religious leanings while others do not. I think that while the Magicals have their own infrastructure and culture, they also are influenced by the Muggle world. Sort of like the various ethnic "towns" found in large cities. Likewise, I think most Magicals live amongst Muggles. Hogsmeade is the only wizarding town in Britain. One town out of an entire nation? Where do the rest of the Magicals live? Something tells me that the Weasleys lifestyle of isolation on a farm isn't the "standard". If it were how would Magicals and Muggles meet and marry? Seamus Finnegan's mother had to be pretty knowledgeable about Muggles and Muggle culture in order to completely fool his father during their courtship, for her to be able to keep her magical-ness a secret until they were married (SS/PS) Same goes for Tom Riddle's mother. Milz From blpurdom at yahoo.com Mon Jan 28 18:00:44 2002 From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 18:00:44 -0000 Subject: Christian culture (was Secular Christmas anywhere?) In-Reply-To: <143.886cbc6.2986dc57@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34203 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote: > > I think we just have a language problem; "secular" is the > > closest word for describing the Hogwarts celebrations, but it > > falls short because it implies a complete separation from the > > religious that just doesn't jibe with suits of armor singing "O > > come let us adore Him, Christ the Lord." Right; secular both is and isn't quite the right term. There isn't really any emphasis on theological issues at Hogwarts; the suits of armor are the epitome of paying "lip-service" to the holiday, even though some of the carols have religious content. (But there are also a lot of carols with pretty much no religious content, such as "Here We Come A-Waissailing" which is mostly about the old holiday of Yule and celebration of the new year and mooching from one's neighbors, etc.) > If wizards are are presumed not to, either now or in the past, be > religiously Christian, then why should they apparently be even to > the smallest extent culturally so? But I don't think this IS assumed. Think of the Fat Friar. And it wasn't all that long ago. In "Quidditch Through the Ages," JKR gives 1692 (the same year as the Salem witch trials) as the year for the International Statute of Wizarding Secrecy. This is a mere three-hundred years ago. Hogwarts had already been around for something like seven-hundred years. Someone also pointed out that Guy Fawkes was attacking Parliament because of the suppression of Catholicism. What if JKR is drawing an analogy between the way Catholics had to sort of go underground after Henry VIII proclaimed himself head of the church of England, and the way wizards eventually decided it was safer to go underground? A large number of Catholic wizards would be perfectly in line with this reasoning--they would have two reasons to hide. Added to this is the fact that in the Middle Ages, the Church had monks in monasteries involved in astrology and attempts to prove that alchemy wasn't a crock, among other things. Sound familiar? Shades of Divination and Nicolas Flamel? > Many people seem to assume that the wizarding world separated from > the muggle world some considerable time ago, this accounting for > the lack of familiarity with muggle dress codes etc. The Christmas > customs we see at Hogwarts, trees, carols, crackers, 'traditional' > Christmas dinner etc mostly date (in the UK) from the 19th century > on, long after this assumed break. ( The Christmas tree came from > Germany via Prince Albert) I am English, so not fully qualified to > comment, but I did spend part of my childhood in Scotland, ( in > the late 60s) and, at least in the region where we lived, > Christmas was a very low key thing indeed: Hogmanay was the main > winter celebration. You are quite right about the recent advent of these particular Christmas traditions, and this is one reason why I don't think the wizarding world has been utterly divorced from the Muggle world. Remember, Muggle-born witches and wizards are constantly entering the wizarding world, bringing their Muggle ways with them, and we have canon testimony to the frequent practice of intermarriage between wizards and Muggles. These things may very well have been introduced into the magical world by Muggle-born witches and wizards within the last hundred years, and because of wizard unfamiliarity with Muggle traditions, they were thought to be novel and exciting! (And perhaps they were not told of the Muggle connection.) I'm glad you mentioned Hogmanay! I'm convinced that this winter holiday is the reason for JKR incorporating 'hog' into the names of Hogsmeade and Hogwarts! Very Scottish! --Barb Chapter 14 of the Last Temptation is up....Are you tempted? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HP_Psych http://schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb (Chapter 15 tomorrow!) From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Mon Jan 28 18:04:02 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 18:04:02 -0000 Subject: HP Translations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34204 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lucky_kari" wrote: > Yes, I've read HP in English and in Spanish. > The decidely English tone of the books also seemed to evaporate, > especially where that tone was extremely colloquial. > Eileen ------------- You know, I've read the books in the opposite direction: first Spanish, then (just the first one, books are expensive!) in English, and I found the Spanish version much more formal, while the original (when charaters were speaking, specially Hagrid) was extremally colloquial. However, there is a very technical reason for this: when you learn a foreign language (Spanish in your case, English in mine), you're taught the formal version of it, while the colloquial part must be learnt by actually living in the country itself, or else it's very difficult to learn (I've picked up enough to understand it, but it doesn't come as naturally to me as it does to you). Hope that helps, Grey Wolf (He who's taking a break form studies and has found a long thread o answer) From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Mon Jan 28 18:37:27 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 18:37:27 -0000 Subject: Translation and Cultural Issues In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34205 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "racjom" wrote: > What I really would like to know is how the German and Spanish > speaking members of this group liked their translations. I'm thinking > of perhaps reading one of them ? that is, if I'll find them in the > library. (A good excuse to reread the series : I'm practising the > language:) Although I'm not entirely sure that putting another set of > names in my head is a good idea, I am having trouble with two > already! The English won the battle because of this list and when I > talk with my Slovenian friends, who mostly read only the > translations, in my mind things go something like this: wait, who's > Raws again? oh right: Snape. > Mojca (who could go on and on, but really needs to go to sleep now ? > it's 4 a.m.) > By the way: my first post here ? hi everyone! > > *relurks* ------------ Thanks for asking! I found the SS translation to Spanish quite good. I don't feel nothing has significantly changed in the first book (I'm gathering cash to buy the rest of them one of these months), except for the polishing Hagrid's talk has been given. While in the original he speaks somewhat "rural", in the Spanish edition he speaks perfect Spanish, both syntactical and grammatical. However, the rest of the book is very similar in wording and tone (although I must admit that I wasn't really checking that sort of thing the times I've read it). Anyway, discrepancies don't start showing until later, and I was happy to notice that the difficult translation issues (acronyms and plays with letters) were translated to mantain the experience, as were the nicknames, intead of preserving the originals, which would have prevented non-english speakers from understanding the situation. For example, the mirror of Erised (desire) is translated to "Oesed" (deseo), which is the correct translation. Also, Tom (M?) Riddle tranlates to Tom S. Ryddle, maintaining the "I am Lord Voldemort" idea in Spanish: "Soy Lord Voldemort" -> Tom Sorvolo Ryddle. Of course, I didn't catch the clue in "Riddle", since it couldn't be tranlated into "Enigma" without heavily altering Voldie's name (which it couldn't, since it already came out in the first book), but I get the feeling that not many poeple did, even in English, so I don't feel cheated. About the only things that the Spanish edition made hard for me where the WLPT quartet. Since they're nicknames based on the animals they change into (or Lupin's lycanthropy), they have been radically changed in Spanish, which is good, but it made following these list quite a chore until I devised my own little conversion table. Hope that helps Grey Wolf PD: Welcome to posting! From cindysphynx at home.com Mon Jan 28 18:40:55 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 18:40:55 -0000 Subject: (Not So) Secular Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34206 John wrote: > I disagree. It is entirely possible to celebrate Christmas without ever > celebrating the "christ" aspect. I certainly do: though I am a Pagan, I > Reclaim the holiday* and celebrate the secular aspects of it while > separately celebrating the seasonal aspects of it. I agree with John *and* Jenny! I think Christmas (and Easter as well) have three gears, not two. There are those who celebrate it for the religious importance, those who celebrate it for fun, and those for whom it runs counter to their beliefs. For whatever reasons, the religious holidays of other religions have only two gears -- people tend to celebrate them or not celebrate them. My personal impression of Hogwarts' Christmas celebration is that it is in the middle category. Those who celebrate Christmas as a true religious holiday do more (or at least, are supposed to do more) than sing a few carols and hang some lights. Indeed, I am quite thankful that JKR has, for the most part, left religion entirely out of the Potterverse. Can you imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the anti-Potter crowd if characters were worshipping any kind of deity? JKR could never make everyone happy on this, so I am glad she didn't try. Cindy From bonnie.abrams at cwine.com Mon Jan 28 18:26:16 2002 From: bonnie.abrams at cwine.com (sing2wine) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 18:26:16 -0000 Subject: Love / Bagman / Hagrid / Erised / Religion Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34207 Eileen writes: JKR said very clearly that in the fourth book the kids all fall for the *wrong* people. This makes lots of sense - young (and old) people do this all the time. That's why it will be all the more poignant when Hermione realizes Ron is the best partner for her and Harry & Ginny finally get together. By then they will all have matured, we will see Ginny grow up and do something that shows her skill and ultimately the trio will be part of the same wonderful family.... Jo writes: Cindy, You are absolutely right about Bagman and all your excellent points from GoF confirm that Bagman is just as much a DE as Crouch Jr was. I fully expect that he will be a big player in book 5, and that the "dumb jock" act is a cover for his true evil nature. This would also fit well with JKR's propensity to surprise us with the true "character" of her characters. In GoF, when Voldemort's speaks of having someone at Hogwarts - might he actually mean Bagman, not Crouch Jr.? Ian Diddams writes: Hagrid has now outlived his purpose in the story-line... he could be a perfect candidate for the chop. Unfortunately, I agree with Ian. I shall be as sad as Harry, Ron & Hermione when this happens. And I hope all you Hagrid Haters feel guilty when he dies a noble death and is proclaimed a hero. I also hope he and Madame Maxime get to have a meaningful and passionate relationship before it does happen....Maybe Madame Maxime could be pregnant with Hagrid's child.... Re Aragog & the spiders, Ian also writes: ...this episode seems almost irrelevant... rather like the deathday party and the mirror of erised. I just wanted to mention that the mirror of erised has a lot of purpose. Dumbledore warns Harry that many a student has wasted his time before it (I must say I felt guilty as I thought of that since I am writing from work and feel like this list has the power of the mirror of erised over me...). So Harry learns to exert control over his relationship with the mirror which contributes to saving his life at the end of SS. Too many names to mention source here but I've been fascinated by the discussion of HP & religion. Where I work in Naples, N.Y. - there was an issue brought up by a Wiccan woman who objected to her child having to sing religious Christmas Carols in the public school. Most of the community defended this practice as merely "American" - as some list members described Christmas as just "British" at Hogwarts. I just wanted to add another possible explanation: JKR may have expected a harsh reaction to Witches & Wizardry from the Fundamentalist Christian community and chose not to exacerbate it by playing up the Pagan themes. (Like my fellow Jewish Ravenclaw, Jenny, I think of Hermione as being an assimilated Jew and I'd still like to see Kabbala taught at Hogwarts....) Bonnie / sing2wine ? From southernscotland at yahoo.com Mon Jan 28 18:42:35 2002 From: southernscotland at yahoo.com (southernscotland) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 18:42:35 -0000 Subject: Christian culture; the Shippers and why I am not one In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34208 Several have made comments about the Harry Potter books and the Christian culture. Some of us Christians have no problem with at least part of the Potterverse being a Christian one, due to the celebrating of the holidays, etc. That's how I see it. I read it to my son that way, and my family has had some quite interesting discussions about it. I've taken up for the books quite a few times with my fellow Baptist friends. There have been other posts recently which covered whether the books are a Christian series. I suppose sometimes it's all in the interpretation. I will be happy to agree to disagree on this one! On an entirely different topic: I will bet any of you my son's entire LEGO Harry Potter castle set that, among ANY of the three main characters, there will be NO serious romantic entanglements. No big romances - none, zip, nada. Why? Because: Harry is Kirk Hermione is Spock Ron is McCoy And it cannot, cannot happen. It would alter the chemistry among the three main characters. If you don't see chemistry as being that important, then why have many in the "Star Trek" universe been trying to recreate it for over 25 years, ever since the original (and the best) show went off? Folks, lemmee tell you, it ain't that easy to do! I don't see JKR messing with such a good thing. You gotta know sometimes when to leave your characters alone. And to let the shippers sail without you! lilahp (who is confident that the Potter castle will be staying right where it is...) From lav at tut.by Mon Jan 28 10:51:19 2002 From: lav at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 12:51:19 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re[2]: Not So Secular Potterverse Message-ID: <1693027949.20020128125119@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 34209 Greetings! > Lord Cassandra AKA Cassie wrote to us: Iac> Also, many of the traditions of Christmas and Halloween Iac> are taken from pagan rituals. The most recognizable Iac> example is the putting of presents under the tree Iac> during Yule. Halloween, from what I understand-is Iac> majorly pagan and American. Correct me if I'm wrong, of Iac> course... Iac> ~Cassie~ There are some carnaval traditions for Christmas in Russia but they have been long forgotten. Carnaval is also a frequent part of New Year celebration, though an unnecessary one (large and "organized" celebrations usually are made up as a carnaval with all that dressing-up etc). Here in Belarus we too have the tradition to put the presents under the tree, only that it happens for the New Year celebration (that is, the night between Dec 31st and Jan 1st), but we also have holidays for _both_ Catholic and Orthodox Christian Christmasses! :) Not because everyone is both Catholic or Orthodox, but simply because both religions cover a large enough percent of population to their demands to be met at governmental level. And I must say that even though my family is not Catholic under any approximation, we still celebrate Catholic Christmas, out of the spirit of friendship to our Western neighbours, but without any religious context... :) Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, (Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed), always happy to throw weird ideas into the community. The truth is such a convenient thing that there is no reason to exchange it for a lie. One can make pretty much anything of it without that. Danny. (Sergey Lukyanenko, "The Boy And The Darkness"). From bonnie at niche-associates.com Mon Jan 28 19:06:01 2002 From: bonnie at niche-associates.com (dicentra_spectabilis_alba) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 19:06:01 -0000 Subject: Ludo Bagman Is Ever So Evil (WAS Cutting Characters Slack / Ludo) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34210 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > Brenda W. wrote: > > > On Bagman: I don't believe he'll be found > > to be a DE. He's also too proud of his former greatness as a > quidditch star > > to destroy his rep. > > Alexander added: > > > Personally I find it unlikely. After all he was not > > accused of being a DE, but only of passing important intel > > to one of DE's. Did he know who is getting that intel is > > another matter. > > Bot even more important, Bagman's actions (not behavior, > > it's simulated too easily) don't give a hint that he might > > be one of those hideous evil guys in masks. > > > Oh, I was really going to sit this Bagman discussion out, but > Alexander provoked me with his comment that there's no hint that > Bagman is a DE. :-) So here we go again! > > As I said before, I'm convinced that Bagman will turn out to be an > evil DE after all. Caroline is on board, ::waves to Caroline:: but > maybe a few others can be persuaded to see Bagman as the Longstanding > Devoted Servant of the Dark Lord that he really is. We can start > with the really obvious evidence, and then move to the more subtle > points. [snippage of great evidence] Let's not forget Ludo's trial. When Harry's in the Pensieve and the scene changes to Ludo's trial, everyone is more relaxed and talking amongst themselves. Ludo repeats that he had no idea he was passing intel to Voldy, and when the jury gives its verdict, a breathless member of the jury also congratulates him on his performance in his last Quidditch match. Evidently, many in the WW are unwilling to believe Ludo's guilty because of his celebrity. IIRC, Moody mutters something under his breath about how Ludo is in fact a bad guy. I trust Moody's evaluation of Ludo (and Winky's and Rita's) more than those who like him for his celebrity and affable personality. I also think Fudge is a DE or at least a DE supporter. It seemed awfully suspicious that the first thing he does when he goes to question Crouch Jr. is bring along a Dementor to administer the fatal kiss. My first thought was that he was shutting him up before he could say anything more under the influence of the Veritaserum. There's more about his reaction to the news that Voldy is back in power. Almost like he's glad but pretends not to believe. I'd have to look it up, but I read it just last Saturday. --Dicentra, who thinks there are many more of Voldy's supporters lurking about From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Mon Jan 28 19:13:11 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 19:13:11 -0000 Subject: Ludo Bagman Is Ever So Evil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34211 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: >Alexander wrote (about Bagman's absence at the end of the Tournament): > > But if we view the situation from the point of view of > > _innocent_ Bagman, we come to the same result: exactly at > > the moment when Harry and Cedric touch the Cup (and probably > > their names become known to the public, highlighting in the > > air or something) Ludo goes searching for goblins to get his > > money! > > Tweeeeeeet!!! > > ::Referee throws yellow flag, which bounces off of Alexander's > helmet:: > > Alexander, the referee has just flagged you for Illegal Procedure. > IIRC, there is nothing in canon to suggest that the spectators and > judges know that Harry and Cedric touched the Cup or that this fact > was highlighted in the air. Ludo, like everyone else, probably > doesn't know what is going on in the maze. OK, this conversation has got possibilities, and I'm not taking sides, but I think that your yellow flag there is pretty doubtful. Let's see Canon: The maze had hedge walls 6 meters high. We're never openly told how high the seats for the quidditch public are, but I always assumed about as high as the goals (some 15 meters high). From that hight, it's still difficult to see what's going on inside corridors as small as the ones in the maze, so the public would have some idea of what was going on, but wouldn't see the details, except in the last room, the centre, which is very wide. Thus, the final rush was openly seen by everyone, including Bagman, which renders your yellow flag unnecesary. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From jmmears at prodigy.net Mon Jan 28 19:25:30 2002 From: jmmears at prodigy.net (serenadust) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 19:25:30 -0000 Subject: Love / Bagman / Hagrid / Erised / Religion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34212 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "sing2wine" wrote: > > Unfortunately, I agree with Ian. I shall be as sad as Harry, Ron & > Hermione when this happens. And I hope all you Hagrid Haters feel > guilty when he dies a noble death and is proclaimed a hero. I also > hope he and Madame Maxime get to have a meaningful and passionate > relationship before it does happen....Maybe Madame Maxime could be > pregnant with Hagrid's child.... > Yikes! That would mean that Ron's comments in Chapter 16 ("He fancies her! said Ron incredulously. Well, if they end up having children, they'll be setting a world record--bet any baby of theirs would weigh about a ton.") would be foreshadowing. If so, I sure hope there is a wedding for them, in the next book. Jo, wondering what the gestational period for half-giants is > > > ? From cindysphynx at home.com Mon Jan 28 19:46:00 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 19:46:00 -0000 Subject: Ludo Bagman Is Ever So Evil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34213 Grey Wolf wrote: > OK, this conversation has got possibilities, and I'm not taking sides, > but I think that your yellow flag there is pretty doubtful. Let's see > Canon: > > The maze had hedge walls 6 meters high. We're never openly told how > high the seats for the quidditch public are, but I always assumed about > as high as the goals (some 15 meters high). From that hight, it's still > difficult to see what's going on inside corridors as small as the ones > in the maze, so the public would have some idea of what was going on, > but wouldn't see the details, except in the last room, the centre, > which is very wide. Thus, the final rush was openly seen by everyone, > including Bagman, which renders your yellow flag unnecesary. > Yes, we are never told how high the viewing stands are. Aside from the fact that the walls were quite high (20 feet), however, there are other reasons to believe the spectators could not see the events in the maze. They are: 1. If people can see inside, why does no one observe the activities of Crouch/Moody? Fleur crumples to the ground early on, skrewts and spiders are roaming all around, and no one cares? How is Moody able to curse obstacles out of Harry's way unnoticed? 2. If people can see inside, why is there any need for a competitor to shoot up red sparks? Harry and Cedric could have left Krum there without the sparks, and someone would have come to collect him if everyone could see Krum lying there. 3. I don't do math or geometry or anything like that, but it seems to me that the stands would have to be terribly high for spectators to see over the 20 foot walls and all the way down to the ground level at the center of the maze. Can the math specialists work it out? Drieux? David? Barb? 4. While Harry is preparing to enter the maze, he sees the Weasleys watching him and applauding politely, and they are halfway up the stands. He "waved up at them." If the bottom portion of the viewing stand is high enough to see over the 20 foot hedge around the outside and to the center of the maze, and the Weasleys are half-way up, aren't the Weasleys way, way up there? Doesn't that put them too high to make out Harry waving to them at night, let alone how difficult it would be for him to spot them, see them wave, and note that they were smiling? 5. There is no mention that Ron and Hermione have their omnioculars. I submit that they don't need them because the stands are low and they can't see into the maze from their perch. If the stands were really high up so that everyone could see, wouldn't they have brought their omnioculars to watch Harry? I think the flag was proper because it is an awfully big stretch to say canon supports the idea that Bagman has some keen, unmentioned way of seeing into the center of the maze. Cindy (who might have to refer this to the league for a fine and possible suspension ) From aiz24 at hotmail.com Mon Jan 28 21:41:48 2002 From: aiz24 at hotmail.com (Amy Z) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 16:41:48 -0500 Subject: Painful Transfiguration? - TR, the Quidditch star - Duels Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34214 Lucy wrote: >Erm, from CS Chapter 12: >'His insides started writhing ... >doubled up, he wondered whether he was going >to be sick ... a burning sensation >spread rapidly from his stomach ... next, >bringing him gasping to all fours, came a horrible melting feeling ... his >shoulders stretched painfully ... his feet were in agony in shoes four >sizes >too small'. >Doesn't sound painless to me!! :-) True. However, to return to Finwitch: > > Also - being transformed might hurt almost as much > > as Cruciatus! Just > think - it hurts to break a bone - having EVERY >CELL > > IN YOUR BODY to > alter at the same time and stay in altered form - it > > must hurt - and > hurt worse than switching or bouncing. >{snip} It's possible. OTOH, Animagical (?) transformations give no indication of being painful; nor do self-transfigurations such as Viktor's. These are magical transformations; they circumvent Muggle physics (including, of course, conservation of matter--Draco's a lot bigger than a ferret). We know that werewolf tranformations are painful, and Polyjuice transformations are painful (at least when you're turning into Goyle ), but they're different. We don't see Viktor in the moment of transformation, so I won't try to draw conclusions from that, but we do see McGonagall transform back and forth, and they do it without a wince. Being Transfigured by someone else might be yet a third ball of wax, of course, but it seems more akin to Animagic than it is to lycanthropy or potion-induced transformation. Catlady wrote: >Think how awful Harry would feel if he discovered that what he believes to >be his one talent not only isn't even his, but came from his enemy. To which Pippin responded: >Horrid thought! I've had it too, but consoled myself that if T.R.'s name >was on a Quidditch trophy, the trio would have noticed it when they were >checking up on his history. Ah, but perhaps he was a great Seeker who never received the recognition he deserved. Young Tom chafed to see one undeserving team after another beat his Slytherins (whaddaya, blind, ref? hey, that was cobbing!), growing more bitter all the while. In his fourth year, a Muggle-born Gryffindor won M.V.P. and Tom snapped. It was then that his plans to kicked into high gear. And the moral is that fairer officiating could have prevented the most horrific conflict in centuries. Elkins wrote: >I'm under the impression that drawing wands is *serious* for adult >wizards, the equivalent of drawing weapons. I have the same impression: coming from an adult wizard, it would be like having someone point a gun at you. "Dumbledore's voice carried no hint of a threat . . . but Fudge bristled as if Dumbledore was advancing upon him with a wand" (GF 36). Amy Z -------------------------------------------- The clock on Lupin's wall . . . had twelve divisions, ranging from Sound Asleep to Murderous Intent And No Human Conscience. -Amanita Lestrange, "Fool's Paradise" -------------------------------------------- _________________________________________________________________ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com From lav at tut.by Mon Jan 28 21:54:43 2002 From: lav at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 23:54:43 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] 3rd Task (was: Ludo Bagman Is Ever So Evil) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <19111561673.20020128235443@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 34215 Greetings! > Cindy (sphynx) wrote to us: c> Yes, we are never told how high the viewing stands are. Aside from c> the fact that the walls were quite high (20 feet), however, there are c> other reasons to believe the spectators could not see the events in c> the maze. They are: Do you mean that the spectators were assumed to sit on their seats for damn whole hour and observe the outer walls of the labirinth? There _must_ be some way for spectators to see what's going on, or else Triwizard Tournament would become the greatest failure in entertainment industry. :) IMHO there was no way to see the events _directly_. But given the amount of spells useful for scrying (Hermione spent _days_ browsing through them!) I would bet something was conveyed to the spectators. Position? General events? Haven't the slightest idea. c> 1. If people can see inside, why does no one observe the c> activities of Crouch/Moody? Fleur crumples to the ground c> early on, skrewts and spiders are roaming all around, and c> no one cares? How is Moody able to curse obstacles out of c> Harry's way unnoticed? You have answered your own question here. :) There's a lot of cool events inside, why bother observing Moody? ;) Of course, if we assume that there was some way to observe events directly. c> 2. If people can see inside, why is there any need for a c> competitor to shoot up red sparks? c> 3. I don't do math or geometry or anything like that, but c> it seems to me that the stands would have to be terribly c> high for spectators to see over the 20 foot walls and all c> the way down to the ground level at the center of the c> maze. Can the math specialists work it out? Drieux? c> David? Barb? I'm myself a math specialist. ;) Quidditch field is 180 feet wide. I assume that the stands are ~50 feet high. Given wall height of 20 feet and assuming that the stands are 45 degrees to the ground, we get that the central room must be 60 feet in radius for the Cup to be observable from the highest seats. Thus, I find Grey Wolf's idea highly unlikely (whole labirinth is 180 feet wide, and central room is 120 feet in diameter?). c> I think the flag was proper because it is an awfully big c> stretch to say canon supports the idea that Bagman has c> some keen, unmentioned way of seeing into the center of c> the maze. Personally, I didn't even _think_ that it was possible to _look_ into the center - rather that the Cup itself, being a magical object, may transmit data outside the labirinth. After all, as soon as the Cup is reached, the labirinth itself disappears - thus there IS some magical link between the Cup and it's surroundings. But all this was invented only because Ludo was not mentioned in the scene after Harry returned. But in fact there's no need to do it at all. All scene is described from Harry's PoV which was pretty "limited" (so to say) at the moment. The fact that Ludo wasn't mentioned doesn't prove anything at all, just like all other arguments that were presented before. And about canon... there's as much (and as little) canon to assume that Ludo was a DE. In fact, _nothing_ in the canon hints to Ludo being a DE himself. Cindy indeed proved that Ludo MAY be a Death Eater, but I can easily build similar "proof" for almost any character in the books (yeah, including Harry, too :) IMHO this is a subject not worth discussing - no matter what we won't know the truth until subsequent books come out of print. c> Cindy (who might have to refer this to the league for a c> fine and possible suspension ) Oh, I'm sooooo scared! :) The most interesting thing is that I'm not the least bit interested if Ludo is a DE or not - but he was assaulted with such fury I felt obligation to defend the poor sap. :) IMHO it's impossible to stop people from trying accusing everyone around. Perhaps this topic will be over only when some another person will be accused. McGonagall, perhaps? ;) Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, (Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed), who is reasonably sure real Moody is ALSO a DE... ;-P - Human feelings are burning away in him now. Maybe Len will win and remain the same. Maybe he will die if he lacks strength but has willpower enough. Or... will become one of Dark. No, not true. He will still have human heart and human sight. We'll have to teach him friendship and goodness. This succeeds... sometimes. Sun Kitten. (Sergey Lukyanenko, "The Boy and the Darkness"). From cindysphynx at home.com Mon Jan 28 22:41:59 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 22:41:59 -0000 Subject: 3rd Task (was: Ludo Bagman Is Ever So Evil) In-Reply-To: <19111561673.20020128235443@tut.by> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34216 Alexander wrote: > Do you mean that the spectators were assumed to sit on > their seats for damn whole hour and observe the outer walls > of the labirinth? > There _must_ be some way for spectators to see what's > going on, or else Triwizard Tournament would become the > greatest failure in entertainment industry. :) > Eh, there has been some discussion of this in the past, but I don't really recall it clearly. I thought the consensus was that both the second and third task are rather FLINT-like because great numbers of people come to watch something they can't see. Maybe it is like bobsledding -- you can be at the finish, but you can't be someplace positioned to see everything. There are a few canon clues suggesting the spectators and judges couldn't see the second or third task. In the second task, there would be no reason for Dumbledore to take a report from the merperson if everyone could see the underwater events take place. Sounds weird, but that's how it looks like JKR intended it to be. Go figure. You're right that there's nothing conclusive about whether spectators and judges could see the final dash to the Cup. However, Mrs. Diggory suggests that Harry's account of the end of the Tournament is news to her: "And after all, Amos, . . . he died just when he'd won the tournament. He must have been happy." Also, Dumbledore asked the students not to "question [Harry] or ask him questions or badger him to tell the story of what had happened in the maze," further suggesting that no one could see what was going on. Alexander wrote: > I'm myself a math specialist. ;) > Quidditch field is 180 feet wide. I assume that the stands > are ~50 feet high. Given wall height of 20 feet and assuming > that the stands are 45 degrees to the ground, we get that > the central room must be 60 feet in radius for the Cup to be > observable from the highest seats. > Thus, I find Grey Wolf's idea highly unlikely (whole > labirinth is 180 feet wide, and central room is 120 feet in > diameter?). That's very impressive, Alexander. Downright L.O.O.N.y, IMHO. Nice work! Alexander again: > Personally, I didn't even _think_ that it was possible to > _look_ into the center - rather that the Cup itself, being a > magical object, may transmit data outside the labirinth. > After all, as soon as the Cup is reached, the labirinth > itself disappears - thus there IS some magical link between > the Cup and it's surroundings. Hmmm, I don't see anywhere where it says that the plinth disappears when Harry and Cedric touch it. By "labirinth", do you mean the walls? If so, I don't think that works because Harry states that he came back to the "edge of the maze." Alexander again (about Bagman's absence): > But all this was invented only because Ludo was not > mentioned in the scene after Harry returned. But in fact > there's no need to do it at all. All scene is described from > Harry's PoV which was pretty "limited" (so to say) at the > moment. The fact that Ludo wasn't mentioned doesn't prove > anything at all, just like all other arguments that were > presented before. > Well, sort of. The fact that Bagman wasn't mentioned after Harry returned with Cedric's body doesn't necessarily mean Bagman wasn't right there too. But Fred and George do tell us that Bagman ran for it "right after the third task." Leaving us with the same old question: where did Bagman go and why? Alexander again: >Cindy indeed proved > that Ludo MAY be a Death Eater, but I can easily build > similar "proof" for almost any character in the books (yeah, > including Harry, too :) > IMHO this is a subject not worth discussing - no matter > what we won't know the truth until subsequent books come out > of print. > Aw, gee. Making up wacky theories and trying to prove them based on logic with a foundation in canon is half the fun. How else are we supposed to survive the interminable delay in the release of OoP? :-) Seriously, though, I started all of this nonsense by saying two things: I think Bagman is an evil DE, but I just can't prove it. Both of those things are still true. > c> Cindy (who might have to refer this to the league for a > c> fine and possible suspension ) > > Oh, I'm sooooo scared! :) > Cindy (handing the yellow flag back to the referee, reversing herself on referring this to the league, and instead nominating Alexander for L.O.O.N. status and the fast track to the Hall of Fame for that snappy math analysis) From mlfrasher at aol.com Mon Jan 28 17:53:37 2002 From: mlfrasher at aol.com (mlfrasher at aol.com) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 12:53:37 EST Subject: US/UK versions Message-ID: <9c.1a155706.2986ea21@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 34217 rachel wrote: >This may be a dumb question - but how do readers in the US feel about the slight translations that have occurred in the US versions? the most obvious being the PS / SS substitution (if anyone can shed any light on why "philosopher" was not deemed appropriate for the US market i'd greatley appreciate it - i'm very curious). I recently bought the UK special eds for this very reason. Perhaps it's my personal 'glitch' and professional training that always drives me to the original - if I can manage it. (The bindings are better too, and not just in the special eds.) One of the few ways you can really get into a culture is through the language; and if you don't try to learn it, you won't understand the present-day perspective of those people, or much of their history. This has been pretty evident in the current postings, and I believe this is true for American English speakers to British English. I wasn't surprised (but I was disappointed) when I learned that they changed the title from Philosophers to Sorcerers. Philosophers aren't sexy. (Although I hear Kant had great legs, and Spinosa....jk!) If I told my class we were going to talk about philosophers, I would watch their eyes roll back into their heads and tune out. (and these are college kids....) The fact is, and I'm sure I'll have a lot of you who disagree with me on this, that America is not a nation of intellectuals - or perhaps I should rephrase - not willing to admit it has intellectual underpinnings. I'm talking about on a mass scale here, as obviously the US has academicians etc., but frankly they (which includes me) live in a world that is very different from the everyday Jane and Joe. The word "Intellectual" is practically a swear word (in part, thanks to Richard Nixon) and you can't get much more intellectual than a philosopher. Now a sorcerer....well, that says action and intrigue, and something a younger audiance can understand much better than a philosopher. I should add that reading the UK versions were a treat for me to learn a few new colloquialisms. margaraeta intellectual (ewwwww), but loves a good beer and a fart joke.... From judyshapiro at earthlink.net Mon Jan 28 23:14:28 2002 From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 23:14:28 -0000 Subject: Slack for RL / Fawkes / Snape = Snake? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34218 I'm with the crowd that wants to give Remus some slack. (An acronym! We need an acronym!) Several people here have talked about Remus going around in his youth, terrifying people while in wolf form. We don't know that he ever did any such thing. All he talks about is "near misses" -- it's not clear that any of these misses involved terrifying anyone. Maybe Remus sometimes got away from Sirius and James while roaming around, and the "near miss" was that it tok a few minutes for them to catch up with him. Perhaps the near misses included times when a group of humans headed in their direction, and Sirius and James only just got Remus away in time. There's no evidence that anyone outside the group saw Remus in wolf form. Even if someone saw Remus, unless he attacked them, they'd probably just think he was a real wolf, since the differences between werewolves and real wolves are subtle. I think it's pretty clear that Remus never actually attacked anyone; he mentions the risk of biting someone, but no actual bites. So, quite possibly no one ever saw him and knew that he was a werewolf. Cindysphynx wrote: > Remus' main sin was in not showing maturity beyond his years by > refusing to accompany his friends on their adventures. I can > forgive that. I agree completely. Can't you just see Sirius (and maybe James) saying "Oh, come on, Remus, you can't expect us to spend all night in that boring Shack. We've spent years learning how to become animagi for you! Let's get out and run around!" Given their personalities, I'd expect leaving the Shack to be Sirius' or James' idea, not Remus'. On to Fawkes: In message #34196, Lucky_Kari suggested that if Guy Fawkes was a wizard, this would explain why Dumbledore's phoenix is named Fawkes. Actually, JKR may have named Fawkes after a character in another book. I've heard that there is a children's fantasy book, featuring a phoenix named Fawkes, and that JKR really likes this book. Unfortunately, I can't remember the name of it. And, now from phoenixes to snakes: Several people have said that Snape's name gets translated as "snake", or some particular kind of snake, in other languages. I think that's an example of the pitfalls of translation. Giving Snape a name that means snake ties him way too closely to Voldemort. We're not even supposed to know he was Death Eater, until Book 4. And, calling him snake interferes with his bat-like qualities; snakes are very different from bats. In fact, the name "Snape" makes me think of snipe and snide, not snake. Snipe and snide could both refer to Snape's habit of insulting people. For the benefit of our many non-native English speakers (who do a great job of writing in English, by the way!), let me define these terms. Snide means "sneering or derogatory in a sly way." Snipe literally refers to shooting someone, but it also has the meaning of "to make sly critical remarks attacking a person or thing." Another word similar to snape, "snap", also can refer to insulting; to "snap" at someone is to make an angry comment at them. And, while verifying these definitions, I noticed that my dictionary also lists "snip" as having the slang meaning of "an unpleasant person", although I've never heard it used that way. So, I see the name "Snape" as conveying an unpleasant, insulting, but not necessarily evil, person. "Snake" would suggest a much more evil person. I wonder if other fans of Snape see the name "Snape" as implying someone who is basically good but has a nasty manner, while Snape-haters think of a snake? -- Judy From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Mon Jan 28 23:39:40 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 23:39:40 -0000 Subject: Love / Bagman / Hagrid / Erised / Religion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34219 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "sing2wine" wrote: > Eileen writes: > JKR said very clearly that in the fourth > book the kids all fall for the *wrong* people. I didn't write this, :-), though I take no offense at being so honoured. However, the author, whoever it is, better deserves the credit. Eileen From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Tue Jan 29 00:32:26 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 00:32:26 -0000 Subject: Slack for RL / Fawkes / Snape = Snake? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34220 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "judyserenity" wrote: > In message #34196, Lucky_Kari suggested that if Guy Fawkes was a > wizard, this would explain why Dumbledore's phoenix is named Fawkes. > Actually, JKR may have named Fawkes after a character in another book. > I've heard that there is a children's fantasy book, featuring a > phoenix named Fawkes, and that JKR really likes this book. > Unfortunately, I can't remember the name of it. "The Phoenix and the Carpet", by Edith Nesbit, by any chance? The phoenix there isn't named Fawkes, but he arrives in conjunction with Guy Fawkes day, IIRC. That probably is the explanation outside the book, but I'm one of those people who hunt for elusive explanations inside the book, that never would have occurred to the author in the first place. I felt guilty of this many years, till I read Moby Dick. The justification that book afforded me in this habit by its treatment of symbolism etc. has made it very dear to me, even though it is an acquired taste. > In fact, the name "Snape" makes me think of snipe and snide, not > snake. Hear! Hear! Snipe and Snap were what I took from it. Though I am a firm opponent of translating personal and place names in foreign translations. (Unfortunately, I'm not at home so I can't find Tolkien's wonderful rant against the practice: directed, I think, at a would-be Dutch translator of "The Hobbit") True, readers miss the connotations of some names, but they are also getting something much more valuable: the feeling that this is England, not a Spanish England, not a Russian England, but an English England. I do not want, next time I read a Russian novel, to have the names all anglicized. Is it Solzhenitsyn's "The Cancer Ward" where one of the characters is named Kostoglotov(sp?), which according to the footnotes means bone-chewer, thus making it very funny when a new arrival to the ward makes a comment that he looks like he chews bones? Of course, to an English reader, this isn't very funny, because one has to look the joke up in the footnotes. But it's better that way than if the translator rechristened him "Chewbone". (On this note, I suspect the OLD translation of "War and Peace" of something along these lines with its "Andrew, Mary, and Nicholas" while newer translations work along the lines of "Andrei, Marya, and Nikolai". But it grows more complicated. I found another translation in which many of the names were Frenchified: "Marie", for example (though I would think that made more sense than "Mary". "Helene" vs. "Helena" also seems to jump about in translations, but with no predictable pattern. "Pierre" and "Natasha" are about the only things that keep stable.) Now, sometimes these changes can be called for. I was impressed by how the Spanish translation handled Erised=Desire and Tom Marvolio Riddle=I am Lord Voldemort. But, on the whole, bury the sense in the footnotes, where people such as myself will look for it and try to laugh over it. Eileen From sjwinzar at optushome.com.au Mon Jan 28 22:36:17 2002 From: sjwinzar at optushome.com.au (Gerard) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 08:36:17 +1000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Painful Transfiguration? - TR, the Quidditch star - Duels References: Message-ID: <008701c1a84c$333e0d10$91c3a4cb@autocthonia> No: HPFGUIDX 34221 Amy wrote: > It's possible. OTOH, Animagical (?) transformations give no indication of > being painful; nor do self-transfigurations such as Viktor's. These are > magical transformations; they circumvent Muggle physics (including, of > course, conservation of matter--Draco's a lot bigger than a ferret). We > know that werewolf tranformations are painful, and Polyjuice transformations > are painful (at least when you're turning into Goyle ), but they're > different. We don't see Viktor in the moment of transformation, so I won't > try to draw conclusions from that, but we do see McGonagall transform back > and forth, and they do it without a wince. Being Transfigured by someone > else might be yet a third ball of wax, of course, but it seems more akin to > Animagic than it is to lycanthropy or potion-induced transformation. My opinion is that McGonagall still feels the transformation pain, but because she's been doing it for years and is so good, it's been reduced from it's bone twisting intensity down to the level of ripping off a bandaid or sticking plaster eg. Ouch, but I got over it :) There is nothing intrinsic in a magical transformation that makes it not hurt. Unless there is a specific part of the spell that deals with it IMO. Just being "magical" is not reason enough. Although on the other hand you could say the only reason a lycanthropic transformation causes pain is because it's a Curse....hmm now I've confused myself ;) Just my two cents worth... -Gerard From rachrobins at hotmail.com Tue Jan 29 00:00:22 2002 From: rachrobins at hotmail.com (tangawarra1) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 00:00:22 -0000 Subject: How do Muggle-born students find Diagon Alley? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34222 A question that has been puzzling me for some time... How do Muggle-born students (first years) know how to find Diagon Alley to get their hogwarts supplies? Do they perhaps recieve something extra with their letter to explain about the Leaky Cauldron?? I haven't found any clues to this in canon - has anyone else found any information on this? If this has already been discussed, feel free to just point me to the message numbers. ta rachel From mjollner at yahoo.com Tue Jan 29 00:36:22 2002 From: mjollner at yahoo.com (mjollner) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 00:36:22 -0000 Subject: Slack for RL In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34223 --- "judyserenity" wrote: > I'm with the crowd that wants to give Remus some slack. (An acronym! > We need an acronym!) I submit the following: G.R.A.B. - Give Remus a Break! P.R.A.W.N.A.M. - Poor Remus -- A Werewolf, Not a Monster! O.W.L.M.O.M. - Our Wonderful Lupin, Man of Mystery! R.A.T.M.A.N. - Remus, a Terrible Monster? Altogether: No! (This is harder than it looks...O Tabouli, where art thou??) judyserenity continues: > Several people here have talked about Remus going around in his youth, > terrifying people while in wolf form. We don't know that he ever did > any such thing. All he talks about is "near misses" -- it's not clear > that any of these misses involved terrifying anyone. I'm with you, sister, about those "near misses." Those who think unduly ill of our beloved werewolf's youthful escapades should bear in mind that when in the Shrieking Shack in PoA, he's trying in haste to explain some very painful personal history to the disbelieving Trio. Hermione calls him on the risks he took, for which he feels ever so guilty now. But just imagine the freedom he felt at being able to be out with his friends for the first time in his life (on top of the gratification of *having* friends for the first time in his life). The good influence they had on his mind during the full moon, plus the sheer size of Padfoot and Prongs, were enough to settle his conscience about the danger he posed to others while "out." And now I need to stop, because the title of that bad B movie from the 1950s, "I Was a Teenage Werewolf," won't leave my head! Uh oh, I'm getting the giggles... Mjollner, whose Dream Wizard is a cross between Sirius and Remus (sigh!) From Zarleycat at aol.com Tue Jan 29 01:13:19 2002 From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 01:13:19 -0000 Subject: How do Muggle-born students find Diagon Alley? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34224 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "tangawarra1" wrote: > A question that has been puzzling me for some time... > > How do Muggle-born students (first years) know how to find Diagon > Alley to get their hogwarts supplies? Do they perhaps recieve > something extra with their letter to explain about the Leaky > Cauldron?? I haven't found any clues to this in canon - has anyone > else found any information on this? I think that Hogwarts has to do something, whether they send extra explanatory information or actually send someone to visit the Muggle parents. Otherwise, I'd think that most parents would assume that the letter their child received from Hogwarts was some sort of elaborate joke. It would be nice to get more input from the Grangers on what they make of all this magic stuff. What do they say to their Muggle friends about the school their daughter attends? Sure, they can pass it off as a Scottish boarding school, but they'd always have to be on their toes to prevent mention of sickles or cauldrons or owl post. Marianne From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Jan 29 01:54:36 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 01:54:36 -0000 Subject: Slack for RL In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34225 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "mjollner" wrote: > --- "judyserenity" wrote: > > > I'm with the crowd that wants to give Remus some slack. (An > acronym! > > We need an acronym!) > > I submit the following: > G.R.A.B. - Give Remus a Break! > P.R.A.W.N.A.M. - Poor Remus -- A Werewolf, Not a Monster! > O.W.L.M.O.M. - Our Wonderful Lupin, Man of Mystery! > R.A.T.M.A.N. - Remus, a Terrible Monster? Altogether: No! > > (This is harder than it looks...O Tabouli, where art thou??) How about R.E.C.K.L.E.S.S. Remus, Evidencing Criminality, Kept Lawlessly Exiting Shrieking Shack ;-) > > judyserenity continues: > > Several people here have talked about Remus going around in his youth, terrifying people while in wolf form. We don't know that he ever did any such thing. All he talks about is "near misses" -- it's not clear > > that any of these misses involved terrifying anyone. Mjollnir writes: > I'm with you, sister, about those "near misses." Those who think unduly ill of our beloved werewolf's youthful escapades should bear in mind that when in the Shrieking Shack in PoA, he's trying in haste to explain some very painful personal history to the disbelieving Trio. Hermione calls him on the risks he took, for which he feels ever so guilty now. But just imagine the freedom he felt at being able to be > out with his friends for the first time in his life (on top of the > gratification of *having* friends for the first time in his life). > The good influence they had on his mind during the full moon, plus the sheer size of Padfoot and Prongs, were enough to settle his conscience about the danger he posed to others while "out." > Okay, we don't know what Remus did. But if the close calls weren't that close, then why should he say that he's still haunted by the risk he took? Is his conscience so needlessly tender? Remus says he became less dangerous when he was with his friends. I suppose that they kept him from the frenzy that made him bite anything including himself when there were no humans around. But we do see how he acts when there *are* humans present and Sirius is there in dog form. Sirius has to pull him back and gets bitten and scratched in the process. I can understand their wanting to leave the Shack. All that work to become Animagi, and what did they gain by it? They can't talk in their animal forms, can't play human games, or do much of anything but look sadly at each other. It must have been an awful disappointment. If they had only gone romping in the Forest I wouldn't blame them so much. People would know to avoid it on a night of full moon. But the village? And they did it over and over, and planned what they did, which is a little different than Ron and Harry suddenly getting a wild hair about taking the Car, or even Sirius blurting (if it was a blurt) how to get into the Willow. As for the sheer pleasure of going out to play,well, once they'd discovered the secret entrances, they could get out any time, when Remus wasn't a wolf and not dangerous to anybody. But they were too much in love with their game by then, I guess. Pippin whose teenage close calls were closer than she likes to think From cindysphynx at home.com Tue Jan 29 02:17:30 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 02:17:30 -0000 Subject: Slack for Remus Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34226 Pippin wrote: > How about R.E.C.K.L.E.S.S. > > Remus, Evidencing Criminality, Kept Lawlessly Exiting Shrieking > Shack ;-) Ouch! Pippin again: > > Okay, we don't know what Remus did. But if the close calls > weren't that close, then why should he say that he's still haunted > by the risk he took? Is his conscience so needlessly tender? > > Remus says he became less dangerous when he was with his > friends. I have a hard time believing that MWPP were really *that* reckless. Yes, Lupin says they learned a lot about Hogsmeade and there were near misses. This conjures up the mental image of the four of them sauntering down the main street in Hogsmeade. But how likely is that, really? Can a large dog, a wolf, a rat and a stag just waltz around town without attracting a great deal of attention? I think Remus is broken up with guilt, having carried this terrible secret around with him for years, and he is blowing things out of proportion just a bit. So, no, his conduct was far from criminal, IMHO. Indeed, if we are going to rank the teenage indiscretion in the books, Remus has a fairly low score, compared to certain other reckless teens and reckless adults in the books. Anyway, Pippin, I admire your courage in being willing to take Lupin to task. Cindy (who knows she strayed from canon a bit in this post and is hoping no one will call her one it) I suppose that they kept him from the frenzy that made > him bite anything including himself when there were no humans > around. But we do see how he acts when there *are* humans > present and Sirius is there in dog form. Sirius has to pull him > back and gets bitten and scratched in the process. > > I can understand their wanting to leave the Shack. All that work to > become Animagi, and what did they gain by it? They can't talk in > their animal forms, can't play human games, or do much of > anything but look sadly at each other. It must have been an awful > disappointment. If they had only gone romping in the Forest I > wouldn't blame them so much. People would know to avoid it on > a night of full moon. But the village? And they did it over and over, > and planned what they did, which is a little different than Ron and > Harry suddenly getting a wild hair about taking the Car, or even > Sirius blurting (if it was a blurt) how to get into the Willow. > > As for the sheer pleasure of going out to play,well, once they'd > discovered the secret entrances, they could get out any time, > when Remus wasn't a wolf and not dangerous to anybody. But > they were too much in love with their game by then, I guess. > > Pippin > whose teenage close calls were closer than she likes to think From brewpub44 at earthlink.net Tue Jan 29 02:28:48 2002 From: brewpub44 at earthlink.net (brewpub44) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 02:28:48 -0000 Subject: Snape, Sirius, the Dementors In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34227 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" wrote: > Cindy wrote: > > > During one of my anti-Snape rants, someone (pigwidgeon?) > > kindly informed me that Snape had every opportunity to > > turn Black over to the dementors in PoA. > > No! Wait, Cindy! Don't give up! All is not lost! > > How's this? Snape takes Black back to the castle, rather than > handing him over to the dementors, because he thinks that he'll > get more *glory* that way. > As a fan of Snape's character, I have to say he does not turn Black over to the dementors because Snape hates the dementors quite like Dumbledore does. The dementors are a cruel, barbaric way to treat prisoners, and as we saw with Crouch Jr., they are not at all useful for interrogation. A Barkeep in Diagon Alley From boggles at earthlink.net Tue Jan 29 03:27:21 2002 From: boggles at earthlink.net (Jennifer Boggess Ramon) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 21:27:21 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Not So Secular Potterverse In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34228 At 10:46 PM -0500 1/27/02, IAmLordCassandra at aol.com wrote: >Jenny from ravenclaw writes: > > > >> Considering that Christmas >> and Easter are specifically religious holidays, the fact remains that >> the Potterverse is overwhelmingly a Christian one. Not Jewish, > > Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist. Christian. It's certainly of Christendom - the only religious echoes we see are Christian ones. But they seem to be "culturally" Christian, rather than theologically so. Not that that's much consolation to those of us who are not Christian either culturally or theologically . . . >Also, many of the traditions of Christmas and Halloween are taken from pagan >rituals. Well, they're pre-Christian traditions attached to the various solstice festivals. Some of them are no more specifically Pagan than stringing popcorn and cranberries is specifically Christian; they're just things people do/did for the holidays. >Halloween, from what I understand-is majorly pagan and >American. At least I've assumed the going door to door/dressing up/candy deal >was American. Correct me if I'm wrong, of course. Irish-American, yes. Halloween itself is a mixture of Pagan, Christian, and folk traditions. The Pagan festival is properly called Samhain, at least by most of us. *wrenching this back to vaguely on topic* Most of the Halloween celebrations in the books seem to focus on the folk traditions of Halloween, rather than the religious ones on either side. The rumored dancing skeletons from CoS, for instance, remind me more of El Dia de los Muertos than anything strictly Pagan. Pumpkin is a New World vegetable as well; the association of pumpkins with Halloween is Irish-American and well postdates the advent of Christendom, and it's the most consistent association with Halloween in the books, as far as I can tell. Really, the most Samhain-y thing Harry and company do on Halloween in the books is eat and drink with the spirits of the dead - and they really don't eat or drink much, if anything, at Nearly Headless Nick's deathday party. -- - 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 Tue Jan 29 03:30:39 2002 From: bonnie at niche-associates.com (dicentra_spectabilis_alba) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 03:30:39 -0000 Subject: Snape, Sirius, the Dementors In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34229 > > > > How's this? Snape takes Black back to the castle, rather than > > handing him over to the dementors, because he thinks that he'll > > get more *glory* that way. > > > > As a fan of Snape's character, I have to say he does not turn Black > over to the dementors because Snape hates the dementors quite like > Dumbledore does. The dementors are a cruel, barbaric way to treat > prisoners, and as we saw with Crouch Jr., they are not at all useful > for interrogation. > Don't forget that Snape was probably a bit loopy at that point, having been zapped by a triple Expelliarmus and then involuntarily striking his head against the tunnel ceiling, complements of Sirius. He also might have watched the Dementors go after Harry for no good reason and feared they might go after him, too. --Dicentra, who actually favors the glory theory, given his conversation with Fudge after the incident. From jmmears at prodigy.net Tue Jan 29 04:05:24 2002 From: jmmears at prodigy.net (serenadust) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 04:05:24 -0000 Subject: Ludo Bagman Is Ever So Evil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34230 > > "serenadust" said: > > It is because of Bagman that they are all > > there [at the QWC] at the same time Barty C. Jr is there under the > > invisibility cloak, and I believe this was set up so that Crouch Jr. > > could be near enough to Harry to take his wand. > Judy wrote: > I'm not so sure about this. At that point, Crouch Jr. had not yet > re-established contact with Voldy, I believe. So, how could Crouch > Jr.'s theft of the wand be part of Voldy's plan? I think Crouch Jr. > just sent up the Dark Mark on his own initiative. You're right, Judy. I just went back and re-read the sequence of events concerning the QWC in the top box and you are correct that Crouch Jr. had not yet made contact with Voldy at this point. I still keep thinking that it can't have been coincidental that Bagman got Harry et al into the top box, although I can't connect all the dots yet. Jo From porphyria at mindspring.com Tue Jan 29 04:07:06 2002 From: porphyria at mindspring.com (porphyria at mindspring.com) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 23:07:06 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Fawkes; semi-guilty characters Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34231 Hello, all! I had some remarks on a couple of separate subjects: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "judyserenity" wrote: > In message #34196, Lucky_Kari suggested that if Guy Fawkes was a > wizard, this would explain why Dumbledore's phoenix is named Fawkes. > Actually, JKR may have named Fawkes after a character in another book. > I've heard that there is a children's fantasy book, featuring a > phoenix named Fawkes, and that JKR really likes this book. > Unfortunately, I can't remember the name of it. Eileen answered: > "The Phoenix and the Carpet", by Edith Nesbit, by any chance? The > phoenix there isn't named Fawkes, but he arrives in conjunction with > Guy Fawkes day, IIRC. I just wanted to add to this that I figured that Fawkes was named Fawkes because he bursts into flames on a regular basis, reminiscent of the celebratory bonfires. :-) I also wanted to weigh in on the discussion of the possible guilt of Bagman -- I've been enjoying this discussion so far, but I also agree it might be impossible to demonstrate his guilt or innocence right now. When I first read GoF I got the distinct impression that both Bagman and Fudge were wildly guilty, unrepentant DE's. Then I wondered if I was being led down the garden path... So my guess is that Bagman and Fudge will serve as the red herrings for future books, at the end of which the *real* villain will turn out to be totally innocent-appearing characters. I also have to agree with the essence of Elkin's post on the subject today (34182) that it will be disappointing if every seemingly bad character will be proven to be *totally* bad. Aren't there people who might be helping Voldemort by virtue of their own stupidty? On the other hand, re Elkins: > For heaven's > sake, where are all of the patsies and the weaklings? That's a good question, but I guess my reply would be, where do you draw the line between weak and unwilling? 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? Also, Avery seems like a coward -- maybe he's really evil but just hyper. 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. 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. 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? I dutifully tried out this site: http://www.geocities.com/aberforths_goat/, but I still couldn't find that reference. Hoping it gets more complicated, ~~Porphyria From theennead at attbi.com Tue Jan 29 03:43:26 2002 From: theennead at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 03:43:26 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's Unwilling Executioners (WAS: Ludo Bagman...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34232 I found myself wondering whatever happened to the Imperius Victims of the first Vold War. Where are the Imperius victims? Judy wrote: > Excellent point! Just whom did Mulciber put under the > Imperius Curse, if everyone and his uncle was really a > willing Death Eater? We haven't seen anyone who actually > turned out to be Imperio'ed during Voldy's first period > in power. I hold some hope that Arthur Weasley might turn out to have been one of them. It seems to me that the younger or lower-ranking ministry workers would have been prime targets for that sort of thing. And I found the "The Unforgivable Curses" chapter of GoF somewhat suggestive of that possibility. Although "several hands rose tentatively into the air" when Crouch invites the students to name the Unforgivables in DADA class, he calls upon Ron. (He's already, earlier in the class, identified Ron as Arthur Weasley's son.) And when Ron says that his father told him about one called the Imperius Curse, Crouch/Moody responds with: 'Ah, yes,' said Moody appreciatively. 'Your father *would* know that one. Gave the Ministry a lot of trouble at one time, the Imperius Curse.'" Given Crouch's penchant for sly double-edged statements throughout the book, I find myself wondering whether his comment there might not have a second meaning. And it would seem perfectly in character for Crouch to go out of his way to call on Ron to answer the question, just as he later chooses to call on Neville. (I feel certain that he would have called on Harry, too, were it not for the fact that Harry didn't know the names of any Unforgivables and therefore never raised his hand.) The man does seem to be a bit of a sadist. Of course, if poor Arthur really *was* Imperio'ed at some point during the first Voldie War, then it's clearly a Deep Dark Secret, and not something that anyone's told the younger Weasley kids about. Ron is spooked by the spiders, but he is resolutely unfazed by either Crouch/Moody's comment or by the demonstration of the Imperius Curse itself. Very disappointing for Crouch, I'm sure. If Arthur Weasley really had been Imperio'ed at some time in the past, it might also explain a bit of: "'I've heard of his family,' said Ron darkly. 'They were some of the first to come back to our side after You-Know-Who disappeared. Said they'd been bewitched. My dad doesn't believe it. He says Malfoy's father didn't need an excuse to go over to the Dark Side.'" This, from a kid who doesn't even know what the Dark Mark is? And who was raised in a culture that seems extraordinarily unwilling ever to speak (or even to think) about those days? And yet he knows the specific *grounds* of Lucius Malfoy's acquittal? If poor Arthur Weasley had really sincerely *truly* been Imperio'ed, then I imagine that Malfoy getting off on the same claim would have really *rankled* -- rankled badly enough, perhaps, for him even to have mouthed off to his younger children about it, in spite of the general wizarding reluctance to speak of such matters. Also, Ron seems to have an unusually hard time with the Imperius. Could be genetic. A far-fetched speculation, I admit. But I'm partial to it. ---- Judy wrote: > This also reminds me of a related question -- just who are all > those wizards in Axkaban? Sirius talks as if there are lots > Voldemort supporters there, and we hear about Moody catching > dark wizards, but in the Death EAters chapter of GoF, Voldy > mentions only the Lestranges as being in Azkaban. Oh, I'm sure that there are plenty of Voldy's old supporters in Azkaban. There are many gaps in the DE circle at the graveyard, even if most of them go uncommented upon by Voldemort. He only mentions the Lestranges in particular because they were loyal enough to have acted in his service *after* he had been discorporated. The people who went to prison for serving him when he was still the Big Bad? Nah, he doesn't bother to talk about them. To his way of thinking, those people don't warrant any special mention. > Maybe Voldy only mentioned people who were killed or captured > since the last time the circle was formed? No, I think he only mentions people whom he has marked either for particular praise (the Lestranges, the loyal servant at Hogwarts) or particular shame (the coward, the traitor). The only reason he bothers to mention those "three dead in my service" at all, IMO, is because it rounds out the oratory. He's already paused at that gap in the circle to denounce the coward and traitor, and to praise the loyalist; and so while he's there, he figures that he might as well mention the dead guys -- it evens out the sentence structure. But I really think that's all there is to it. > Or maybe there are lower-level followers who aren't Death Eaters? I feel certain that there are. Or were, at any rate, back when V was powerful. --- Now me, *I* wonder about those prisoners Sirius claims Karkaroff put in Azkaban. The "load of other people" Sirius says Karkaroff sent to prison in his place? Who on earth are those people? The only person we know about is Rookwood. Everyone else Karkaroff mentions in the Pensieve scene is already either dead or apprehended by the time he cuts his deal. Two suggestions occur. Well...three. (a) Karkaroff's testimony was not, in fact, sufficient to convince the ministry to release him. He named more names later on. (b) Rookwood's arrest led to many other arrests (like Bagman's). All of the people who were caught through Rookwood held Karkaroff responsible. (c) There weren't "loads of people" at all. There was just old Rookwood, who once treated Sirius to a long hoarse rambling half-mad monologue about that rotter Karkaroff through the bars of their respective cells one day, and Sirius just remembers it slightly differently because...well, because his own grasp on reality wasn't all that firm either, at the time. --- Cindy herself had no difficulty imagining where all the Imperius victims went. She wrote: > Oh, there probably are some innocent people who were only evil > because of Mulciber's Imperius curse. Where are they, Elkins asks > (through a cloud of pipe smoke)? Rotting in Azkaban, of course. Thus answering both my question and Judy's question in one fell swoop! > Wizard justice stinks. You know it, and I know it. Wizard justice > results in the innocent being locked up for life (Sirius), and the > evil-to-the-core getting off (Avery, Karkaroff, Pettigrew, > Malfoy). Hey! Don't abuse Avery! Avery's not evil to the core. He's just misunderstood. Oh, er...sorry. Wrong thread. > That said, I really must invite Elkins to put her feet up and > have a brandy while she explains why it is so important that > someone in canon be absolved of guilt because of the Imperius > Curse? Brandy? Don't mind if I do. Well...let's see now. Why *is* it so important to me? A very good question, that. I suppose that it all really goes back to that time when I was seven years old, and my mother... *Hey!* That was sneaky, Cindy. And I'm having this brandy tested before I drink any more of it. Why is it important to me? Oh, I don't know. Part of it is my discomfort with the feeling I sometimes get that JKR's moral universe is composed of only three types of people: Wicked Villains; Those Strong and Brave Enough To Prevail Over All Manner of Coercion; and Those Fast On Their Way To Becoming Either One or the Other. The other part of it is that the very idea of mind control scares me silly -- it's a pet terror of mine -- and so I would find it enjoyably frightening to be given evidence that Voldemort and his pals really *did* once force a whole lot of weak-but-well-meaning wizards to do things against their will. It would make the bad guys scarier -- and scary is all to the good, AFAIC. > In the meantime, I will scour canon for an example of someone who > served the Dark Lord only because they were under the Imperius > Curse ::cough::VictorKrum::cough:: Good point. I will accept Viktor as our canonical example of Victim of Imperius and stop complaining. (I'm still hoping to learn sad things about Arthur Weasley's past, though.) > Apparently, serving the Dark Lord is so rewarding on its own merits > that DEs serve voluntarily and don't have to be coerced. As I've been imagining the whole DE thing, it *can't* be coerced. It's a voluntary compact. All of the DEs entered into that relationship willingly and consciously, IMHO. More fools them. But there are lesser ways of serving a cause. > As for this Mulciber person, perhaps he uses Imperius sparingly > because a wizard can throw it off with a bit of concentration, > which would prove awkward if it happens at the wrong moment. Now, now. Harry can shrug it off readily, yes. But Crouch Sr. was a powerful and experienced wizard, and even he had to fight like the very devil to break through it. And it took Crouch Jr. (whose magical capabilities seem not inconsiderable at all) ten years to throw the thing off. I think Harry's a freak, myself. > So the Dark Lord probably did not give the really evil jobs to > those acting under the Imperius Curse. Wizards acting under > Imperius probably drove the getaway broom or something. Planted things, stole things, broke windows, scrawled anti-Muggle graffiti on public buildings... -- Elkins, who may be weak-willed, but is nonetheless not (she hopes) either a Wicked Villain or fast on her way to becoming one. From megalynn44 at hotmail.com Tue Jan 29 04:10:44 2002 From: megalynn44 at hotmail.com (Meghan Stancil) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 23:10:44 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape, Sirius, the Dementors Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34233 What is the glory theory? MEGHAN :) _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. From mrgrrrargh at aol.com Tue Jan 29 04:27:32 2002 From: mrgrrrargh at aol.com (mrgrrrargh at aol.com) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 23:27:32 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] US/UK versions Message-ID: <53.11b5ce23.29877eb4@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 34234 > This may be a dumb question - but how do readers in the US feel about > the slight translations that have occurred in the US versions? rachel and margaraeta: I HATE them! I'd prefer to have the books as JKR wrote them. However, we Americans tend to want things in our own toungue (can't think a foreigner can write better than we can *weg*) and it'd confuse a lot of people if Quidditch was compared to football rather than soccer -- and you saw the confusion we had on this list about public schools. Personally I watch enough British TV to understand more idioms than the average person, but I'm still no expert in British anything. But as margaraeta said, the books let you learn more about another culture... and I'm glad they kept "mum" rather than changing it to "mom." -SpyGameFan [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mrgrrrargh at aol.com Tue Jan 29 04:19:20 2002 From: mrgrrrargh at aol.com (mrgrrrargh at aol.com) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 23:19:20 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] (Not So) Secular Potterverse Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34235 Putting a lot of people's posts together, so I'm gonna avoid the quotage: John: A lot of food is kosher year round. In the states there is a symbol on many brand-name foods that labels them kosher and/or kosher for Passover. Which brings up the question of whether the house elves do kosher foods for some students. Cassie: Halloween's door to door thing, I believe has roots in pagan (Celtic specifically) tradition. Wicca.com has more on the major pagan holidays if anyone wants to read about them. And I was surprised to read about Halloween in the HP books. I always thought it was celebrated more in America than in the UK... but what do I know? Jenny from Ravenclaw & Judy Shapiro: About Christmas... I have a Jewish friend who has a Christmas tree and celebrates the holiday. The reason that she does it is because when her family first immigrated to the states they were very concerned with fitting in and assimilating. So they celebrated the holiday without celebrating the birth of Jesus. So, the day can be secular as well as religious. (There's a play that addresses with this issue called "The Last Night At Ballyhoo"). Eloise: Christmas presents... The tree itself is of pagan origin, as is the Yule log and other things. -SpyGameFan [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zoehooch at yahoo.com Tue Jan 29 04:57:37 2002 From: zoehooch at yahoo.com (zoehooch) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 04:57:37 -0000 Subject: Boring Harry Potter Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34236 I've been struck lately by the number of posts pointing out all of the negative opinions of characters in our, or at least my, favorite books. Hagrid? A disgrace, incompetant, alcoholic, dangerous to children Snape? A mean, awful teacher. Shouldn't be allowed to teach children. Remus? Put others in danger when he became a werewolf. Madame Pomfrey? A terrible nurse, mean to the children. Shouldn't be allowed to practice. Dumbledore? Often criticized for not be omniscient all the time. Hogwarts? Not enough teachers. Poor curriculum. Wizard World? What, no college? No graduate schools? It seems that many of the characters are being held to awfully high standards, in fact, standards of a society that they have no part of. I guess I'm of the opinion that if the characters in the books acted the way we all think they should, then the Harry Potter books would be the most boring set of books ever written. I can only speak for my own reading, but perfectly behaved, responsibly-acting, always-at-top-form characters are boring as can be and make for unreadable prose. Life isn't always politically correct. Good people make bad choices, sometimes. Even great people make bad choices, but they atone in their way and still keep their eye on the prize. Do we really want the characters in these books to handle all conflict with very polite conversation, always stressing "when you say that I feel ..." rather showing real, honest emotions? To me, the glorious thing about these books and these characters is that they are flawed, indeed they are quite human in this way, but even with these flaws, they are quite wonderful and prove their worth in so many ways. JKR tells us who the good guys are, and I'm prepared to take her word on that. And, as one who loves Hagrid, I'll take his love and loyalty to Dumbledore any day, even if he does drink a bit when he's sad and even if he does step over the line when it comes to Dumbledore and indeed Harry, Ron, and Hermione. Zoe Hooch From lav at tut.by Tue Jan 29 05:53:14 2002 From: lav at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 07:53:14 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: How do Muggle-born students find Diagon Alley? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <676954718.20020129075314@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 34237 Greetings! --- Rachel wrote: ------------------------------------------ > How do Muggle-born students (first years) know how to find > Diagon Alley to get their hogwarts supplies? Do they > perhaps recieve something extra with their letter to > explain about the Leaky Cauldron?? I haven't found any > clues to this in canon - has anyone else found any > information on this? --- And Marianne responded: -------------------------------- k> I think that Hogwarts has to do something, whether they k> send extra explanatory information or actually send k> someone to visit the Muggle parents. Otherwise, I'd think k> that most parents would assume that the letter their k> child received from Hogwarts was some sort of elaborate k> joke. I was addressing the issue in one of my earlier letters. IMHO additional explanation is not enough to persuade the parents that it's not a joke. There should be some kind of introductory service, with a wizard or witch visiting the family personally, to explain everything, and probably to show the entrance to Diagon Alley. I got the impression that the Leaky Cauldron is not invisible, but rather "unnoticeable", i.e. if you don't know it's here you won't see it, but if you know, then even if you are a muggle you can enter the pub and then Diagon Alley as well. What really bothers me is the question: what if parents object? Yep, I would expect some Dursley-analogs to show up from time to time, not letting their kid to go to Hogwarts to study all that magical stuff (especially if the child is in some extra-orthodox religious family... oh dear! :) So is it the child who decides and does Hogwarts provide some "force-service" to oversome parents resistance? Or not? k> It would be nice to get more input from the Grangers on k> what they make of all this magic stuff. What do they say k> to their Muggle friends about the school their daughter k> attends? Sure, they can pass it off as a Scottish k> boarding school, but they'd always have to be on their k> toes to prevent mention of sickles or cauldrons or owl k> post. I don't think they are that much used to sickles, or cauldrons. Owl post is, of course, more risky subject, but one can play he made a mistake there. I hope we hear from older Grangers in later books. Their PoV on the events would be perhaps the most interesting one among all others'... :) k> Marianne Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, (Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed), who is already running out of quotations... :( - If you want a recipe for an outright victory - it's simple. Just cross the boundaries of imaginable. In other words, if your enemy is undefeatable in this Universe, create another to fight him. Sergey Pereslegin, "God's Armour". From lav at tut.by Tue Jan 29 05:53:37 2002 From: lav at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 07:53:37 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: 3rd Task In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <686977359.20020129075337@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 34238 Greetings! > cindysphynx wrote to us: c> Eh, there has been some discussion of this in the past, but I don't c> really recall it clearly. I thought the consensus was that both the c> second and third task are rather FLINT-like because great numbers of c> people come to watch something they can't see. Maybe it is like c> bobsledding -- you can be at the finish, but you can't be someplace c> positioned to see everything. Well, there could be lot of ways to keep the spectators entertained while revealing no direct data. For example, a cool thing would be to display absolute distance from the Cup for all 4 contestants - keeps the suspense (if only a little) and such... c> Sounds weird, but that's how it looks like JKR intended c> it to be. Go figure. JKR is overconcentrated on major figures. As the immediate result, all other processes go into complete chaos. c> By "labirinth", do you mean the walls? If so, I don't c> think that works because Harry states that he came back c> to the "edge of the maze." Yep, this true. I misread it initially. c> Aw, gee. Making up wacky theories and trying to prove c> them based on logic with a foundation in canon is half c> the fun. How else are we supposed to survive the c> interminable delay in the release of OoP? :-) That's where the difference lies. You can spend time by creating wacky theories about characters real intentions and actions, while I spend time trying to figure just HOW does Potterverse manage to survive... Analytic me... :) Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, (Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed), who is already running out of quotations... :( - Humanity tries to be good and nice, though it has no reasons to do so. Like a ballerine who is trying to dance on the snow. And snow is different - somewhere it's hard, somewhere soft, and somewhere it breaks and cuts your legs. But still you must dance. In defiance of Nature, in defiance of everything. Because the only option is to lie down into the snow and freeze to death. Stas the Knight of Avalon. (Sergey Lukyanenko, "Dances on the Snow"). From tabouli at unite.com.au Tue Jan 29 09:22:59 2002 From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 20:22:59 +1100 Subject: Acronyms for Ludo & Remus, culturally Christian, US/UK English, Chinese linguistics Message-ID: <002701c1a8a6$acd719a0$6025ddcb@price> No: HPFGUIDX 34239 judyserenity: > Lots of interesting stuff on Bagman! I'm now becoming convinced he is evil. Of course, we will need an acronym for this. We could go with D.E.V.I.L. (Death Eater, Verily, Is Ludo.) Or, Tabouli could do a longer, more elaborate one. < Alexander: > G.I.L.B.E.R.T. (Good Innocent Ludo Bagman Earns Readers' Trust). Huh! 8-P Mjollner (on generating acronyms): > (This is harder than it looks...O Tabouli, where art thou??) Forsooth! Fret not, O Mjollner, hither am I! Though by the looks of things, I might be able to retire as official acronym generator soon! Fine efforts (bonus points to Alexander for working in a second language). Short and snappy acronyms are more user-friendly, I think, though it's fun reeling out long-winded ones. Actually, on reflection, I think it's Cindy who encouraged me to branch out into longer and longer acronyms, out of a desire to get the edge over groups competing with her own... (:-D) ... a S.I.N.I.S.T.E.R. influence indeed! Orrrright, let me see. Longer and more elaborate, eh? Let's see if we can slip in a mention of his fiendishly clever stupid jock performance, shall we? How about: L.A.S.S.I.T.U.D.E. (Ludo, Amiably Stupid Sportsman, Is The Undercover Death Eater!) Or perhaps: B.A.S.I.C.S.P.Y.I.N.G. (Bagman's Affable Stupidity Is Concealing Someone Perverted Young Into Nefarious Goals) judyserenity: > I'm with the crowd that wants to give Remus some slack. (An acronym! We need an acronym!)< B.L.A.M.E.L.E.S.S., perhaps? (Bitten, Lonely And Maligned - Exonerate Lupin's Exemplary, Sorrowing Soul!) Cindy: > Remus' main sin was in not showing maturity beyond his years by > refusing to accompany his friends on their adventures. I can > forgive that. And don't forget that when his friends turned up at the shack to take him frolicking, he was hardly in his most responsible frame of mind, was he? Even if he was appalled by the very idea of roaming the grounds and potentially biting or killing someone In Human Form, um, how likely is it that he'd remember this and refuse to go in wolf form? I'll sell poor Remus a break. Hey, I'll even give him an acronym with a handy scapegoat: B.L.A.M.E.S.I.R.I.U.S. (Badly Led Astray, Moonlit and Excommunicated: Surely Implicating Remus Is Unjust Slander) Not that I'm particularly anti-Sirius, mind, I just can't help suspecting that a teenage boy impulsive enough to send Snape into the jaws of a werewolf is also likely to be reckless enough to egg his friends into moonlight jaunts with deadly werewolf in tow. Far more so than the timid rat seeking a protector, or James, who had the presence of mind to rush after Snape and rescue him before his best friend's jibe ended in tragedy. Jennifer: > It's certainly of Christendom - the only religious echoes we see are Christian ones. But they seem to be "culturally" Christian, rather than theologically so. Not that that's much consolation to those of us who are not Christian either culturally or theologically...< Aha and oho! I suppose this comes down to definitions, as always. I have argued in other posts that HP is very "culturally Christian", but in a deeper, less obvious sense than singing carols about the birth of Christ and having a Nativity scene in the corner of the Great Hall. I'm thinking of the emphasis on individual choice, effort and responsibility, which is, according to many a cross-cultural theorist, a fundamentally Protestant philosophy. margaraeta: > The fact is, and I'm sure I'll have a lot of you who disagree with me on this, that America is not a nation of intellectuals - or perhaps I should rephrase - not willing to admit it has intellectual underpinnings. I'm talking about on a mass scale here, as obviously the US has academicians etc., but frankly they (which includes me) live in a world that is very different from the everyday Jane and Joe. The word "Intellectual" is practically a swear word (in part, thanks to Richard Nixon) and you can't get much more intellectual than a philosopher. Now a sorcerer....well, that says action and intrigue, and something a younger audiance can understand much better than a philosopher.< Australia has, as far as I know, stuck religiously to the original British text for the books. Despite being at least as non-intellectual and likely more so than the Americans, no Sorceror's Stone for us Aussies! We use British spellings (-ise, colour, doubling consonants before verb endings, etc.), and tend to use British words where these differ from the American equivalents. I doubt that there'd be any reason to change either English or American slang for the Australian market, because the film and TV industry have conveniently ensured that we understand both anyway. In formal documents, British English is standard; in informal conversation, a lot of US slang gets used. We do, of course, have our own accent and slang, and, though this is less well-known, some uniquely Australian ways of phrasing and expressing things. Americans, with much less exposure to Australian English than the British (and a greater cultural gap), have been known to find Australians quite hard to understand, both in meaning and pronunciation... judyserenity: > By the way, the spelling of Cho's name implies that her family left China before the Communists took over< (WARNING: Those with no interest in Chinese linguistics are advised to flee now...) Yeah, "Cho Chang" looks more like a romanisation from Cantonese, to me, though don't quote me on it! Her family might well be from one of the former British colonies with a mostly ethnically Chinese population, like Hong Kong or Singapore. For some reason, I've always thought of Cho as a Hong Kong girl, but that's just me. As for post-Communist pinyin romanisation for Mandarin (official language of China, with a standardised romanisation system which is quite counter-intuitive for English speakers), poor JKR has enough trouble with the pronunciation of "Hermione"... imagine the confusion if she had a recent mainland Chinese immigrant called Qiu Zhang! (pronounced "chee-oh jung" rather than the probably anglicised Cantonese "Cho Chang". Note that traditionally the family name Chang would be put first, i.e. Chang Cho). When Cai Hui (native Mandarin speaker, not a pretender like me) was still around, she thought, or maybe knew from reading the Chinese translation of HP, that Cho's name in Mandarin was probably Zhang Qiu: Zhang: One of the most common Chinese family names, pronounced "jung" (to rhyme with "lung") in a high, level tone (first tone). Written with the symbol for a bow on the left, combined with what looks a little like a K with a horizontal line through the middle on the right. Qiu: Meaning "autumn", pronounced roughly like "chee-oh" in a high level tone (first tone). The character is a combination of the symbol for wood (a stylised tree) with a bar on top on the left, and the symbol for fire on the right. Quite pretty. I mentioned this ages ago, but for the benefit of those who've joined since then, I used an article on translating HP into Chinese for a workshop I ran last year, to demonstrate that there's a lot more to cultural differences than language (I added quite a few of my own annotations to the article). The link may not work any more, but here it is: http://www.cnn.com/2000/books/news/09/21/china.peddling.potter.ap/ Tabouli. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From IAmLordCassandra at aol.com Tue Jan 29 10:01:15 2002 From: IAmLordCassandra at aol.com (IAmLordCassandra at aol.com) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 05:01:15 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape, Sirius, the Dementors Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34240 MEGHAN asks: > What is the glory theory? > The glory theory is that Snape took Sirius up to the castle instead of handing him right over to the Dementors so he could get that Order of Merlin he later lost. I don't know which member(s) specifically said it, but there was mention of the idea that Snape would've thought he would get more glory if he brought in the convicted murderer Sirius Black in alive then just to have his soul sucked out when he's out cold ^^ ~Cassie~ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ffionmiles at hotmail.com Tue Jan 29 10:34:54 2002 From: ffionmiles at hotmail.com (ffimiles) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 10:34:54 -0000 Subject: Magical Eyes Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34241 I came across an interview with JKR where she hints that there's significant importance to Harry's eyes - that they have some great power in them. We are told many times about how bright green his eyes are, and that he is rarely without his glasses - could the glasses be stopping his eyes power? A shield between his eyes and others, and that's why their magical qualities haven't come through yet? Just a thought whilst at work! Ffi From Edblanning at aol.com Tue Jan 29 10:36:03 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 05:36:03 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ludo Bagman Is Ever So Evil Message-ID: <4c.5a91112.2987d513@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 34242 ('Curiouser and curiouser', said Alice.) On Saturday evening my husband referred to someone as a 'bagman', using it not in its dictionary definition (travelling salesman), but as slang, for a lackey, one who merely carries another's bag. Ah-ha! thought I. Is this another of those significant names, or not? And if it is, who's bag is he carrying? Having always had my doubts about Bagman, I was about to trawl through the books to see what evidence there was when, lo and behold, I log on and find that Cindy, bless her cotton socks, has done it for me. Cindy, I'm with you. I'm not convinced that he was actually an inner circle DE (I think we might have seen some kind of suspicious interaction between him and Snape or Karkaroff), but I strongly suspect he has some involvement. There is something in the scene after Harry's name comes out of the goblet which I don't think you mentioned: his reaction to Moody/Crouch when he does one of those showing-off bits - you know, when he tells us exactly what he's doing, but we don't realise it. "'Maybe someone's hoping Potter *is* going to die for it,' said Moody....... Ludo Bagman, who was looking very anxious indeed, bounced nervously up and down on his feet and said, 'Moody, old man...what a thing to say!'" Well, perhaps it's all innocent, but it could just as well be Bagman not wanting Crouch to give the game away. This whole sub-plot seems almost too worked-out...too worked out for the amount of suspicion it throws on Bagman in my mind at least. How many people think of Bagman I wonder when Voldy speaks of the three missing DEs in the graveyard? Perhaps JKR is just enjoying twisting another thread into the story, but there generally seems to be some reason for these things, so why give us such a complex thread about a relatively minor character, who *apparently* has no bearing on the main story. At the very least, it must be a preparation for things to come and it seems likely that he will return in later books. IMO, it is likely that we will find the MoM infiltrated by Voldy's supporters and we have a ready made candidate here. He's already known to have passed on information. We don't know whether accidentally or not. Perhaps he is a bumbling fool, whom Voldy can exploit, perhaps it's an act, a la p-p-p-poor P-P-Professor Quirrel. Not wishing to condemn the man without a proper trial, I think the biggest argument against Bagman's involvement is the fact that Crouch Jr doesn't mention it. But then, Veritaserum doesn't necessarilly make you tell the *whole* truth and Dumbledore doesn't ask him if anyone else was involved. Perhaps it's rather convenient that the Dementor finished him off when he did. Eloise (with apologies to Alexander for wasting his time on this pointless discussion. Just in case you have.) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ffionmiles at hotmail.com Tue Jan 29 10:46:40 2002 From: ffionmiles at hotmail.com (ffimiles) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 10:46:40 -0000 Subject: How do Muggle-born students find Diagon Alley? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34243 Another thought on this Rachel - is how do Muggles themselves get into Diagon Alley? I mean, The Grangers were there, with Hermione. so is ar Muggles able to enter the magical world, as long as they are with a witch/wizard? Does the wizard's ability to e.g see the leaky Cauldron mean that muggles can follow them right in, even though, you'd assume they couldn't see it themselves [muggles eyes slide from the music store on one side to the clothes store on the other...] I agree with someone who replied to you - it would be interesting to meet the Grangers - what do they think of their very clever daughter, who i assume they'd have watned to have a very academic career/great job? Ffi From IAmLordCassandra at aol.com Tue Jan 29 10:47:23 2002 From: IAmLordCassandra at aol.com (IAmLordCassandra at aol.com) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 05:47:23 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Magical Eyes Message-ID: <32.217233c7.2987d7bb@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 34244 Ffi wrote: > I came across an interview with JKR where she hints that there's > significant importance to Harry's eyes - that they have some great > power in them. We are told many times about how bright green his > eyes are, and that he is rarely without his glasses - could the > glasses be stopping his eyes power? A shield between his eyes and > others, and that's why their magical qualities haven't come through > yet? Just a thought whilst at work! Hmmm, interesting thought. I've been thinking that maybe it has something to do with the fact that he has his mother's bright green eyes. Maybe Lily had this 'eye-power' and it's been passed on to her son. ^^ ~Cassie~ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From judyshapiro at earthlink.net Tue Jan 29 11:02:30 2002 From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 11:02:30 -0000 Subject: Acronyms, Christianty, Chang, Mundungus & Miscellaneous In-Reply-To: <002701c1a8a6$acd719a0$6025ddcb@price> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34245 Topic 1, Acronyms Tabouli generated some great acronyms for my beloved Remus: > B.L.A.M.E.L.E.S.S., perhaps? (Bitten, Lonely And Maligned - > Exonerate Lupin's Exemplary, Sorrowing Soul!) and/or > B.L.A.M.E.S.I.R.I.U.S. (Badly Led Astray, Moonlit and > Excommunicated: Surely Implicating Remus Is Unjust Slander) Much better than this one I came up with: Give Remus A Break And Some Slack. (No, I didn't really want that as the acronym!!!) Topic 2, Christianity Tabouli also said: > I have argued in other posts that HP is very "culturally Christian", > but in a deeper, less obvious sense than singing carols about the > birth of Christ and having a Nativity scene in the corner of the > Great Hall. I'm thinking of the emphasis on individual choice, > effort and responsibility, which is, according to many a > cross-cultural theorist, a fundamentally Protestant philosophy. I don't know to what extent belief in personal choice, etc. is Protestant. (Didn't a lot of Protestants believe in predestination, as opposed to free will? I drive by "Free Will Baptist" Churches sometimes, which implies that somewhere there are non-Free Will Baptists.) However, I agree that there are strong Christian elements in the "moral" of the JKR stories. I have a post on that here somewhere. Still on the topic of religion, SpyGameFan said: > I have a Jewish friend who has a Christmas tree and celebrates the > holiday. The reason that she does it is because when her family > first immigrated to the states they were very concerned with fitting > in and assimilating.... There's a lot of pressure to conform to the dominant culture, and obviously some people give in. But, I stand by my statement that *my* religious beliefs prohibit celebrating Christmas. I also want to point out that Judaism is often defined by descent. In other words, there are plenty of people who are Jews in the sense that their parents were Jews, but who are not religious. The term "assimilated Jew" is sometimes used to refer to someone of Jewish descent who doesn't practice the religion. Maybe your friend is in that category? Topic 3, Chang and Chinese: I said: > > By the way, the spelling of Cho's name implies that her family > > left China before the Communists took over < < And I was very pleased that Tabouli (who presumably knows way more Chinese than me) agreed, saying: > Yeah, "Cho Chang" looks more like a romanisation from Cantonese, to > me, though don't quote me on it! Her family might well be from one > of the former British colonies with a mostly ethnically Chinese > population, like Hong Kong or Singapore.... imagine the confusion if > [the Potterverse] had a recent mainland Chinese immigrant called Qiu > Zhang! [which is the modern mainland romanisation of Cho Chang] I don't think the name "Cho Chang" tells us much about Northern Chinese (Mandarin) versus Southern Chinese (Cantonese) origin. I think the name could be from either dilaect. I just figured Chang is in the old Wade-Giles spelling system, not the newer pinyin system. I doubt Cho's family is Singaporean, however; I think the spelling there is Cheng or maybe Cheung. Tabouli, the link you posted works fine. I heard a great quote about the popularity of the Harry Potter books in China. I don't remember the exact words, but it was said by the boy who does Harry's voice in the Chinese version of the movie. He said the series is popular in China because of Harry's obvious devotion to his parents. I loved that! There's an extensive article on translations of Potterverse names into Chinese and other Eastern languages at http://www.cjvlang.com/Hpotter/names.html I have no idea how the anagram for "I am Lord Voldemort" was handled in Chinese, however. Maybe it was skipped entirely? I can't think of a way to do an anagram in a non-alphabetic language. Topic 4, Mundungus Fletcher Mundungus Fletcher is mentioned at the end of GoF as one of the "old crowd" that presumably will be helping Dumbledore fight Voldemort. Several people have pointed out hints that Mundungus is not to be trusted: his name itself (Mundungus means trash or something), and the fact that Percy Weasley believes he put in a false claim for tent damage at the QWC. I found another strike against Mundungus. Towards the beginning of CoS, Arthur Weasley complains about a hard night at work: "Nine raids! Nine! And old Mundungus Fletcher tried to put a hex on me when I had my my back turned." Hmmm, and Dumbledore considers this guy an ally? Ok, now Topic 5, Miscellaneous Zoe Hooch pointed out that many people here have criticized the characters in the Potterverse. I want to say that I like almost all the characters she mentioned, including Hagrid, Snape, Lupin, and Dumbeldore. In fact, I would like to have simultaneous crushes on both Snape and Lupin. Is that allowed? Marianne asked: > What do [Hermione's parents] say to their Muggle > friends about the school their daughter attends? I'm kind of hoping the Grangers say that Hermione goes to St. Brutus' Secure Center for Incurably Criminal Girls. Nah, I guess not. And two corrections: I said that according to my dictionary, "snip" could mean an unpleasant person. Actually, I misread that. But, my husband pointed out that "snippy" means short-tempered, curt, etc. So, connotations of snap, snipe, and snippy definitely fit Snape. I also said that the important holidays in Judaism fall on the equinoxes. I should clarify that I meant the important *annual* holidays; the Sabbath is more important than any of the annual holidays. Wow! This took forever to write! There are tons of new posts since I started writing -- I'll never catch up. From IAmLordCassandra at aol.com Tue Jan 29 11:02:35 2002 From: IAmLordCassandra at aol.com (IAmLordCassandra at aol.com) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 06:02:35 EST Subject: How to muggle-borns find Diagon Alley/the Grangers Message-ID: <136.8055e79.2987db4b@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 34246 Ffi writes: > Another thought on this Rachel - is how do Muggles themselves get > into Diagon Alley? I mean, The Grangers were there, with Hermione. > so is ar Muggles able to enter the magical world, as long as they are > with a witch/wizard? Does the wizard's ability to e.g see the leaky > Cauldron mean that muggles can follow them right in, even though, > you'd assume they couldn't see it themselves [muggles eyes slide from > the music store on one side to the clothes store on the other...] I was about to say that maybe a witch/wizard comes after they send their reply saying they got their letters (like Harry had to in SS/PS), but then I thought "Where do muggles get the owls to send their replies?" So I haven't exactly gotten to far into that theory. Ffi still: > I agree with someone who replied to you - it would be interesting to > meet the Grangers - what do they think of their very clever daughter, > who i assume they'd have watned to have a very academic career/great > job? I imagine they were supportive. I'm sure they weren't like: "Forget all the plans we had for your future, Hermione! We have a witch in the family! Whoo!" nor did they probably act like this: "Well, if that's what you really want. So what if it ruins your entire future, blah-blah-blah guilt trip blah-blah-blah." But whatever they felt, it's obvious that they indulged their daughter. They did, after all, buy Hermione all those books that weren't on her Hogwarts list, not to mention the extra books and supplies for her third year. I wonder if the Granger's got worried when Hermione was buying all these books for her third year. Did they ever find out about the time-turner? Or wonder why their daughter was so stressed out? (I don't have my copy of PoA, did Hermione go home for any of the hollidays?) ~Cassie~ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ickle_ronniekins at yahoo.com Tue Jan 29 11:09:09 2002 From: ickle_ronniekins at yahoo.com (Ronald Rae Yu) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 03:09:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: Book 5: First School Day is Saturday Message-ID: <20020129110909.76527.qmail@web21101.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 34247 Has anybody ever bothered to check what day the 2nd of September 1995 falls on? Saturday. How do you think JKR will handle this? Does Hogwarts students always start their lessons on September 2? Also, do you think JKR actually plots events using a calendar? For example, keeping track of which classes are held on a certain day. Does she really have certain dates and days in mind? You all know the date plotholes (Playstation, Harry's 11th birthday, etc.). -Ron Yu __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com From Edblanning at aol.com Tue Jan 29 11:22:35 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 06:22:35 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Translation and Cultural Issues - UK and US differences Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34249 In a message dated 28/01/02 14:04:57 GMT Standard Time, midwife34 at aol.com writes: > > I have never read the original versions, but it irritates me to no > end that the American publishing company assumed that the US > population was too ignorant to follow the British slang used in the > original versions. The only reason that I can think of that this was > done is because, statistically speaking, US students are behind in > reading comprehension and other areas when compared to their European > and Japanese counterparts, but that is only my assumption. I am sure > that the American publishing company must have done market studies > before hiring someone to go through the text and change certain words > so that they would be familiar to US children. Considering that the > US imports many movies and television programs for children from > Great Britain, I can't imagine that most US children have not been > exposed to British slang at some point, so it makes me wonder what > areas of the country, what statistical information, and what age > groups were used for this market study? > > Jo Ellen > Hope I don't tread on any toes here. I find these discussions interesting as a while back we spent three years living in Japan (I am English).Now, I knew I was in for a culture shock, but the biggest one was one I wasn't expecting: that of living in a predominantly American (US) expat community. I found that I understood pretty well what was said to me, although there were moments, such as when my friend offered to lend me some suspenders for my two-year-old boy (speakers of North American English note that in the UK, these items are reserved solely for holding up ladies' stockings), but that I frequently had to translate what I said and in the end would normally use US terms where I could anticipate ambiguity. Like you, I had assumed that there was enough exposure to British English through the media for it to be understandable as I felt North American English was to me. I think though, that perhaps we do filter out thing we don't precisely understand when for instance seeing a movie (oops, I mean a film) which we can't do when reading. I have no problems with US movies, but do find that I notice anomalies and ambiguities more when speaking directly to Americans. American journalism is something else again, stylistically very different from ours and I find it quite hard-going. Incidentally, when I was ranting to my husband about the change of title from PS to SS, his immediate response was that no-one could be expected to know what a philosopher's stone was anyway. Once I had got over my shock at his ignorance, I thought he had a point, but then since Harry and Ron have no idea either, until Hermione enlightens them, changing the title seems pretty pointless. What is a sorceror's stone, anyway? It's a bit like saying that Raiders of the Lost Ark should have a different title as those not conversant with Judaeo-Christian tradition would not know what it was. (Come to think of it, I wonder how many people did go thinking it was Noah's Ark?) 'England and America are two countries divided by a common language' (attrib GBS) Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Edblanning at aol.com Tue Jan 29 11:49:53 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 06:49:53 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Fawkes / Snape = Snake?/ Severe Draco Message-ID: <53.11b5ca3f.2987e661@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 34250 In a message dated 29/01/02 00:34:29 GMT Standard Time, lucky_kari at yahoo.ca writes: > > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "judyserenity" wrote: > > In message #34196, Lucky_Kari suggested that if Guy Fawkes was a > > wizard, this would explain why Dumbledore's phoenix is named > Fawkes. > > Actually, JKR may have named Fawkes after a character in another > book. > > I've heard that there is a children's fantasy book, featuring a > > phoenix named Fawkes, and that JKR really likes this book. > > Unfortunately, I can't remember the name of it. > > "The Phoenix and the Carpet", by Edith Nesbit, by any chance? The > phoenix there isn't named Fawkes, but he arrives in conjunction with > Guy Fawkes day, IIRC. That probably is the explanation outside the > book, but I'm one of those people who hunt for elusive explanations > inside the book, that never would have occurred to the author in the > first place. I felt guilty of this many years, till I read Moby Dick. > The justification that book afforded me in this habit by its > treatment of symbolism etc. has made it very dear to me, even though > it is an acquired taste. > > > In fact, the name "Snape" makes me think of snipe and snide, not > > snake. > > Since we burn an effigy of Guy Fawkes on a bonfire, it is a fairly appropriate name for a bird which periodically bursts into flames ( as Porphyria mentions). For British readers I suspect the allusion is fairly obvious. By the way, just to clear up any confusion, Guy Fawkes himself was not burned at the stake, he was tortured on the rack, then hanged, drawn and quartered before being beheaded, poor man. Must have needed some pretty powerful magic to fake that one, if we are to believe the wizard theory. JKR confirmed in an interview that Snape, like Dudley is from the place name. There are several Snapes, I believe, the most famous is associated with the Aldburgh (Benjamin Britten) Festival. But I agree, it has that snipey, snappy feeling. Draco means dragon in Latin, but it is also of course the name of the tyrant noted for his SEVERE laws (from which comes the adjective Draconian = extremely severe). Just thought the coincidence with the forename of his head of house was rather nice. Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ffionmiles at hotmail.com Tue Jan 29 13:35:52 2002 From: ffionmiles at hotmail.com (ffimiles) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 13:35:52 -0000 Subject: Magical Eyes In-Reply-To: <32.217233c7.2987d7bb@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34251 I agree Cassie - and I'm sure there's going to be something very special about Lily that we don't know yet - I mean, she was 'picked out' to be magical, from a muggle family, like Hermione [although Colin Creevy does blow my theory on that point somewhat!] But we've heard so much about how Harry's like James [Quidditch/looks], that there is definately something to come from Lily. Ffi From foxylaverne at yahoo.co.uk Tue Jan 29 12:10:39 2002 From: foxylaverne at yahoo.co.uk (clare_journalist) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 12:10:39 -0000 Subject: Appeal for Interviewees Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34252 Hello there everyone, I apologise for invading your board liike this. I am a trainee journalist writing a feature on adults reading children's books (I know, I know, its slightly passe now!). Anyway, I would really like to ask someone from the group (preferably a founding member if possible), a few questions about why they set the group up, why they think so many adults love Harry Potter etc. If you would be interested in helping me please email ThorpC at cf.ac.uk as soon as possible. Many Thanks, Clare ***Moderator Note*** Please respond to Clare offlist. If you click on her link it will work, even if you can't see the whole e-mail address. Thanks! Amy From midwife34 at aol.com Tue Jan 29 14:15:51 2002 From: midwife34 at aol.com (jrober4211) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 14:15:51 -0000 Subject: First impressions of Hogwarts( How do Muggle-born students find Diagon Alley? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34253 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ffimiles" wrote: > > > I agree with someone who replied to you - it would be interesting to > meet the Grangers - what do they think of their very clever daughter, > who i assume they'd have watned to have a very academic career/great > job? > Ffi Not only is "How do muggles find Diagomn Alley?" a good question, but in reality, once you got there and saw what Diagon Alley was, would you not have second thoughts about sending your muggle -born wizard or witch to Hogwarts? To my knowledge, no muggle parents have ever set foot on the grounds of Hogwarts (Correct me if I am wrong)Would you allow a child to attend a boarding school you weren't allowed to tour?I personally would love to attend Hogwarts, but when I think of sending my Attention Deficit Disordered son to Hogwarts,I just shudder.If this were real,just the inherent danger that these kids are exposed to in the process of learning witchcraft makes my hair stand on end. Not only are they learning a craft I could never do, but if they do not do it correctly, it has the potential for producing very hazardous results. Also, the wizarding community as a whole, does not seem to foster trust as the various wizarding schools are not only hidden from muggles, but also from their other wizarding counterparts. I think the tournament in GoF was the first cross- cultural wizarding event to take place in decades, due to Dumbledore's influence. So to wrap up my point, a better question would be " Would you let your kids attend a school you can't visit, much less find?" over "How do muggles find Diagon Alley?"Finding the Alley to shop would be the least of my concerns. Jo Ellen From cindysphynx at home.com Tue Jan 29 14:20:14 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 14:20:14 -0000 Subject: Werewolf Adventures, Boring Harry, Veritaserum (WAS cronyms for Ludo In-Reply-To: <002701c1a8a6$acd719a0$6025ddcb@price> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34254 Tabouli wrote: > B.L.A.M.E.S.I.R.I.U.S. (Badly Led Astray, Moonlit and Excommunicated: Surely Implicating Remus Is Unjust Slander) > > > Not that I'm particularly anti-Sirius, mind, I just can't help >suspecting that a teenage boy impulsive enough to send Snape into >the jaws of a werewolf is also likely to be reckless enough to egg >his friends into moonlight jaunts with deadly werewolf in tow. ::fumbles around in purse for S.I.N.I.S.T.E.R. badge and finds gum wads stuck to it:: Poor Sirius! He can't even buy a break on credit. I'm all for absolving Remus of responsibility for his werewolf adventures, but of the remaining three Marauders, I wouldn't pick Sirius to blame. If anyone was incapable of demonstrating maturity beyond his years, it was Sirius. The boy was probably so arrogant and immature that he was helpless to resist a good party. Peter probably couldn't stand up to his three friends under any circumstances. James, on the other hand, sounds like the guy who should have put a stop to the adventures. So if we are going to find someone to blame ::waves at Luke::, I'd lay it on James. He's dead, so he won't mind. ********** ZoeHooch wrote: > I've been struck lately by the number of posts pointing out all of > the negative opinions of characters in our, or at least my, >favorite > books. > I guess I'm of the opinion that if the characters in the books >acted > the way we all think they should, then the Harry Potter books would > be the most boring set of books ever written. Aw, now I feel bad. I have been very hard on certain characters, that's true. ::hangs head in shame, but peeks out to see if anyone is watching:: My point, however, is not that characters should be perfect. I have two issues, I think. First, we have some characters (OK, one character, Hagrid) who just has too many flaws for my tastes. He's over the top in that department. I understand from our discussion that there are probably only two of us who feel that way, and most people adore Hagrid. But I still feel that way. I wish JKR had removed some of Hagrid's flaws. He still needs to do some dumb things to advance the plot and keep it interesting, of course. If he has to cross-breed skrewts, I guess the students have to handle them to keep things interesting. If he has to leak information in PS/SS, so be it. But Hagrid doesn't have to drink. He doesn't have to cry. He doesn't have to give Dudley a pig's tail. He doesn't have to run and hide when he is upset. And if he didn't do those things, he wouldn't be boring, IMHO. My feeling is different about the bare-knuckles brawl between Arthur and Lucius. That just felt like a cheap Hollywood stunt to me. It isn't a criticism of the characters; it is a criticism of the writing. I wish JKR had accomplished this scene in a more inventive way. I understand the idea that perfect characters are boring characters, but that's not always the case. Lupin is a great character, and he would still be great if he hadn't made the mistakes he made in the books. Several of his mistakes (failing to rat on Sirius, forgetting his potion) he had to make for the plot. Sometimes a character has to take one for the team, so that's OK. The werewolf adventures, however, didn't really enhance his characterization for me and could have been omitted. They really didn't trouble me that much, though, so, whatever. For the record, I like all of the way all of the characters (that we've discussed this week) are conceived except Hagrid, so JKR gets very high marks from me, but not perfect marks. My point isn't that the books are less stellar because of these character flaws. I just think it is enlightening to discuss them with a group of very clever people, as I never in a million years would have though anyone would have a problem with Moody. ********** OK, back to griping about character flaws. ::waves at Zoe:: Eloise wrote (about Bagman): > Not wishing to condemn the man without a proper trial, I think the biggest > argument against Bagman's involvement is the fact that Crouch Jr doesn't > mention it. But then, Veritaserum doesn't necessarilly make you tell the > *whole* truth and Dumbledore doesn't ask him if anyone else was involved. I remember on my first reading of that scene that Dumbledore's cross- examination of Crouch Jr. underwhelmed me. Why didn't he ask who else was involved in the plot? It seemed like a rather glaring omission to me and was probably done to create suspense and advance the plot. Fair enough. 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. It's a nit, granted, but I did notice it. Cindy (trying to think of a way to satisfy Elkins and work on this idea that Arthur Weasley has some sort of history with the DEs and Imperius Curse) From uncmark at yahoo.com Tue Jan 29 06:08:03 2002 From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 06:08:03 -0000 Subject: SHIP Ginny marked by Lord V, possible triangles for Harry & Ron? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34255 Robin wrote: > > I keep having this sneaky suspicion that the fact that TR's soul > had been within Ginny is going to bring her character to the > forefront of the story. Harry seems to have gained a part of > Voldemort's powers -- LV would probably like to destroy Harry > because of that alone. If Ginny had part of his soul within her, > how would LV react? Would a combining of Harry's powers somehow > with Ginny's lead to LV's defeat? Or even be a small element in > the dark lord's destruction? We know that Snape was bonded to > James because James saved Snape's life; and Pettigrew is bonded to > Harry for the same reason. So, does that not mean that Ginny is > bonded to Harry for having saved her life in the Chamber of > Secrets? Wouldn't such a bond combined with Harry's LVish powers > and Ginny's TR soul-sharing be something of value in the fight > against LV? Had what I thought was an original idea, but RobinB posted on the same subject. I just finished the 4th book and was arguing with my sister about Harry and romance. She thinks he'll end up with Cho, but I think Ginny will capture him. I think that Ginny, after being touched by Tom Riddle, might be marked much like Harry was and will probably manifest some magical prowess. Agreed, 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. Also 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 cpme visit the Weasley's in summer and suddenly notice a cute redhead before he realizes it's young Ginny (maybe meeting the Weasley's at a beach and seeing her in a swimsuit rather than wizard robes.) 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. 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. 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. "uncmark" From pollux46 at hotmail.com Tue Jan 29 11:23:11 2002 From: pollux46 at hotmail.com (charisjulia) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 11:23:11 -0000 Subject: James, Peter, Dumbledore, Secret Keeper Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34256 > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Katze wrote: > > I was pondering something earlier today, and I've > > started to think that > > perhaps James didn't trust Peter 100%. Why? We know > > that Sirius > > convinced James to go with Peter, but he wasn't the > > first choice. James > > also left his invisibility cloak in the care of > > Dumbledore, along with > > Harry's key to the Gringott's vault. So I wonder if > > James already knew > > that Peter was up to no good? He couldn't have known > > anything factual, > > because he still chose Peter as the Secret-Keeper. > > > > -Katze > Mary Shearer wrote: > > In SS/PS, Dumbledore gives Harry his cloak along with > a note stating that "Your father left this in my > possession before he died. It is time it was returned > to you. Use it well." Is it possible that James left > it with Dumbledore not only because his life was in > danger, but because he needed to keep it from those > who knew of its existence? In PoA, both Sirius and > Lupin admit that each thought the other was the spy. ( Just a note: When Remus asks Sirius to forgive him for suspecting him in PoA I always thought he was referring to his believing that Sirius had been a spy *after* the Potter tragedy when Sirius had been hauled off to Azkaban with all that evidence against him not at the same time Sirius had suspected Lupin.) > > Sirius talks James into switching the identity of the > > secret keeper, probably telling James that he believes > > Lupin to be the spy. Yet James leaves everything, > > including provisions for Harry's care, with D, even > > though that role had already been given to Sirius. If > > James already suspected Pettigrew, and Serius has > > raised doubts about Lupin, sadly, this points to the > > possibility that James and Lily suspected Sirius as > > well. They cannot trust any of their closest friends, > > and are now utterly alone. Wow - dark days for the > > Potters! If > > anyone has a sunnier take on these events, it would be > > very welcome! > > > > Mary - who is feeling slightly less depressed now, and > > raises a glass to JKR's ability to capture the > > imagination! Errr, I'm afraid I don't quite follow your theory Why would James trust Peter to be his secret-keeper if he suspected him of treachery? Maybe he'd hold back from openly accusing a friend of spying for Voldemort if he didn't have definite proof, but that's a far cry from literally handing himself and his family over to the enemy! And if he didn't suspect Pettigrew why would he suspect Sirius? Whatsmore if James thought there was a possibility that Sirius had gone over to the other side I'd expect him to confront Sirius about it (after all Neville stood up to his friends as early as PS, I'd expect no less of a grown Gryffindor). Unless of course he had too unshakable a faith in the loyalty of his friends to even consider the possibility that they could betray him. But that scenario defeats the object because we preclude that James was certain of Sirius and Peter and therefore he could not have spent his last hours in uncertainty! But there is another explanation of why James would leave his Invisibility Cloak to Dumbledore. Remember how in PoA: McGonagall says that James told Dumbledore "Black was planning to go into hiding himself"? I always saw the events leading up to the night of the Potter's death developing is this: James and Lily somehow (Snape tips them off?) find out Voldemort is after them. For either the same or another reason Sirius also fears for his own safety. They turn to Dumbledore for help and he suggests the Fidelius Charm, at which point Sirius promptly offers to be the Potter's Secret Keeper and James accepts. Dumbledore however remains skeptical. I don't think he actually suspected Sirius? otherwise why the easy acceptance of Sirius's version of events in PoA without even the proof of Wormtail-the-rat that HRH had? But he was worried, knew somebody was probably handing information over to V. and therefore was keeping his eyes open. So, after Sirius had departed D. suggests that he should be Secret Keeper instead, but James refuses expressing his absolute trust in Black. However there is one flaw in the Sirius-Secret Keeper plan that even James could not ignore: if Sirius would as James puts it "rather die than tell were they were" then is it not logical that James would want to ensure that his treasured possessions, let alone his son were entrusted to someone other than the one man without whose death James and Lily's could nor occur? So he gives Dumbledore the coat and maybe asks him to take care of Harry as well and gives him the key to the Gringotts vault? though does it ever explicitly say in the books that he does these 2 last things? Couldn't D. just have found the key in the rubble and taken it on himself to make sure Harry's alright just out of concern for the boy and because he was the Potter's friend? If James had in fact left provisions for Harry's care with Dumbledore then wouldn't D. be more likely to feel it his responcibility to take Harry in himself rather than handing him him over to his next of kin which would be required only if James and Lily's will did not specify otherwise? Well, I hope I'm right! Otherwise the plot is indeed a lot darker! Charis Julia. From maryblue67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 29 14:39:00 2002 From: maryblue67 at yahoo.com (Maria) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 06:39:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: How do Muggle-born students find Diagon Alley? In-Reply-To: <1012297203.1781.49428.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20020129143900.75783.qmail@web11105.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 34257 --- Rachel wrote: ------------------------------------------ > How do Muggle-born students (first years) know how to find > Diagon Alley to get their hogwarts supplies? Do they > perhaps recieve something extra with their letter to > explain about the Leaky Cauldron?? I haven't found any > clues to this in canon - has anyone else found any > information on this? --- And Marianne responded: -------------------------------- k> I think that Hogwarts has to do something, whether they k> send extra explanatory information or actually send k> someone to visit the Muggle parents. Otherwise, I'd think k> that most parents would assume that the letter their k> child received from Hogwarts was some sort of elaborate k> joke. To which Alexander replied: I was addressing the issue in one of my earlier letters. IMHO additional explanation is not enough to persuade the parents that it's not a joke. There should be some kind of introductory service, with a wizard or witch visiting the family personally, to explain everything, and probably to show the entrance to Diagon Alley. I got the impression that the Leaky Cauldron is not invisible, but rather "unnoticeable", i.e. if you don't know it's here you won't see it, but if you know, then even if you are a muggle you can enter the pub and then Diagon Alley as well. One thing that i considered, although i still haven't found all the answers regarding this idea is the following: They indeed ask for a reply before July 31st by owl post. If that reply is recieved, perfect, Hogwarts does nothing else. If the reply doesn't come, it can mean two things. Either the letter was not delivered like in the case of Harry, or it can't be sent back by owl post, in case of Muggles. But if Muggles could send a message by owl post, i bet they would ask for more information, like some reassurance on the kind of school this is, about magic, and of course, about Diagon Alley. So, how do they send the message by owl post? Imagine the following situation. The Grangers are at breakfast one day and a letter with an owl (or just dropped under the door) tells them their daughter is accepted into Hogwarts. They don' t know what to do. They think about it all day. Hermione is shocked, but then she starts getting really excited. They need more information, but how to ask for it?. Since they do not reply, Hogwarts sends another later, in case it hasn't been delivered (like Harry). They take advantage of having an owl at home, and write a note, asking for more info and stuff). And Hogwarts replies, and gives them also the means to find an owl when they need it, so that they can continue the comunication. Of course, there are a million possibilities like this, but that one could work.If one way or another the Muggles can let Hogwarts know that they have no idea, i'm sure Hogwarts would help, either my mail or by sending someone (i think the last one is not common, it seems like Hagrid going to pick up Harry is a pretty unusual thing; however, they could always do it by mail and finally have some kind of Muggle orientation at the Leaky Cauldron before going into Diagon Alley). Wow, i developed quite a theory here!! At last, some significant contribution to this wonderful list!! Hope this explanation pleases the minds of the experts... Maria ===== Maryblue ---------------------------------------------------------- "Gravitation cannot be held responsible for people falling in love" - Eistein __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Tue Jan 29 14:47:24 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 14:47:24 -0000 Subject: How do Muggle-born students find Diagon Alley? In-Reply-To: <676954718.20020129075314@tut.by> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34258 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Alexander wrote: > What really bothers me is the question: what if parents > object? Yep, I would expect some Dursley-analogs to show up > from time to time, not letting their kid to go to Hogwarts > to study all that magical stuff (especially if the child is > in some extra-orthodox religious family... oh dear! :) So is > it the child who decides and does Hogwarts provide some > "force-service" to oversome parents resistance? Or not? Given all our speculation that the wizarding world has its religious and non-religious inhabitants, perhaps they send along an orthodox wizard of that religion with theological explanations of why Hogwarts isn't a problem. Eileen From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Tue Jan 29 14:57:26 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 14:57:26 -0000 Subject: Acronyms for Ludo & Remus, culturally Christian, US/UK English, Chinese linguistics In-Reply-To: <002701c1a8a6$acd719a0$6025ddcb@price> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34259 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Tabouli" wrote: >I'm thinking of the emphasis on individual choice, effort and responsibility, which is, according to many a cross-cultural theorist, a fundamentally Protestant philosophy. > Fundamentally *Protestant*? /me tries not to choke on her breakfast. Every once and a while, I get sick of everything being attributed to the Protestant Reformation at the expense of the Middle Ages, my projected field of study. If anything, the Protestant reformation eroded the strong understanding of individual choice, effort, and responsibility introduced in the Middle Ages..... OK. /me tries to recompose her mind. Eileen From ftah3 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 29 14:59:51 2002 From: ftah3 at yahoo.com (ftah3) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 14:59:51 -0000 Subject: Magical Eyes In-Reply-To: <32.217233c7.2987d7bb@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34260 > Ffi wrote: > > I came across an interview with JKR where she hints that there's > > significant importance to Harry's eyes - that they have some great > > power in them. We are told many times about how bright green his > > eyes are, and that he is rarely without his glasses - could the > > glasses be stopping his eyes power? A shield between his eyes and > > others, and that's why their magical qualities haven't come through > > yet? Just a thought whilst at work! Cassie wrote: > Hmmm, interesting thought. I've been thinking that maybe it has something to > do with the fact that he has his mother's bright green eyes. Maybe Lily had > this 'eye-power' and it's been passed on to her son. ^^ Well, I *do* think that it's something that has been passed from Lily to Harry, as so many mentions have been made in the book that he has his mother's eyes & as JKR has affirmed that those mentions are significant. But what is the nature of the significance, I wonder. All right. Some vacillatory theorizing ahead.... I'm thinking this because 'magic eyes' in the books so far aren't natural things. Colin Creevy had a magic eye, i.e. his camera, but it wasn't magic until he enhanced the photos it produced with a potion. Mad-Eye Moody's eye was magical, but it was a construct, a fake eye crafted and made magic (I assume ~ nothing is said to imply that it's magical by nature, and as real fake eyes don't function without magic, my assumption is that a magical fake eye wouldn't function without magic). The Pensieve is a magical device which allows the user to 'see' memories, but there is no precedent in the books for a bowl being inherently magical, thus I assume that the Pensieve also is a 'magic eye' because it has been created to be so. The magic eyes of the stone basilisks guarding the Chamber of Secrets also respond to Harry's using a parseltongue command. However, that brings me around to magical eyes which are, in fact, magical by nature ~ the eyes of the basilisk and the phoenix eyes. Said eyes paralyze/kill or heal by a natural magic. So, there is in fact a precedent set whereby eyes can have inherent magic to both evil and good use. Could Harry's eyes have the same sort of *natural* magical properties? I would speculate that he's not of the same ilk as the basilisk & phoenix, because if his eyes *did* have some sort of inherent magical properties I think we'd have seen some signs by now. Even if the magic was interrupted by his glasses, I think there would be some indication that without his glasses magical things happen. And yet. Hmm, the way I see it, by virtue of precedent Harry's 'magic eyes' could go three ways, which imho would have more to do with how they are used as a plot device than with internal logic. Possibility one: Harry's eyes have potential, uncommon magical power which must be consciously activated. Why? 1. Because Harry has a great need to force himself to explore his magical potential. He's a natural at Quidditch, and he managed a Patronus, but other than that he's either done no more than his best, or even less (i.e. in classes), or he's had magic handed to him (i.e. the mother's love magic in his skin, the invisibility cloak, the Marauder's Map, how to get through the Tri-wizard challenges). In order to mature and actually *become* great, he needs to make an effort to harness his inherent powers. 2. Futzing around with magic when they shouldn't is something the Trio do, and is what often breaks open a plot. So for Harry to be futzing around with magic and maybe trying to 'enhance' his eyes (magical cure for near-sightedness, maybe?) activates their 'power' and voila! Cheeseball plot device gets the story rolling! ;-P Possibility two: Harry's eyes are naturally magical, and the power will be automatically activated at some point. Why? 1. Harry has both a natural (good at Quidditch like his dad) and an active magical tie to his father (Patronus took the form of his father's animagus), and both were activated by Harry himself. Harry has a natural and magical tie to his mother (same eyes; Quirrell/Voldy-roasting skin), but so far these were simply given to Harry. Imho, Harry has grown in his sense of kinship with his father by way of having capabilities in his own right which link him to his father. On the other hand, Harry has accomplished little in his own right to sort of 'reach out' to the memory of his mother. She has reached out to him (same eyes, magical skin, and the sound of her voice forced out of his memory by the Dementors), but he hasn't actively done anything to reach back. If his magical eyes were to activate naturally, perhaps in some way related to his mother ~ maybe he sees her on the spiritual plane? ~ he would then be forced to make use of that magic, justify it by not running from it and by making it his own. If that makes any sense at all. 2. Also, plot device! Sudden activation of magical eyes breaks open story! (ahem) And etcetera. :-) Possiblity three: It's just eye color/shape. No magic at all. Just genetics. But that simple fact could be illuminating for Harry (a sense of sharing something with mom); could affect another character (who is stunned/pleased/discomfited by the similarity); or could be something Harry realizes after trying and failing to discover magical inherency in his eyes, which teaches him that sometimes family is significant without magic, i.e., his family was a real family with nonmagical but very special qualities even alongside their magicalness. Hmm. At this point, I can see that any of the above is as justifiable/likely as the other, and I can't even decide which I simply like better. On the other hand, this post has gone to making me anticipate OoP even more on the off chance that the whole 'Harry's magic eyes' thing could be explicated.... Mahoney From blpurdom at yahoo.com Tue Jan 29 15:32:07 2002 From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 15:32:07 -0000 Subject: SHIP: Neville as the spoiler (was: Ginny marked by Lord V, etc.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34261 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "uncmark" wrote: > Agreed, 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. I believe this is the reason JKR gave Harry a crush on a girl who dated the boy whom Harry feels he "killed." But I also think she'll milk Harry's unrequited love for Cho for some time--maybe have her finally relent and tell him she likes him just when he's finally got a girlfriend.... > Also 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 cpme visit the Weasley's in summer and > suddenly notice a cute redhead before he realizes it's young Ginny > (maybe meeting the Weasley's at a beach and seeing her in a > swimsuit rather than wizard robes.) I can't really see the Weasleys doing this, plus, Dumbledore's worried enough about Harry's safety without having to think about how safe he would (not) be on a public beach. > 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. Um, charmed her? He trod on her toes. She was described as having a rather pained expression whenever they were dancing. > 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. This sounds more like fanfic. Book five would also be too soon, IMO, for Neville to significantly improve. > 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. Now this I COULD see (except for the Neville-finds-a-cure-for-his- parents bit). I mean the part about Neville being too clueless to discern that a girl likes him (just not THESE girls, unless it's strictly temporary). It could be rather funny, actually, if Ron were upset because of Hermione hanging around Neville (who did ask her to the Ball) and if Harry were unclear in his own mind whether he minded Ginny being around Neville or Hermione being around Neville....Oh, the shipper confusion! I also like the idea of Neville having a girlfriend before either Ron or Harry, with the two of them wondering how in blazes THAT happened.... --Barb (who almost never responds to shipping posts....) From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Tue Jan 29 17:02:01 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 17:02:01 -0000 Subject: SHIP: Neville as the spoiler (was: Ginny marked by Lord V, etc.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34262 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "blpurdom" wrote: >I mean the part about Neville being too clueless to > discern that a girl likes him (just not THESE girls, unless it's > strictly temporary). Permanently, please. Ginny and Neville. (/me has carved into a class wall. N.L + G.W. with a heart around it.) 1. It would show that Ginny has moved past the impressionablity of the earlier books: hero-worship of Harry, the susceptability to Tom Riddle's charms, even the seeming idolization of Bill's coolness, to seeing what's inside a person. Neville does not appeal to her at first. She is presented as having a pained expression, as he treads on her feet at the ball. But she keeps faith with him when she gets the hoped-for invitation from Harry (via Ron :-), suggesting that she will not let initial feelings rule her life. 2. Neville is a much more enterprizing and talented young man than most people give him credit for. While Ron and Harry were moaning about how they didn't have dates, Neville asked Hermione, was turned down, and then asked Ginny. Notice that he asked girls whom he knew, and supposedly liked, not the prettiest person he could find (like Ron and Harry). Neville knows(unlike Ron: no stunning looker himself I'm guessing) that he is not the best thing going, and has got past that very creditably. I think he's going to confound everyone else by being the first to find success in love, and without going through an emotional blender first. 3. Why Ginny and Neville at the Ball? I take it as JKR's first hint that there's a future for that couple, that not everything will revolve around the trio. That loyalty, humility, charity, and quiet bravery will finally have their reward. Eileen From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com Tue Jan 29 17:34:14 2002 From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 11:34:14 -0600 Subject: Neville & SHIPping References: Message-ID: <3C56DD16.C49D48DE@kingwoodcable.com> No: HPFGUIDX 34263 lucky_kari wrote: > Permanently, please. Ginny and Neville. (/me has carved into a class > wall. N.L + G.W. with a heart around it.) > > 1. It would show that Ginny has moved past the impressionablity of > the earlier books: hero-worship of Harry, the susceptability to Tom > Riddle's charms, even the seeming idolization of Bill's coolness, to > seeing what's inside a person. Neville does not appeal to her at > first. She is presented as having a pained expression, as he treads > on her feet at the ball. But she keeps faith with him when she gets > the hoped-for invitation from Harry (via Ron :-), suggesting that she > will not let initial feelings rule her life. > > 2. Neville is a much more enterprizing and talented young man than > most people give him credit for. While Ron and Harry were moaning > about how they didn't have dates, Neville asked Hermione, was turned > down, and then asked Ginny. Notice that he asked girls whom he knew, > and supposedly liked, not the prettiest person he could find (like > Ron and Harry). Neville knows(unlike Ron: no stunning looker himself > I'm guessing) that he is not the best thing going, and has got past > that very creditably. I think he's going to confound everyone else by > being the first to find success in love, and without going through an > emotional blender first. > > 3. Why Ginny and Neville at the Ball? I take it as JKR's first hint > that there's a future for that couple, that not everything will > revolve around the trio. That loyalty, humility, charity, and quiet > bravery will finally have their reward. > I rarely spend my time thinking about the shipping, but this one intrigued me. I think Neville and Ginny are a good match. While I've read some fanfics that have Harry and Ginny match up, I'm not a supporter of them matching up in Rowling's books. They don't seem like a fit to me. Neville and Ginny seem like a great fit. I also think that Neville is just more frightened of magic than he is unmagical. Perhaps he's going to develop more as well. I'm a Ron and Hermione shipper. I love the together. I like that they are different personalities, but I think they'd end up being a very good match. I also don't think that we've met Harry's match yet. He might have a fling with Cho, but it won't last. I think he'll find practically every girl around him attractive at some point. I get the feeling that Ron and Harry will wake up at the same time towards Hermione, but Harry will move on to someone else. He might even take a liking to Ginny this summer (if he goes to the Weasleys), but that won't last. I think her interest will be elsewhere. Anyway...I like the idea of Ginny and Neville...I think they'd be a great pair. -Katze From lee_hillman at urmc.rochester.edu Tue Jan 29 17:37:10 2002 From: lee_hillman at urmc.rochester.edu (gwendolyngrace) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 17:37:10 -0000 Subject: Religion again (Was: Acronyms, Christianty, etc.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34264 Hey, folks. Gee, go away for the weekend and what happens? One of my favourite topics comes up: Religion in HP! JudySerenity said in response to Tabouli: > I don't know to what extent belief in personal choice, etc. is > Protestant. (Didn't a lot of Protestants believe in predestination, as > opposed to free will?) And Eileen (I think?) commented on the gulf between the Catholicism of the Middle Ages and post-Reformation branches of Protestantism (and incidentally modern Catholicism vs. modern Protestantism as well). I'm going to vastly oversimplify and say that in short, it's nearly impossible to lump all the branches of modern Christianity into one basket. I do think, given the post-Reformation date of the International Wizarding Code of Secrecy, that the "official" religious perspective of Hogwarts was probably assumed to be Anglican, the state religion. However, given that the 1600's were also the period of the English Civil War, it's unclear whether Hogwarts ever went through a time when only one religion was represented. There have probably always been a mix of faiths and dogmas among the wizards in Britain or elsewhere, but historically speaking, the religion that is in "power," that is, the religion of those individuals wielding power, tends to be the one to which institutions pay lip service. It's not fair, it's not equitable, but that's the way it is. Over time, I believe, the need to appear compliant with the official religion of the state and the need to provide people's children with rudimentary religious instruction became less important than other aspects of their mission/curriculum. This is true for many Muggle boarding schools; why do so many people seem to have trouble accepting such a development among wizarding cultures? At Beauxbatons, the story may be different (higher proportion of practicing Catholics). Similarly it will be more diverse for Durmstrang, which seems to capture all of Eastern Europe. And it's probably much different in American schools of wizardry, where separation of church and state has always been more important (and even then, private schools retain the right to incorporate as much or as little religious instruction as they wish). But in Britain, the religion of the state was Church of England; therefore, its vacation structure presumes a CofE mindset. Judy went on: > There's a lot of pressure to conform to the dominant culture, and > obviously some people give in. But, I stand by my statement that *my* > religious beliefs prohibit celebrating Christmas. I also want to point > out that Judaism is often defined by descent. In other words, there > are plenty of people who are Jews in the sense that their parents were > Jews, but who are not religious. The term "assimilated Jew" is > sometimes used to refer to someone of Jewish descent who doesn't > practice the religion. Maybe your friend is in that category? Two things here. First of all, I believe that your particular brand of Judaism may be more orthodox than many. So whether you personally believe it's against your faith to have anything to do with any aspect of Christmas, that's actually immaterial. Please understand I don't mean there's anything wrong with that--you have as much right to conscientiously object to Christmas as the next Jew has to sing "Silent Night." I do find it interesting, though, because one of the only other places I've experienced such a rigid resistance to any form of participation is, oddly, among Catholics, who sometimes do not allow non-baptised or unconfirmed people to receive a blessing at Communion (and in some cases, won't even allow baptised Christians who are not official members of the parish to receive Communion). More on that later, even though it's veering toward OT. Back to the central question: how pious are we talking about here? For the purposes of comparison, it would not be useful or fair to compare a highly orthodox Jew with a "Christmas & Easter" Christian. It's not so much "assimilated" as simply less pious. To my way of thinking, the C&E Christian is much more comparable to the Jew who may light candles at Hannukah, who may hold a Seder (or even both Seders) at Passover, and who attends High Holy Services on Rosh Hashonnah and Yom Kippur, but who observes very little else about the religion. This is someone who does not go to temple on Shabbas, who does not wear a yamike all the time (if male), and who may or may not even really vigorously observe the dietary laws. Nor is it someone who is simply genetically Jewish, but not religious at all. It's between. That's the kind of "cultural" observance we're talking about. And for what it's worth, most Conservative and Reformed rabbis, at least around where I live, don't consider it a violation to celebrate (in the sense of having fun as part of) another faith's holidays. How else do you explain ecumenical services representing many Churches and Synagogues? How else do you explain cross-religious services (especially weddings) officiated by both a priest and a rabbi? If a non-Christian accepts an invitation to a "Christmas Open House" from a friend or coworker, congratulations, that person has "celebrated" the holiday. They have not violated their own faith, they have not said or done anything in contradiction to their own beliefs--that is, assuming they behave ethically and have no moral dilemma by being in a house with a Christmas tree on display--but they have joined in a jocular festivity in commemoration of someone else's holiday. The only precept I'm aware of that applies here is the first commandment. As long as one does not bow down before the tree, so to speak, there is no harm in acknowledging or respecting traditions that do not conflict directly. (Out of curiosity, if a friend who is Christian dies, can you go to her funeral? The reception, if not the service?--Don't respond on the list.) I guess I'm thinking of a line from "A Majority of One," fabulous play if you don't know it: "God's house is God's house." What you do in it is up to you. And since I have to bring this back to topic, I'll go on and answer Bonnie by saying that I think some aspects of magical education may touch on Kabbalah, such as Arithmancy. And furthermore, if any ultra-Orthodox Jewish kids were ever informed that they are, in fact, untrained wizards and witches, well, one can hope that as an alternative to Hogwarts, they could be sent to the top-secret magical Yeshiva. That way they can harness their abilities while in an environment that will inundate them with the "right" kind of mysticism. [Seriously OT, but related to all that preceeds it: In case you're wondering, I'm the product of three religions in one household. My father was Jewish, my mother converted to Judaism from being a lapsed Presbyterian so that I could be raised Jewish, but that didn't really work too well. (Hebrew School conflicted with something much more important: ballet class. I'm serious.) A monotheistic, restrictive mideset has never made sense to me. I subscribed to Paganism very early despite everything else at play in the house, and that includes my grandmother who came to live with us when I was 8, and who joined a Lutheran church soon after that. I continue Pagan--not Wiccan, btw, though I've no problem with it--but my mother is now the President of the church council at the same Lutheran church her mother joined. My father's observance waxes and wanes, generally when it's inconvenient for others--not his beliefs, just his adherence to things like kosher and stuff. He has never regularly attended temple for more than a few weeks running. I married and subsequently divorced a 7th generation Presbyterian Pastor's son--and oddly, Christianity wasn't the problem. But I still go to family seders every year, I have been known to struggle through and mostly remember services when I attend for Bar Mitzvahs and the like, and thanks to my education at a Presbyterian school and my work for church choirs, and as a church soloist, I can get through almost any Christian service you throw at me. I may get uncomfortable now and then, but I still respect that I'm the outsider in those situations, and keep quiet.] One last word from me on this topic and then I'll shut up. Isn't Buddhism actually the religion with the largest number of followers worldwide? And isn't that followed by Islam? So, may I ask exactly why it's such a big deal that this Western-centric work of fiction assumes the culturally expected religion--and does it as only a background for the rest? If it were a Darcy-esque, religiously infused type of magic, it could be significant. Or if the books were set in the Punjab, and the assumed religious backdrop were Christian, then it would be notable. As it is? Of course. And...? Gwen From tabouli at unite.com.au Tue Jan 29 17:48:37 2002 From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 04:48:37 +1100 Subject: Individualism and protestantism (OT - see disclaimer) Message-ID: <004d01c1a8ed$4e48e480$430adccb@price> No: HPFGUIDX 34265 Er Mods, I thought I'd post this on the main list (as I don't think the two posters I'm answering are on the OT list), but with invitations to them to join OT and continue discussing it there, if they wish, rather than try to sprinkle HP canon references on it to make it superficially legit. (Tabouli braces herself for Howlers) judyserenity: > I don't know to what extent belief in personal choice, etc. is Protestant. (Didn't a lot of Protestants believe in predestination, as opposed to free will? I drive by "Free Will Baptist" Churches sometimes, which implies that somewhere there are non-Free Will Baptists.) However, I agree that there are strong Christian elements in the "moral" of the JKR stories. I have a post on that here somewhere. Eileen (choking on her breakfast): > Fundamentally *Protestant*? Every once and a while, I get sick of everything being attributed to the Protestant Reformation at the expense of the Middle Ages, my projected field of study. If anything, the Protestant reformation eroded the strong understanding of individual choice, effort, and responsibility introduced in the Middle Ages.....< Ah well, no-one ever said cross-cultural theories were an exact science. Like sociobiological theories, they're all pretty speculative and subject to a lot of fuzziness about cause and effect. You can't really prove where cultural values came from because you can't measure them directly, so many demographic and historical factors impact on them and available sources of information, and they're constantly shifting anyway. I am profoundly ignorant of history (obviously!), but IIRC from my sources for this comment, the individualism-Protestantism connection was made on the grounds that individualism is a core value in countries whose legal and educational institutions were founded during a time when community leaders were adherents to morality and principles derived from the Protestant church. Whether Protestantism originally purloined individualist ideals from the Middle Ages and corrupted them or not, isn't it fair enough to assume there's *some* connection? (presumably quibbles about some brands of Protestantism rejecting key parts of individualism could be sorted out by looking at which denominations significant community leaders belonged to, etc.etc.). I'm not totally convinced by the simplistic Protestantism/Individualism theory myself (certainly not enough to refer to it in proper academic writing, as opposed to training), but as I'm more interested in using this sort of theory as an explanatory tool, it doesn't matter that much. I don't proclaim it as established fact. I'm using it a cross-cultural trainer, not a history teacher, and the ultimate origin of individualism isn't really that important, for my purposes; what's more important is that people realise it isn't held to be the highest form of virtue and morality outside the Western world. Connecting it to a major Western religion in a plausible way (religion and value prevalent within similar geographical constraints, religion promotes individual, unmediated relationship with God, etc.) helps make it more concrete for people than a slide full of jargon and waffle about "individualism". There are other theories of the origin of cultural values, which go back well before the Middle Ages, and are based in environmental and geographical parameters, but they're even more tenuous. Tabouli. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From MmeBurgess at msn.com Tue Jan 29 18:13:42 2002 From: MmeBurgess at msn.com (angela_burgess) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 18:13:42 -0000 Subject: Uranus joke Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34266 Hey all! For some reason, I am not receiving digests (the last one I received was on Sunday morning at 2 AM), so I am somewhat behind the times. Anyway, the recent discussion of translation issues made me wonder about how the Uranus joke translated into French. I started trying to find it in my French copies, but am having difficulty. Unfortunately, I do not have my English copy of GoF at home as I leant it to a friend. Can anyone tell me what chapter it is in? Thanks! Angela Burgess From bonnie.abrams at cwine.com Tue Jan 29 17:33:37 2002 From: bonnie.abrams at cwine.com (sing2wine) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 17:33:37 -0000 Subject: More defense of Hagrid/ Correction / Re:SHIP Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34267 Zoe writes: JKR tells us who the good guys are, and I'm prepared to take her word on that. And, as one who loves Hagrid, I'll take his love and loyalty to Dumbledore any day, even if he does drink a bit when he's sad and even if he does step over the line when it comes to Dumbledore and indeed Harry, Ron, and Hermione. Thank you Zoe - you've said what I wanted to say about Hagrid. JKR likes him - it's obvious she does - "skrewts and all"!! My apologies - just found the original posting of: "..in an interview prior to the publication of GoF, JKR said very clearly that in the fourth book the kids all fall for the *wrong* people..." It was Ancarett who wrote this, not Eileen. But, Eileen did write: It would show that Ginny has moved past the impressionablity of the earlier books: hero-worship of Harry, the susceptability to Tom Riddle's charms, even the seeming idolization of Bill's coolness, to seeing what's inside a person. Neville does not appeal to her at first. She is presented as having a pained expression, as he treads on her feet at the ball. But she keeps faith with him when she gets the hoped-for invitation from Harry (via Ron :-), suggesting that she will not let initial feelings rule her life. I think Ginny's keeping faith with Neville has more to do with the fact that she is highly evolved morally. Good & moral people do not break plans with dates or friends when they get a better offer. This makes her all the more worthy of Harry - who she still obviously idolizes... Bonnie / sing2wine Bonnie From uncmark at yahoo.com Tue Jan 29 19:20:10 2002 From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 19:20:10 -0000 Subject: Harry & Ginny, magic from Vmort? (some ship) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34268 There was some discussion in Chamber of Secrets whether Harry's skills (parselmouth) came from Valdemort and now Vmort has Harry's blood in him. Ginny was similarly marked by Tom Riddle's diary (Did she speak parselmouth to get in the Chamber?) Ginny was in the background for the last two books but there was some hinting that she's friends with Neville and Hermione. How about she quietly gets top marks at final exams in Goblet of Fire and starts wondering whether her magic is hers or comes from Voldemort? A subplot for the 5th book might be Vmort tempting both Harry and Ginny that their powers come from him? Would they stop fighting? Would they lean on each other without the giggling hero worship of C of S? Any thoughts? From gaynort at yahoo.com Tue Jan 29 19:57:22 2002 From: gaynort at yahoo.com (gaynort) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 19:57:22 -0000 Subject: Uranus joke In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34269 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "angela_burgess" wrote: > Hey all! > > For some reason, I am not receiving digests (the last one I received > was on Sunday morning at 2 AM), so I am somewhat behind the times. > Anyway, the recent discussion of translation issues made me wonder > about how the Uranus joke translated into French. I started trying > to find it in my French copies, but am having difficulty. > Unfortunately, I do not have my English copy of GoF at home as I > leant it to a friend. Can anyone tell me what chapter it is in? Hi there. It is in Chapter 13: Maugrey Fol Oeil (top of p184 in my edition) It translates as something the following: Lavender: "...j'ai une planete bizarre! Oooh, qu'est-ce que c'est professeur?" Trelawney: "C'est la Lune, ma cherie" Ron: Est-ce que je pourrais voir ta lune, Lavende? So they used the word for moon instead of Uranus. If I remember correctly, "lune" is also a slang word for "bottom". Quite a good translation job, I thought. Gaynor From hollydaze at btinternet.com Tue Jan 29 19:35:14 2002 From: hollydaze at btinternet.com (Hollydaze) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 19:35:14 -0000 Subject: Ludo Bagman Is Ever So Evil References: Message-ID: <036301c1a8ff$bb9c6400$356a073e@j0dhe> No: HPFGUIDX 34270 Cindy > 5. There is no mention that Ron and Hermione have their > omnioculars. I submit that they don't need them because the > stands are low and they can't see into the maze from their perch. If > the stands were really high up so that everyone could see, wouldn't > they have brought their omnioculars to watch Harry? > > I think the flag was proper because it is an awfully big stretch to > say canon supports the idea that Bagman has some keen, unmentioned > way of seeing into the center of the maze. but Bagoman commentats on the task, surely (if he is commentating) then he msut be able to see what is going on so that he can tell those that are listening to the commentry (we know he is commentating on the 3rd task as well because he says "sonorus" (sp) before they all enter the maze). Therefore, Bagman atleast (out of all of the crowd) must be able to see ALL of what is going on in the Maze. HOLLYDAZE!!! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From aiz24 at hotmail.com Tue Jan 29 20:02:02 2002 From: aiz24 at hotmail.com (Amy Z) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 15:02:02 -0500 Subject: Dates - Flawed characters - Religion Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34271 Ron wrote: >Has anybody ever bothered to check what day the 2nd of >September 1995 falls on? Saturday. How do you think >JKR will handle this? Does Hogwarts students always >start their lessons on September 2? >Also, do you think JKR actually plots events using a >calendar? The answer to your last question is yes, but just as it is completely obvious to me that she has a calendar and sticks to it (with occasional mistakes), at least for GF, it's just as obvious that the calendar she's using is not the actual calendar for that real-time year; the days of the week don't match up. The Lexicon has lots about this. >You all know the date plotholes (Playstation, Harry's 11th birthday, etc.). What's the problem with Harry's 11th birthday? I know it isn't the right day of the week (July 31, 1991 was not a Tuesday), but is there anything else wrong with it? BTW, as long as I'm indulging in all this date nitpicking, an opinion: I am glad the days of the week don't work. All indications so far are that other than that date on Nick's cake, JKR does not have any very specific year in mind. She didn't set out with the thought, "Harry should be born in 1980 and start school in 1991, precisely" (though I do notice she made his parents' generation her own). Naturally the books are dated by their slang and other such references (which will become more obvious as time wears on and they recede into oldfashionedness), but other than the Playstation reference, which doesn't work anyway, there is nothing to put the events in the early 90's as opposed to a decade earlier or later. It seems likely to me that she set her stories in the present but had no intention of nailing down an exact year. The cake gives us a nice handle for describing what year what happens (e.g. "V graduates c. 1945--any connection to WWII"?), but her refusal to use an actual 1992-3 calendar for that year suggests that she's trying to keep somewhat free of exact real-life dates. The reason I like it is that it makes the whole thing just a bit more timeless. It's like Narnia: we can pin the dates down pretty darn closely, because LWW takes place right around the Blitz, and of course slang dates it too, but we aren't getting constant reminders like "this is happening in 1944." It allows us to just put the story in an era and not try to make it conform to precise real-life events. Cindy wrote: >So if we are going to find someone to blame ::waves at Luke::, I'd lay it >on James. He's dead, so he won't mind. Sounds good to me, but don't tell Harry. He's a bit touchy where his dad's memory is concerned. Cindy also wrote: >we have some characters (OK, one character, Hagrid) who just has too many >flaws for my tastes. He's over the top in that department. I understand >from our discussion that there are probably only two of us who feel that >way, and most people adore Hagrid. But I still feel that way. >I wish JKR had removed some of Hagrid's flaws. Now this really has me thinking. We know JKR adores Hagrid; she has said he's her favorite character, after Harry. So what do you all think? Does JKR not see the flaws as flaws? and re: flaws introduced to further plot or characterization: >The werewolf adventures, however, didn't really enhance his >characterization for me and could have been omitted. They are needed for the plot; JKR needs a plausible reason he doesn't tell Dumbledore that Sirius is an Animagus, or else the plot ends at Halloween when he gets into Hogwarts as a dog. But I think they're also a key part of characterization. If you're not drawn to guilt-ridden, tormented souls the way I am , try this on for size: Lupin has to be flawed or he'll just be an oh-so-nice, oh-so-mistreated guy. Yawn. Like Harry, he has edges to his character; he is a very good person but not a saint. and Cindy again: >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. 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. Gwen asked: >So, may I ask exactly why >it's such a big deal that this Western-centric work of fiction assumes >the culturally expected religion--and does it as only a background for >the rest? I think you're knocking down a straw man here. IIRC, no one objected to Hogwarts being structured on a Christian calendar the way most British schools are. It is completely realistic for JKR to arrange things that way, and (IMO anyway) completely realistic to think that magical children in Britain would celebrate Christmas and Easter the same way their Muggle peers do: some devoutly, many as more of a cultural thing. The objections came from people,, myself included, who said we could not then call Hogwarts purely secular. Amy --------------------------------------------------------- A tremendous amount of thought went into choosing a title for this book. My personal choice, designed to appeal to the book-buying impulses of today's consumer, was Tuesdays with Harry Potter. --Dave Barry, Dave Barry is Not Taking this Sitting Down --------------------------------------------------------- _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com From john at walton.vu Tue Jan 29 20:06:43 2002 From: john at walton.vu (John Walton) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 20:06:43 +0000 Subject: Uranus joke in different languages Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34272 I'm going on a quest. Mission. Thing. I want to compile a list of how the Uranus joke translates into different languages. If anyone with a non-English language edition could please drop me a quick email with the *exact quote* from GOF with the Uranus joke (or "blague de lune" in French :D), I will paste them together and share soon. Cheers! --John ____________________________________________ "Exercise gives you endorphins. Endorphins make you happy. Happy people don't shoot their husbands. They just don't." --Elle Woods, Legally Blonde John Walton || john at walton.vu ____________________________________________ From john at walton.vu Tue Jan 29 20:25:19 2002 From: john at walton.vu (John Walton) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 20:25:19 +0000 Subject: Religion and Persons of Straw In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34273 >> Gwen asked: >> So, may I ask exactly why it's such a big deal that this Western-centric work >> of fiction assumes the culturally expected religion--and does it as only a >> background for the rest? > Amy Z replied: > I think you're knocking down a straw man here. IIRC, no one objected to > Hogwarts being structured on a Christian calendar the way most British schools > are. It is completely realistic for JKR to arrange things that way, and (IMO > anyway) completely realistic to think that magical children in Britain would > celebrate Christmas and Easter the same way their Muggle peers do: some > devoutly, many as more of a cultural thing. The objections came from people, > myself included, who said we could not then call Hogwarts purely secular. While we're on the subject of knocking down straw men (O! O! Gender-based violence! Non-inclusive language! Shock! Horror! ::grin::), I think that the objections raised were also slightly strawy. Though I've been slightly preoccupied recently, I can't remember anyone saying that it was possible to call Hogwarts purely secular. Rather, IIRC the argument from this side was that Hogwarts was *no more* and perhaps *less* religious than British society as a whole. Oh, I do hope that nobody throws forty-seven quotes at me to refute that :D --John ____________________________________________ "Ivanova is always right. I will listen to Ivanova. I will not ignore Ivanova's recommendations. Ivanova is God. And if this ever happens again, Ivanova will personally rip your lungs out." --Commander Susan Ivanova, Babylon 5 John Walton || john at walton.vu ____________________________________________ From cindysphynx at home.com Tue Jan 29 20:45:32 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 20:45:32 -0000 Subject: Ludo Bagman Is Ever So Evil In-Reply-To: <036301c1a8ff$bb9c6400$356a073e@j0dhe> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34274 Hollydaze wrote: > but Bagoman commentats on the task, surely (if he is commentating) then he msut be able to see what is going on so that he can tell those that are listening to the commentry (we know he is commentating on the 3rd task as well because he says "sonorus" (sp) before they all enter the maze). > > Therefore, Bagman atleast (out of all of the crowd) must be able to see ALL of what is going on in the Maze. OK, good point. Three quick responses. First, it is entirely possible that Bagman performs "Sonorus" to introduce the contestants (which we see him do). The rest of his commentary is blind, just filling air time with prattle. I've certainly seen this done -- going on and on about the history of the event, the backgrounds of the participants and general tension- building while the crowd waits for the winner to emerge from the maze. But let's say you don't buy the "Blind Commentary" explanation. It does strike me as a little odd that one member of the panel of judges gets to see everything but the others (including the Minister of Magic) do not. Really, what are the other judges there for if not to disqualify contestants who perform the Imperius Curse on other contestants? Anyway, to get to the heart of the matter, let's assume Bagman is the only person in the whole stadium with a heretofore unmentioned-in- canon magical device to allow him to see all of what is going on in the maze. (BTW, if Bagman is supposed to be providing meaningful commentary, then he can't just see the small area around the Cup; he has to be able to see the whole maze, right?) Well, that's just more proof that Bagman Is An Evil Death Eater. You see, if Bagman really can see everything, then he sees Fleur go down and sees Krum torture Cedric and says nothing about it and does nothing about it. So that means he is in on the Evil Restore Voldemort plot after all! ;-) Cindy (thinking she might need a swig of Elkins' brandy right about now) From ftah3 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 29 20:50:27 2002 From: ftah3 at yahoo.com (ftah3) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 20:50:27 -0000 Subject: Werewolf Adventures, Boring Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34275 cindysphynx wrote: > I'm all for absolving Remus of responsibility for his werewolf > adventures, but of the remaining three Marauders, I wouldn't pick > Sirius to blame. If anyone was incapable of demonstrating maturity > beyond his years, it was Sirius. The boy was probably so arrogant > and immature that he was helpless to resist a good party. Peter > probably couldn't stand up to his three friends under any > circumstances. > > James, on the other hand, sounds like the guy who should have put a > stop to the adventures. So if we are going to find someone to > blame ::waves at Luke::, I'd lay it on James. He's dead, so he won't > mind. Agreed. I've been thinking along these lines, if only because James seems to be cast as the 'ringleader' ~ but that's a wide shot on my part, an assumption I've made based tentatively on the way people tell stories about him. So while I agree...I can't figure out why. It's frankly one of those subjects which imho is beyond the need to lay blame, but I'm interested in exploring the dynamic of the Marauders, and I really *do* wonder the main "who and why" force behind the werewolf adventures. So, please to explain more of why you'd peg James? Or is it just because he's dead and won't argue? ;-) cindysphinx: > My point, however, is not that characters should be perfect. I have > two issues, I think. First, we have some characters (OK, one > character, Hagrid) who just has too many flaws for my tastes. He's > over the top in that department. > I wish JKR had removed some of Hagrid's flaws. He still needs to do > some dumb things to advance the plot and keep it interesting, of > course. If he has to cross-breed skrewts, I guess the students have > to handle them to keep things interesting. If he has to leak > information in PS/SS, so be it. But Hagrid doesn't have to drink. > He doesn't have to cry. He doesn't have to give Dudley a pig's > tail. He doesn't have to run and hide when he is upset. And if he > didn't do those things, he wouldn't be boring, IMHO. along the same lines, cindysphinx later in the same post: > I understand the idea that perfect characters are boring characters, > but that's not always the case. Lupin is a great character, and he > would still be great if he hadn't made the mistakes he made in the > books. Several of his mistakes (failing to rat on Sirius, forgetting > his potion) he had to make for the plot. Sometimes a character has > to take one for the team, so that's OK. The werewolf adventures, > however, didn't really enhance his characterization for me and could > have been omitted. They really didn't trouble me that much, though, > so, whatever. Mea Culpa: the following is an actual opinion expressed in a tongue- in-cheek fashion. I'm not good at tongue-in-cheek, but I couldn't think of a better way of expressing it. Pardon begged in advance. You know, I get the feeling you don't like Hagrid's flaws because they're...well, unmanly. Lupin, Sirius, and even Moody all make Manly Mistakes, doing Manly Things which turn out to be contrary to the greater good even though they were done for Manly Reasons. Lupin hid his friend's animagus talent because Lupin is a Manly Werewolf who has every right to not want his Manly but Not Particularly Safe teenage adventures known to Dumbledore. Sirius put Snape's life in danger way back, but for the Manly Reason that he thought Snape was a git who needed to build character by having the crap scared out of him. Moody bounced Malfoy around the hall in ferret form, but that's a very Manly way of dealing with annoying little fleas, i.e. kick butt creatively, showing off a razor-sharp sense of humor, fab wizarding skills, and his superiority over the mundane rules of the school all at once. However, Hagrid gets drunk (and worse, is a whiney drunk), cries, runs and hides from problems, picks on a kid when his real beef is with the father. Not Manly. At all. Big wussy, Hagrid is, actually. *Embarrassing,* really. The others make mistakes, sure, but they don't make fools of themselves. And if we took away all of the flaws you mentioned from Hagrid, the main difference would be that he wouldn't go about making an unmanly fool of himself. Interestingly, cindysphinx still: > My feeling is different about the bare-knuckles brawl between Arthur > and Lucius. That just felt like a cheap Hollywood stunt to me. It > isn't a criticism of the characters; it is a criticism of the > writing. I wish JKR had accomplished this scene in a more inventive > way. They did rather make fools of themselves, didn't they? ;-> But onto another tangent, I always think of that scene in relation to the fight between Darcy and Cleaver in the film of "Bridget Jone's Diary," and the explanation for it that we got during...oh, was it the director's commentary, or was it one of the little explicatory 'making of' things?...on the DVD. The reasoning for making that scene a wussy fight (grappling, stumbling, "owowowowow"ing, rather than manly growls and slick upper cuts) was that it was a fight between a couple of upper class ponces who really have no clue how to fight properly but can't help but go all Manly Man at each other (that's a great big paraphrase, natch), and look like total fools doing it. Along the same lines, I liked the little cat fight between Arthur and Lucius. They strut around being all Grown Up and above childish things, but can't help giving in to their inner WWF-wannabe and end up having a brief & imho really funny wussy fight. LOL. I guess I do like the bits where people make embarrassing fools of themselves. And to be honest, I'm not saying that cindysphinx has it in for embarrassing fools; rather, this is simply a difference that I noticed, with her help, that turned out to be a significant virtue in regards Hagrid and the Weasley/Malfoy smackdown, to me. They go outside of the usual exclusionary dignity allowable in fiction and bring in aspects of humanity that are very blushworthy and which most people, when doing such things, wish they could forget. Never mind the realism aspect, which is imho & in this situation not the point; it's simply more interesting, in terms of fleshed out characterization, to me. Mahoney From jmmears at prodigy.net Tue Jan 29 20:56:49 2002 From: jmmears at prodigy.net (serenadust) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 20:56:49 -0000 Subject: Boring Harry Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34276 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "zoehooch" wrote: > I've been struck lately by the number of posts pointing out all of > the negative opinions of characters in our, or at least my, favorite > books. I couldn't agree with you more, Zoe. I've been wondering lately if many of the posters even enjoy the books as written, or if they feel that they could personally improve them by changing the characters' behavior, or plotlines. I think that the reason we're seeing this kind of nitpicking is that it's been a year and a half since Goblet of Fire came out, and most of the really juicy questions and puzzles have been analyzed to death multiple times. You can only go over the four books so many times before you run out of new things to say about the story. It's probably natural to start finding fault with things that wouldn't bother the ordinary, non-obsessive reader (not too many of those on this list ) when you are going through them for the 10th time. Zoe wrote: > To me, the glorious thing about these books and these characters is > that they are flawed, indeed they are quite human in this way, but > even with these flaws, they are quite wonderful and prove their worth > in so many ways. JKR tells us who the good guys are, and I'm prepared > to take her word on that. I don't even think that the characters "flaws" really are flaws in the literal sense of the word. They are what make them so real and entertaining (which is probably just re-stating what you've already said). I'm more than willing to follow her wherever she takes the story and characters, even if it's in a direction that I *think* I'd hate if you suggested it today. You either trust her vision, or you don't. Jo, becoming ever more desperate for book 5 From marybear82 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 29 21:55:06 2002 From: marybear82 at yahoo.com (Mary Shearer) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 13:55:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] James, Peter, Dumbledore, Secret Keeper In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020129215506.36180.qmail@web14002.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 34277 --- charisjulia wrote: >( Just a note: When Remus asks Sirius to forgive him > for suspecting > him in PoA I always thought he was referring to his > believing that > Sirius had been a spy *after* the Potter tragedy > when Sirius had > been > hauled off to Azkaban with all that evidence > against him not at the > same time Sirius had suspected Lupin.) I rechecked the book and that does make sense! > Errr, I'm afraid I don't quite follow your > theory Why would > James trust Peter to be his secret-keeper if he > suspected him of > treachery? Maybe he'd hold back from openly > accusing a friend of > spying for Voldemort if he didn't have definite > proof, but that's a > far cry from literally handing himself and his > family over to the > enemy! And if he didn't suspect Pettigrew why would > he suspect > Sirius? Whatsmore if James thought there was a > possibility that > Sirius had gone over to the other side I'd expect > him to confront > Sirius about it (after all Neville stood up to his > friends as early > as PS, I'd expect no less of a grown Gryffindor). > Unless of course > he > had too unshakable a faith in the loyalty of his > friends to even > consider the possibility that they could betray > him. But that > scenario defeats the object because we preclude > that James was > certain of Sirius and Peter and therefore he could > not have spent > his last hours in uncertainty! Well - I told ya I was depressed! Thanks for lifting me out of the doldrums. It seems the story at face value is plenty dark enough for all of us high drama junkies. I read through the passage that explains the events leading up to the Potters' betrayal, and noted that Sirius gives his reason for the switch. He is not acting out of any sense of self-preservation...quite the opposite...he is setting himself up as a decoy to lead V. off the Potters' trail. He must suspect Lupin, however, because he finds out the truth shortly after the Potters' death, yet apologizes to Remus in the shack 12 years later. It stands to reason that he would have shared these suspicions with James when persuading him to make the switch. Still heartbreaking for the Potters, but at least their relationship with Sirius remains intact. However > there is one flaw > in > the Sirius-Secret Keeper plan that even James could > not ignore: if > Sirius would as James puts it "rather die than tell > were they were" > then is it not logical that James would want to > ensure that his > treasured possessions, let alone his son were > entrusted to someone > other than the one man without whose death James > and Lily's could > not > occur? So he gives Dumbledore the coat and maybe > asks him to take > care of Harry as well and gives him the key to the > Gringotts vault > though does it ever explicitly say in the books > that he does these > 2 > last things? It doesn't - but your scenario makes sense regarding the safekeeping of his treasured possessions. As for Harry and his welfare, you may be right in your later comments that Dumbledore, in the aftermath and amid evidence of Sirius' betrayal, may have simply taken the job upon himself. He sent Hagrid to Godric's Hollow to retrieve the baby, where he met up with a distraut Sirius who gave him the motorcycle, stating that he "wouldn't need it anymore." In a classic case of misunderstanding, everyone assumes the worst about Sirius, because he does not reveal to Hagrid who the real secret keeper is. Had he only done that, things could have turned out quite differently, and there would have been more than just one person available to confront Peter on that city street. Whew! Am I glad that James at least died knowing who his best friend was - as to the rest of it, it's still horribly sad, and plenty dramatic. -Mary, who thanks charisjulia for poking those nice, neat holes. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com From ladjables at yahoo.com Tue Jan 29 22:35:16 2002 From: ladjables at yahoo.com (ladjables) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 22:35:16 -0000 Subject: Evil Ginny /Re: Harry & Ginny, magic from Vmort? (some ship) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34278 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "uncmark" wrote: > A subplot for the 5th book might be Vmort tempting both Harry and > Ginny that their powers come from him? Would they stop fighting? > Would they lean on each other without the giggling hero worship of C > of S? Any thoughts? I also had an argument with my sister about Harry and Ginny once, and while I still think JKR is hinting at a H/G relationship, my sister contended that the betraying Weasley (if there's to be one) would be Ginny, simply because of her link to Tom Riddle. The diary proves the sneaky bastard likes to give himself as many options as possible. So let's say when Tom Riddle stopped possessing Ginny, he left himself an escape hatch of sorts in Ginny's soul, or better yet a seed. Ginny's soul incubates this seed all this time. And now that Voldemort is back, he can use whatever it is as a secret weapon for his own nefarious purposes. I think it could work, because JKR excels at this stuff. Never mind Ginny was already possessed by Tom Riddle; this time she could choose to side with Lord V and exploit whatever magical talent she has. Reminds me somewhat of Lloyd Alexander's Prydain chronicles, where the Princess Eilonwy has to choose between her magical heritage, which is controlled by her evil enchantres aunt Achren, and her friend the Assistant Pig-Keeper Taran. So how about it, evil Ginny anyone?! Ama From cindysphynx at home.com Tue Jan 29 23:57:10 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 23:57:10 -0000 Subject: Werewolf Adventures, Boring Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34279 Mahoney wrote (about who the MWPP ringleader is): > So, please to explain more of why you'd peg James? Or is it just > because he's dead and won't argue? ;-) > Hmmm. I'd say James mostly through a process of elimination. We can eliminate Lupin and Peter as the ringleaders right away especially since McGonnagall tells us that Sirius and James were the ringleaders. I somehow feel (without any concrete basis in canon) that James was the thoughtful rational one and Sirius was the rash one. (Sirius, after all, was the one who talked James into changing the secretkeeper). Both were smart and popular, and they complimented each other, somehow. So in a situation where Sirius and James cook up an idea to be animagi, I can't see Sirius coming to his senses and saying, "You know, James, I know we just spent three years learning to do this, but let's just forget the whole thing because someone might get hurt." Sirius sure didn't care if Snape got hurt, so why would he care about the Hogsmeade villagers? So what in James' character led him to go along with this plan rather than stand up to Sirius? Mahoney again: > However, Hagrid gets drunk (and worse, is a whiney drunk), cries, > runs and hides from problems, picks on a kid when his real beef is > with the father. Not Manly. At all. Big wussy, Hagrid is, > actually. *Embarrassing,* really. The others make mistakes, sure, > but they don't make fools of themselves. And if we took away all of > the flaws you mentioned from Hagrid, the main difference would be > that he wouldn't go about making an unmanly fool of himself. Don't forget the pink umbrella business. :-) I think I see your point, although I have a tin ear for points made subtly and indirectly, so I may be wrong in what I'm about to say. But yes, certain of Hagrid's character traits are problematic for me because they are meant to show Tenderness. Vulnerability. Frailty. (I wouldn't use the term "Manly" only because it really isn't a gender issue.) I just think I must have a personal preference for Tough Characters (and Tough People in real life, also). I didn't like when Ginny cried at the end of CoS, for instance, which has nothing to do with Manliness. I want to grab Hagrid by the shoulders and, with spit flying from my mouth, tell him to suck it up, for cryin' out loud. That's just the way I view how a person should respond to challenges and adversity of the sort Hagrid faces in the books. Hagrid is supposed to be a gentle giant, so JKR gives him these frail and vulnerable traits as part of that characterization. It obviously works; millions of people love Hagrid, and I don't. That doesn't mean JKR is wrong, and it doesn't mean I'm wrong. It just means I would enjoy Hagrid more if he achieved being a gentle giant by being nice to people, loyal, supportive and understanding (which he does quite well) without being insufficiently Tough. Now, on to Amy Z's question about whether JKR would view Hagrid's faults (the vulnerability and frailty) as faults. My guess is that she would not. They are huge and intolerable faults in my mind because I value Toughness. I have a hunch that she (and a whole lot of people on this list) would disagree because they also value other qualities like tenderness and vulnerability that don't make it onto my radar. Jo wrote: >I've been wondering lately if > many of the posters even enjoy the books as written, or if they feel > that they could personally improve them by changing the characters' > behavior, or plotlines. > I think that the reason we're seeing this kind of nitpicking is that > it's been a year and a half since Goblet of Fire came out, and most > of the really juicy questions and puzzles have been analyzed to death > multiple times. Yes and no, I'd say. Yes, I love the books. Yes, I think they're great. Great, but not perfect. So yes, I do think there are plenty of places where they could be improved, and I don't mind discussing that or even suggesting alternatives. But in my case, the reason I don't mind pointing out flaws or issues with the books is two-fold. First, I think this board would be deadly dull if all we did is gush over everything we love about the books. I think there is plenty of discussion of what is good about the books. I can only talk about "What Makes Lupin Great" so many times before I get the urge to also talk about "What's Wrong With Lupin." Second, there have been *many* instances in which I (or someone else) has pointed out an issue/problem/flaw they are having with some aspect of the books, and the resulting discussion convinces me that it really isn't a flaw or otherwise deepens my appreciation for the books. One example is the recent discussion of whether the brawl between Lucius and Arthur was believable or a cop-out. This scene bothers me less now that I understand the reasons others feel differently (although I am still not totally on board). I would, however, have to gently take issue with the idea that those who criticize an aspect of the books are nitpicking because they have nothing else to do until OoP comes out. I enjoy analysis of the books because I think the issues raised and resulting discussion are fascinating, and I'd have the same views if OoP comes out next month or next year. Indeed, the fact that the books can stand up to our rather robust criticism at times shows that they truly are top-notch. Cindy (who would make a dreadful labor and delivery nurse) From cmf_usc at yahoo.com Tue Jan 29 21:02:47 2002 From: cmf_usc at yahoo.com (cmf_usc) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 21:02:47 -0000 Subject: Magical Eyes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34280 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ftah3" wrote: > > Ffi wrote: >I came across an interview with JKR where she hints that there's significant importance to Harry's eyes - that they have some great power in them. We are told many times about how bright green his eyes are, and that he is rarely without his glasses - could the glasses be stopping his eyes power? A shield between his eyes and others, and that's why their magical qualities haven't come through yet? Just a thought whilst at work! > And Cassie wrote: Hmmm, interesting thought. I've been thinking that maybe it has something to do with the fact that he has his mother's bright green eyes. Maybe Lily had this 'eye-power' and it's been passed on to her son. ^^ > > And then Mahoney wrote: > Could Harry's eyes have the same sort of *natural* magical > properties? I would speculate that he's not of the same ilk as the > basilisk & phoenix, because if his eyes *did* have some sort of > inherent magical properties I think we'd have seen some signs by > now. Even if the magic was interrupted by his glasses, I think there would be some indication that without his glasses magical things happen. > Now me: I think Harry's eyes are going to be a major part of the plot, possibly even in Voldemort's defeat... After all, we know that Harry can't use his wand in the usual way in a duel against Voldie now. Which means he'll have to focus his magic using a less traditional device--why not his eyes? We already know that Harry can cause some pretty serious stuff to happen without using a wand. (Aunt Marge, for ex) Is there reference to any other student using magic to this degree w/o a wand? I can't think of one, which makes me think this is Pretty Unusual. On to mythology--supposedly, the alchemists believed that a green light could pierce all secrets. That it could either heal OR kill depending on how used. (Combo of basilisk & phoenix powers, perhaps???) Caroline (stopping before she gets too excited about alchemical symbolism) From Whirdy at aol.com Wed Jan 30 00:45:39 2002 From: Whirdy at aol.com (Whirdy at aol.com) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 19:45:39 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Boring Harry Potter Bashing Rubeus Hagrid? Message-ID: <7a.216d4fda.29889c33@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 34281 zoehooch wrote well about Hagrid. IMHO, the Hagrid bashing seems a bit much.. Well spoken, zoehooch, well spoken. Count me on your side when the DE rise again.. whirdy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com Wed Jan 30 01:34:32 2002 From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 19:34:32 -0600 Subject: V & V, Nagini & Fawkes - successors to the houses References: Message-ID: <3C574DA8.D5ED2C06@kingwoodcable.com> No: HPFGUIDX 34282 caes56 wrote: > Ok, so we assume LV must get some new powers- the first and most > obvious being the ability to harm harry. the second- ok, well, maybe > LV could be a good Seeker. but as a distant third- could we also > assume that maybe LV has been made a bit...how do i say this? more > inclined to do good? we can't say that LV would take on every trait > of harry, but we know Harry is essentially a good person, maybe this > will make LV be affected in some way. i think that this si the most > likely outcome, and that is why DD 'glinted'- he knew LV would be > less evil, and therefore easier to attack. of course, i could be > wrong... I'm beginning to not believe D's assessment that Harry got certain traits from V during the first attack. I send an email out earlier that talks about the Houses and their traits, and that if we look hard enough we can find a trait from each house in each of our Characters. D says that Harry is resourceful, determined and has a certain disregard for rules. And these are things that Slytherin admired in people. D assesses that Harry received these from V. However...Harry's father is exactly the same way. I'm also beginning to believe that the parseltongue is his own power and not from V. I think that's a Red Herring to question whether Harry is powerful in his own right, or powerful because of V's attack. I've seen the idea about V's getting some goodness by taking Harry's blood, but I just don't believe it. I don't know why...and I'm going purely on my gut right now. I don't see V growing a heart and becoming a better person. I believe that he will strive to be even more evil and darker in hopes of finishing the job he started before he attacked Harry. Rowling has stated the D is the epitome of good. I take her at her word. Since we see so many extremes in the book, that I believe V is the epitome of evil. This is why I can't see him trying to do something good, unless his serves his means in the end. Same with D. I don't see D doing anything bad unless it serves his means in the end. ... I'm wondering if there are successors to the houses (or founders), instead of "heirs". Right now we know that V is a blood heir to Slytherin. But I wonder if the blood relation is more of a red herring, when in actuality the founders have a different way of selecting successors. If V is the current successor to Slytherin, and D (just a guess) is the successor to Gryffindor...what is it that they have in common? They each have a pet, Nagini & Fawkes. So I wonder if these animals belonged to the house founders, and ultimately decide who will continue the founder's legacy. I wonder if the animal assesses the people alive at the time the current successor passes, and picks the one truest to its relative Founders wishes and qualities. I'm of the belief that Harry, if he survives, will be the chosen successor by Fawkes. But who would be the chosen Slytherin successor? Draco? -Katze From rachrobins at hotmail.com Wed Jan 30 00:59:42 2002 From: rachrobins at hotmail.com (tangawarra1) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 00:59:42 -0000 Subject: US/UK versions In-Reply-To: <53.11b5ce23.29877eb4@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34283 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., mrgrrrargh at a... wrote: "I HATE them! I'd prefer to have the books as JKR wrote them. However, we Americans tend to want things in our own toungue (can't think a foreigner can write better than we can *weg*) and it'd confuse a lot of people if Quidditch was compared to football rather than soccer -- and you saw the confusion we had on this list about public schools. Personally I watch enough British TV to understand more idioms than the average person, but I'm still no expert in British anything. But as margaraeta said, the books let you learn more about another culture... and I'm glad they kept "mum" rather than changing it to "mom." -SpyGameFan" Here in Australia we have the dubious 'benefit' of very very high exposure to US and UK culture through the mass media. Only about 20- 30% of programming on Australian television must be locally produced - so once you count the news, sports, and some awful soap operas, the rest is generally American or British, and that's just free to air television. Pay TV (cable / sattelite) as far as I know, have no restrictions. The football/soccer and private/public/grammar/state school confusions apply here also, however thanks to the high exposure to the many American and British forms of spoken English, it is not seen as an issue for concern. I recently found a quote on the HP Galleries from Arthur Levine, the American editor of the Harry Potter series for Scholastic Inc: "If the American reader comes to this section -- let's say the Xmas banquet -- and doesn't recognize a single dish, then they don't properly feel the wonder of the passage. Sure, they can look up "bangers and mash" -- or whatever -- in a reference book, but it won't be the same." (http://www.popogo.com/hol/words/c117.htm) In my opinion reading the unfamiliar names and descriptions of the dishes in the many feasts ADDS to the spectacle and wonder of the scene, not detracts from it! Consider the classics. How dull and lifeless would a Jane Austen text be if an editor took it upon himself to modernise the text, the atmosphere and ethos of the work would be completley destroyed. The same is true for HP. What I love most about reading is immersing myself in the world the author has created, I dont want that world to be forced to fit my cultural, social or linguistic experience. Is adapting text to suit a target audience common? Just out of curiosity - are US novels generally adapted to suit other English speaking markets? In Australia I can only assume that it not a common practice thanks to our scant population of just 19 million. Ecconomically it would never be viable, to which I say - thank goodness for that! Rachel From abigailnus at yahoo.com Tue Jan 29 21:37:10 2002 From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 21:37:10 -0000 Subject: Book 5: First School Day is Saturday In-Reply-To: <20020129110909.76527.qmail@web21101.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34284 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Ronald Rae Yu wrote: > Also, do you think JKR actually plots events using a > calendar? For example, keeping track of which classes > are held on a certain day. Does she really have > certain dates and days in mind? You all know the date > plotholes (Playstation, Harry's 11th birthday, etc.). > I think, if anything, that it's obvious that one of the things JKR has *not* invested in is a perpetual calendar. Nor do I really think that it matters. Abigail From pollux46 at hotmail.com Tue Jan 29 22:30:33 2002 From: pollux46 at hotmail.com (charisjulia) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 22:30:33 -0000 Subject: Uranus joke in different languages In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34285 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., John Walton wrote: > I'm going on a quest. Mission. Thing. > > I want to compile a list of how the Uranus joke translates into different > languages. If anyone with a non-English language edition could please drop > me a quick email with the *exact quote* from GOF with the Uranus joke (or > "blague de lune" in French :D), I will paste them together and share soon. > > Cheers! > I'm afraid this isn't going to be of much use to you, but I thought I'd answer anyway: In Greek the joke, errm, *isn't* translated:-P To give the translator her due it would be extremely hard to take a planet's scientific name and turn it into a rude joke in Greek. The language just doesn't work that way. At least I can't think how to manage it... So they just translated the line into (this is probably all greek to you{g} ) "Mou dihnis kai emena ton Urano sou Laverder?" (I'm using gringlish here-- greek with latin characters) which means literally "will you show me your (planet) Uranus too Lavender?" (sorry, this might be a bit of a paraphrase-- I don't have a copy with me right now. If you're really want the exact wording of my rather useless information, however, I can get back to you on it.) What a let down! And it kinda leaves the reader wondering what got into Trelawney to make her load them with so much homework... By the way, I was amused while perusing a friend's copy of CoS to see that Tom Ridlle was given as "Anton Morvol Hert"! Or maybe that would be "Heart" in English! ROFL!!! As if! Or perhaps "Hurt"... Huh... Chars Julia. From uncmark at yahoo.com Wed Jan 30 01:30:52 2002 From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 01:30:52 -0000 Subject: Evil Ginny /Re: Harry & Ginny, magic from Vmort? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34286 First time I was quoted, --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ladjables" referred to my earlier post on Vmort tempting both Harry and Ginny claiming their powers come from him?" She wrote > "I also had an argument with my sister about Harry and Ginny once, > and while I still think JKR is hinting at a H/G relationship, my > sister contended that the betraying Weasley (if there's to be one) > would be Ginny, simply because of her link to Tom Riddle. The > diary proves the sneaky bastard likes to give himself as many > options as possible. So let's say when Tom Riddle stopped > possessing Ginny, he left himself an escape hatch of sorts in > Ginny's soul, or better yet a seed. Ginny's soul incubates this > seed all this time. And now that Voldemort is back, he can use > whatever it is as a secret weapon for his own nefarious purposes. > I think it could work, because JKR excels at this stuff. Never > mind Ginny was already possessed by Tom Riddle; this time she could > choose to side with Lord V and exploit whatever magical talent she > has. Reminds me somewhat of Lloyd Alexander's Prydain chronicles, > where the Princess Eilonwy has to choose between her magical > heritage, which is controlled by her evil enchantres aunt Achren, > and her friend the Assistant Pig-Keeper Taran. So how about it, > evil Ginny anyone?! > Ama I hold that Vmort might claim to have given Ginny or Harry their magic, but don'y believe they were tainted. Dumbledore's too good for that. He would have checked. I believe the assertion that Valdemort is so addled by the dark force that he grossly underestimated the powers of good and the strength of Harry and/or Ginny. I don't buy that Ginny would go bade for a second! She might have gotten some high marks from some knowledge left behind by Tom Riddle. I think that her moral upbringing by Mom and Dad Weasley and teaching by Dumbledore and McGonagall should have cleared any doubt of Ginny's corruption. As for a "betraying Weasley", Percy is working for the Ministry of Magic and may be drafted to clean up Crouch's mess. He may receive orders from Fudge they may put him at odds with both Dumbledore and his father, Arthur Weasley. Tough choices ahead for all. Uncmark From rachrobins at hotmail.com Wed Jan 30 01:38:56 2002 From: rachrobins at hotmail.com (tangawarra1) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 01:38:56 -0000 Subject: Muggle parents and Hogwarts (was: First impressions of Hogwarts) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34287 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jrober4211" wrote: "...So to wrap up my point, a better question would be " Would you let your kids attend a school you can't visit, much less find?" over "How do muggles find Diagon Alley?"Finding the Alley to shop would be the least of my concerns. - Jo Ellen" Its an interesting point to ponder. There could be any number of untrained witches and wizards running around, whose Muggle parents refused, or were simply unable to send their children to Hogwarts. I believe many Muggle parents would be extremley proud of their children. From the last chapter of CoS we get the impression, just from Hermione's expectations of the Dursleys, that her parents would be very proud of her achievements: "You're Aunt and Uncle will be proud though, wont they? ... When they hear what you did this year" (Hermione. CoS p251) and in PS Aunt Petunia is still very bitter about her parent's reaction to Lily upon receiving her Hogwarts letter: "So proud they were to have a witch in the family" (paraphrased. sorry don't have PS with me to find the exact quote). So perhaps the sheer joy and pride that comes with having a magical child outweighs the concerns Muggle parents may have about Hogwarts. Unless they are silly enough to read Hogwarts, A History it is unlikley that Muggle parents would ever have a full understanding of the dangers involved. Also, consider having an untrained witch or wizard around the house! (A teenager one at that!) Evidence of this can be seen in Hagrid's comment to Harry on the hut on the rock: "did you ever make anything happen that you just can't explain" (paraphrased. Damn not having PS handy) and Harry's numerous magical accidents across the four books - The snake at the zoo on Dudley's birthday, being chased to the top of the wash sheds by Dudley's gang, blowing up Auny Marge etc. I would assume that it is more dangerous to have an untrained witch or wizard, who does not fully understand and cannot control their "abnormality" (as Vernon Dursley would put it), than for Muggle parents to send their child to Hogwarts where they can learn their craft in relative safety. rachel From judyshapiro at earthlink.net Wed Jan 30 02:56:09 2002 From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 02:56:09 -0000 Subject: Religion again (Mostly off-topic) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34288 Gwen said, in reference to a post of mine: > First of all, I believe that your particular brand of > Judaism may be more orthodox than many. So whether you personally > believe it's against your faith to have anything to do with any > aspect of Christmas, that's actually immaterial. > ...it would not be useful or fair to compare a highly orthodox > Jew with a "Christmas & Easter" Christian... < Gwen, I think you have seriously misunderstood me. I know this is off topic, but my beliefs have been very much misrepresented here, and I want to set the record straight. I do get around to discussing the Potterverse, towards the end. First of all, I'm not even close to being orthodox, let alone "highly orthodox." I'm a member of a conservative congregation, and I'm nowhere near the most observant person at my synagogue. My husband is Catholic. I even was an official member of my university's Christian Fellowship for a while, although I've never been Christian. (Long story.) I said that: >> I stand by my statement that *my* >> religious beliefs prohibit celebrating Christmas....<< And Gwen replied: >....one of the only other places I've experienced such a rigid > resistance to any form of participation is, oddly, among Catholics, > who sometimes do not allow non-baptised or unconfirmed people to > receive a blessing at Communion....< I don't feel that this is a fair comparison. I'm simply saying what *my own* religious practices are. You are comparing that to excluding others, which isn't the same thing at all. I will point out, though, that most religions have some form of exclusion of outsiders. It is not just Catholics and Jews. Hindus often won't allow non-Hindus into their temples, and conversion is usually impossible. Muslims won't allow non-Muslims into Mecca, let alone into the Grand Mosque. I'm a lot less rigid than that. (In fact, you're all invited to my synagogue! I'm having a quote-unquote "Adult Bat Mitzvah" March 2nd. If anyone from the list is in Ann Arbor that day, please stop by!) Gwen also said: > ...And for what it's worth, most Conservative and Reformed rabbis, > at least around where I live, don't consider it a violation to > celebrate (in the sense of having fun as part of) another faith's > holidays. How else do you explain ecumenical services representing > many Churches and Synagogues? How else do you explain > cross-religious services (especially weddings) officiated by both a > priest and a rabbi? If a non-Christian accepts an invitation to a > "Christmas Open House" from a friend or coworker, congratulations, > that person has "celebrated" the holiday.... (Out of curiosity, if a > friend who is Christian dies, can you go to her funeral?...) < I think we are using different meanings of the word "celebrate." I am using it in the sense of *observing* a holiday, to recognize it as a day that is in fact holy. You are referring to just attending someone's else's party in honor of the holiday. Sure, I'll go to Christmas office parties and so forth, but that is quite different from having a Christmas tree in one's own house, which is what I had been discussing. And of course I'll go to a Christian funeral; sheesh! Ecumenical services celebrate the commonality between religions. For example, the Passover Sedar is important in both Judaism and Christianity (where it is "The Last Supper.") So, churches and synagogues will sometimes have a sedar together to celebrate the fact that they, do, in fact, have a lot in common. However, this doesn't mean that the Jews present recognize Jesus as the Messiah, nor that the Christians present believe the Messiah hasn't come yet. Rabbis who will co-officiate at weddings with clergy of other faiths are very, very rare. My sister and I both had to search long and hard to find any Rabbi who would officiate at our weddings at all, even without any other clergy officiating. (We both married Christians.) The Rabbi who officiated at my wedding was from the Reform movement, but he at first refused to officiate at my wedding. He only relented when I burst into tears. (I had been turned down by a lot of other Rabbis at that point.) What I am saying (and maybe Jenny Ravenclaw is saying, too) is that it's really a problem for Jews when Christians expect us to just give up our own heritage and act like we're Christians. And some people here, who have Christianity in their backgrounds, seem to be responding by saying "No, you're wrong. It's not a problem for most Jews to be asked to celebrate Christmas. If it's a problem for you, you must be some sort of extremist with a rigid and restrictive mindset, otherwise you'd be happy to celebrate my holiday." Which I think proves my point better than anything I could ever say. While we're on the topic of Judaism, our Magical Moderator Amy sent me an email about something misleading that I said. I said the important annual holidays in Judaism fall on the equinoxes. But, what I meant was that the holidays fall *near* the equinoxes; that is, in the spring and fall. Amy corrected noted that the Jewish calendar is basically a lunar one, and equinoxes are solar phenomena. Consider this the correction to my previous correction. Gwen also asked > Isn't Buddhism actually the religion with the largest number of > followers worldwide? And isn't that followed by Islam? < No, I don't think so. I've heard that Christianity is the largest, with 2 billion followers. (Islam is next, with just over 1 billion, then Hinduism, with just under 1 billion.) So, I'd say the dominant religion in the Potterverse, Christianity, is in fact the dominant religion on the planet. OK, so, speaking of the Potterverse: Gwen said: > I think some aspects of magical education may > touch on Kabbalah, such as Arithmancy.... < I'm no expert in Kabbalah, but this sounds right to me. Gwen continued: > ...if any ultra-Orthodox Jewish kids were ever informed that they > are, in fact,untrained wizards and witches, well, one can hope that > as an alternative to Hogwarts, they could be sent to the top-secret > magical Yeshiva. That way they can harness their abilities while in > an environment that will inundate them with the "right" kind of > mysticism. < Interestingly enough, there is reason to think that ultra-orthodox Jews would, of all observant Jewish groups, have the *least* problem with Hogwarts. The rather misleading term "ultra-orthodox Jew" usually refers to someone from the Chasidic movement. This is the past of Judaism that is most likely to believe in magic and see it as a positive force (that ultimately emanates from God, of course.) As some Christian commentators have noted, most of the magic done at Hogwarts is non-occult; that is, it doesn't involve summoning spirits or demons. So, it's not necessarily the type of magic forbidden by the Bible. People in other branches of Judaism are probably more likely to see all forms of magic as something that attempts to interfere with God's will (if they believe in magic at all, that is.) So, what do we know about religion in general in the Potterverse? We know that Christmas is celebrated at Hogwarts. And, there is an Easter break. And, we never see students complain that their religion is being left out. What does this tell us? Well, I'd guess that there are no practicing Jews or Muslims at Hogwarts. I just don't see what they'd eat. (Can't see what a devout Buddhist or Hindu would eat, either. Maybe the Patils only avoid beef?) And, I think Muslims would have a hard time with the course schedule; when would they pray? Jews, Muslims, and people of other non-Christian faiths might have a hard time with classes being held on their holidays, too. On the other hand, we don't see any Christian students praying, either. There is no mention of a chapel, as far as I recall. So, my best guess is that Hogwarts is made up almost entirely of cultural Christians, but few if any of them are very observant. -- Judy From midwife34 at aol.com Wed Jan 30 04:12:08 2002 From: midwife34 at aol.com (jrober4211) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 04:12:08 -0000 Subject: Muggle parents and Hogwarts (was: First impressions of Hogwarts) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34289 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "tangawarra1" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jrober4211" wrote: > "...So to wrap up my point, a better question would be " Would you > let your kids attend a school you can't visit, much less find?" > over "How do muggles find Diagon Alley?"Finding the Alley to shop > would be the least of my concerns. > > - Jo Ellen" > > Its an interesting point to ponder. There could be any number of > untrained witches and wizards running around, whose Muggle parents > refused, or were simply unable to send their children to Hogwarts. >> > I would assume that it is more dangerous to have an untrained witch > or wizard, who does not fully understand and cannot control > their "abnormality" (as Vernon Dursley would put it), than for Muggle > parents to send their child to Hogwarts where they can learn their > craft in relative safety. > > rachel Rachel, I see your point, but isn't Hagrid an untrained wizard as he was expelled from Hogwarts in his third year, and don't you think the risk of not training him would have been taken under consideration?I don't specifically remember reading anything he messed up through magic. I suppose the risk would depend on the child's ability and I wonder if magical ability is like muscles, "IF you don't use it, you loose it" ? Jo Ellen From midwife34 at aol.com Wed Jan 30 04:18:40 2002 From: midwife34 at aol.com (jrober4211) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 04:18:40 -0000 Subject: What house was Dumbledore in? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34290 I do not have my books to refer to as I lent them out, but does anyone remember whether any of the books ever referred to which house Dumbledore belonged to when he was a student, assuming he attended Hogwarts? Jo Ellen From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com Wed Jan 30 04:29:30 2002 From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 22:29:30 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] What house was Dumbledore in? References: Message-ID: <3C5776AA.F67A0645@kingwoodcable.com> No: HPFGUIDX 34291 jrober4211 wrote: > > I do not have my books to refer to as I lent them out, but does > anyone remember whether any of the books ever referred to which house > Dumbledore belonged to when he was a student, assuming he attended > Hogwarts? In SS/PS Hermione (while on the train to Hogwarts) states that she heard he was in Gryffindor. Sorry this is a one liner...but that's all that is required... -Katze From monika at darwin.inka.de Wed Jan 30 07:21:11 2002 From: monika at darwin.inka.de (agassizde) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 07:21:11 -0000 Subject: Uranus joke in different languages In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34292 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "charisjulia" wrote: > which means literally "will you show me your (planet) Uranus too > Lavender?" (sorry, this might be a bit of a paraphrase-- I don't have > a copy with me right now. If you're really want the exact wording of > my rather useless information, however, I can get back to you on it.) > What a let down! And it kinda leaves the reader wondering what got > into Trelawney to make her load them with so much homework... The German translator did the same, he just translated it literally, and it makes you wonder why they get so much homework. It doesn't make any sense at all. He should either have left it out (yes, that's a professional solution if something really can't be translated), or made a footnote, which I probably would have done. But then, he probably wasn't allowed to make footnotes because it is a children's book, I don't know. But leaving something in the text that doesn't make any sense is very unprofessional. Monika http://sites.inka.de/darwin From catlady at wicca.net Wed Jan 30 07:55:31 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 07:55:31 -0000 Subject: Bagman / Witchy Fertility Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34293 Eloise edblanning wrote: > On Saturday evening my husband referred to someone as a 'bagman', > using it not in its dictionary definition travelling salesman), > but as slang, for a lackey, one who merely carries another's bag. The only meaning I know for 'bagman' is the person who carries the cash for a criminal enterprise. One example, in a protection racket (in case anyone doesn't know, that is when the organized crime boss tells people to pay him this much money every month and then he won't burn down their business, murder them, etc), the bagman goes around to all the 'customers' every month to collect the money from them. Another example, when the crime boss bribes a politician, the crime boss's bagman carries the money to some place where the politician's bagman picks it up. But my reaction to encountering Ludo Bagman by reading GoF was to wonder if this was a hint that he would be 'left holding the bag'. Jo Ellen Rober wrote: > I just have to laugh at this and "sigh"....poor,poor Molly. I don't > remember reading any canon based text to verify this. If they > mention the parents' age of the wizard children at all, they are in > their twenties when they procreate. If this were indeed the case, > then the population ratio of muggle/wizards would soon be about > equal because the wizard fecundity would be twice as long, assuming > no wizarding birth control measures were used and you did not > factor in the difference in death rates between the two populations. It seems pretty clear to me that wizarding birth control IS being used. All these kids in school, surely we would have heard of a lot more siblings among the fellow students if parents typically had a baby a year or even a baby every two years. When Molly visits Harry at Hogwarts during GoF, she tells anecdotes of the gamekeeper before Hagrid, a man named Ogg. That SOUNDS like she was at school more than 50 years ago, before the CoS flashback of Tom Riddle framing Hagrid for opening the Chamber of Secrets and getting him expelled, after which Dumbledore kept Hagrid on as gamekeeper. She would be at least 68 in GoF if she left Hogwarts before Hagrid became gamekeeper, and at least 62 if Ogg was there only for the first part of her first year. So people on the list made up theories about how a thirteen (or fourteen) year old Hagrid couldn't have just become gamekeeper in charge, he must have started as assisstant to the previous gamekeeper (Ogg). But then JKR said in an interview that wizards live longer than Muggles, Dumbledore is 150 and McGonagall is 'a spritely 70'. If McGonagall, whose hair is still black, is 70, there's no reason that Molly can't be 70 as well. If Molly is 70 the same year that her youngest (Ginny) is 13 (during GoF, which was being publicised by that interview), subtraction says she was 57 when Ginny was born. [It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is: Dumbledore 'is' 150 when? In the year 2000 when the interview was given, in the year 2002 which is now, in 1994-5 during GoF which was being publicised by that interview, in 1991-2 during the first book?) From djdwjt at aol.com Wed Jan 30 11:32:58 2002 From: djdwjt at aol.com (elfundeb) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 11:32:58 -0000 Subject: Magical Eyes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34294 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ffimiles" wrote: > I came across an interview with JKR where she hints that there's > significant importance to Harry's eyes - that they have some great > power in them. We are told many times about how bright green his > eyes are, and that he is rarely without his glasses - could the > glasses be stopping his eyes power? A shield between his eyes and > others, and that's why their magical qualities haven't come through > yet? Just a thought whilst at work! > Ffi Dumbledore also seems to have magical eyes -- I call them Veritaserum Eyes. For example, "Dumbledore was giving Harry a searching look. His twinkling light-blue gaze made Harry feel as though he were being X-rayed." (CoS, when Harry is accused of petrefying Filch's cat.) This gaze usually appears when Harry has been accused of something, after which Dumbledore appears to decide Harry is not guilty and lets him go. Dumbledore also wears glasses -- perhaps the half-moon shape allows him to look over the top whenever he wants to use the veritaserum feature. Even if the magical power in Harry's eyes is of a different kind than Dumbledore's I think your idea as to the function of the glasses is a very good one. Debbie From ickle_ronniekins at yahoo.com Wed Jan 30 12:05:14 2002 From: ickle_ronniekins at yahoo.com (Ronald Rae Yu) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 04:05:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: Mudblood Definitions / Generations Message-ID: <20020130120514.42554.qmail@web21110.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 34295 I've read in the archives something about the definition of mudblood, and I have some questions: First of all, Ron defined mudblood in book 2 as "...a really foul name for someone who is muggle born [-- you know, non-magic parents]...". And our omniscient narrator (JKR) said in book 4: Everybody present knew that 'Mudblood' was a very offensive term for a witch or wizard of Muggle parentage. (Bear with me if my reasoning is quite confusing.) Suppose a mudblood male (e.g. Justin) marries a mudblood female (e.g. Hermione, may not work out, though) and they have a child. If the child possesses magical powers, is he a pureblood or a mudblood? From Ron's definition we know that a mudblood has non-magic parents, so that makes the child NOT a mudblood. Is he/she then a pureblood? Calling him/her half-blood doesn't seem right. JKR's definition states that a mudblood must have a muggle parentage. Muggle is defined as someone without magic. So Hermione and Justin lose their 'muggleness'. If they are now wizards (not pureblood though) is any magical child of theirs a pureblood, then? What if our two mudbloods have a non-magical child? Is he/she a squib or just plain muggle? By definition he/she is a muggle. I don't know what the exact definition of a squib, though. Lastly, if two squibs have a child, is the child, by Ron's definition, a mudblood? If the child is magical, is he pureblood or still mudblood? If the child has no magic powers, is he still a. What do we make of squibs, anyway? Are they considered muggles, by definition? Are they considered wizards (they still have the potential for magic -- remember Kwikspell)? If squibs are muggles, is any nonmagical child of theirs still a squib? Follow up: Can muggles learn magic through Kwikspell? -Ron Yu __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com From theennead at attbi.com Wed Jan 30 06:31:16 2002 From: theennead at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 06:31:16 -0000 Subject: Devout Students at Hogwarts (WAS: Religion Again...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34296 Judy wrote: > So, what do we know about religion in general in the Potterverse? > We know that Christmas is celebrated at Hogwarts. And, there is an > Easter break. And, we never see students complain that their > religion is being left out. Oh, well. There are lots of things that we never see about Hogwarts, but that I think we can feel free to deduce do indeed go on behind the scenes. We only see the story from Harry's POV, after all, and Harry is hardly an aspiring journalist. Curiosity is *not* one of his personal strengths. Neither is observation. All that we can really deduce from Harry's POV, IMO, is that there are no students in Harry's own circle of Gryffyndor friends who object to Hogwarts' Christian culture. For all we know, there's that one kid in Ravenclaw who complains *constantly* about it, and circulates petitions every year objecting to the school's insistence on decking the halls with boughs of holly at Yuletide, and badgers all of his friends into wearing the badges he whips up in the library, and takes no end of flack from the Slyths about this eccentricity during their shared Herbology class... But that kid's not cute or pretty, like Cho Chang, and it has nothing to do with Quiddich or Voldemort or any of Harry's friends. So he just never noticed it. (Hermione, OTOH, does know all about it, as the boy in question was the one who taught her how to make those SPEW badges. But since it's never come up in conversation, she's never bothered to mention it to Harry.) > What does this tell us? Well, I'd guess that there are no > practicing Jews or Muslims at Hogwarts. I just don't see what > they'd eat. I feel convinced that a school willing to make special arrangements for a werewolf would manage, somehow, to accomodate unusual dietary restrictions. Real world boarding schools do so, and so do summer camps -- and they don't even have magic to help them out. So Dumbledore just goes down to the kitchens and explains matters to the House Elves, and they conjure up separate stoves and ovens and dishes and the like for the kosher students, and the Elves are thrilled to death to be given such a nice heavy load of extra complication to their work, and when the food all gets magicked up onto the tables, the kids with the special dietary restrictions get their special food on individual plates at their seats. And when the regular dinner is Shepherd's Pie yet *again,* all of the other kids at their table are madly jealous of them. Just like on airlines. ;) Again, I don't think that just because something doesn't bludgeon its way into either Harry's field of notice or the author's list of Things the Reader Must Be Shown, we should necessarily assume that they are excluded from the realm of possibility. The narrative just isn't concerning itself with such matters. > And, I think Muslims would have a hard time with the course > schedule; when would they pray? Jews, Muslims, and people of other > non-Christian faiths might have a hard time with classes being held > on their holidays, too. Just as in real schools, I imagine that special dispensation is offered to those students devout enough to request it. The devout Muslims are allowed to slip quietly out of class to say their prayers, and groups of devout Christians and Jews get ferried off to their respective houses of worship once a week. At any rate, that's how things get done in many boarding schools here in the US. And really, if you aren't close friends with any of the religious students yourself, and if you are not by nature terribly observant (I am not), then it is quite possible to go for literally *years* before you realize that the reason So-and-so is never around on Sunday mornings is because she gets taken off to morning services by a designated member of the staff every week. Embarrassing, yes. But quite possible. > On the other hand, we don't see any Christian students praying, > either. There is no mention of a chapel, as far as I recall. So, > my best guess is that Hogwarts is made up almost entirely of > cultural Christians, but few if any of them are very observant. Thus reflecting fairly well the Muggle society it parallels, no? --- Elkins From devin.smither at yale.edu Wed Jan 30 07:08:02 2002 From: devin.smither at yale.edu (uilnslcoap) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 07:08:02 -0000 Subject: Evil Ginny /Re: Harry & Ginny, magic from Vmort? (now more ship) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34297 > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "uncmark" wrote: > > > A subplot for the 5th book might be Vmort tempting both Harry and > > Ginny that their powers come from him? Would they stop fighting? > > Would they lean on each other without the giggling hero worship of C of S? Any thoughts? And "ladjables" wrote: Never mind > Ginny was already possessed by Tom Riddle; this time she could choose > to side with Lord V and exploit whatever magical talent she has. > Reminds me somewhat of Lloyd Alexander's Prydain chronicles, where > the Princess Eilonwy has to choose between her magical heritage, > which is controlled by her evil enchantres aunt Achren, and her > friend the Assistant Pig-Keeper Taran. So how about it, evil Ginny > anyone?! Hmmm, this Ginny's and Harry's powers came from Voldy business is interesting. I must say that the idea that Ginny could stand beside Harry without hero worship is the most vitalizing thing I've heard in awhile in terms of discussion. And it starts to make sense to me, too. You see, for just about always, I've been a R/H, H/G shipper. It just FEELS right to me. Please, world of fans, do not throw evidence at me to try to talk me out of it. I've read a LOT on this, and am still convinced of my own current thoughts on the matter. Now, I hadn't really thought about Ginny's and Harry's connection to Voldemort which only strengthens my opinion that they will end up with each other. I mean, think of it, Harry and Ginny are the only two students to come face-to-face with Voldemort in recent years (I believe, in some incarnation or another), aside from Cedric who didn't survive the encounter and didn't really ENCOUNTER Voldemort the way Harry and Ginny did. I guess I see Harry coming out of the Cho thing a little in OotP (God, I need that book), and getting with Ginny somewhere in six. I cite Ginny's apparent jealousy when she hears Harry is going out with a Patil (I forget which) to the Ball, and I believe her hero worship is becoming more like true confidece and is now more rooted in Harry's true personality. Point taken, however, that dynamic of HRH is MASSIVELY changed if such a thing occurs. Point also taken that Neville deserves a girl like Ginny. AND point taken (from myself, perhaps though I'm CERTAIN it's been brought up on this board) that this is a story about Harry, who has always been alone, and perhaps needs always to be alone in some sense for the sake of the story. However, Harry needs a soul to confess too. He's filled up with things no fifteen-year-old (as he soon will be) should have to be filled up with. Only Ginny even begins to comprehend the Dark Lord and what encountering him is like. Ginny will be a sympathetic ear for him (can't you see the private, seems-like-chance encounter in a dark, fire-lit, but otherwise dark and empty, Gryffindor common room as they both wake from a bad dream, maybe the same bad dream? can't you just see them bareing their hearts about meeting Voldemort? can't you see the tears in Harry's eyes when he talks about Voldemort/his parents mirrored by those tears in Ginny's eyes? can't you see the inevitable embrace--perhaps the beginning of their relationship? it will be damned heart-wrenching), and may help him, in some way or another, in one of Harry's future encounters with Voldemort. And THAT will be a sight to behold (or at least envision). Besides, if any of HRH gets in a relationship with anyone (most especially if Hermione and Ron do with each other), the dynamic is going to be changed no matter what. At that point, Harry might feel somewhat jealous of their more intimate bond and feel he needs someone himself. I also like the idea that H/R, H/G leads them all to be members of one family. One final thing: I don't believe Ginny can turn evil. This is mostly a gut feeling, but remember in PoA when the Dementor on the train made Harry faint and caused Ginny to "shake like mad" and cry. To me, someone who has memories so sad/frightening (and probably connected with Voldemort in both H's and G's case) is not likely to link up with the cause that created them. I'd also say this points at another H/G connection, but enough about that. *takes deep breath* So sorry for that rambling. But it is fun to let the dam break and put forth so much thought at once. Anyway, I am VERY intrigued by this new Harry/Ginny connection (at least "new" in my own mind), and I now believe that such a connection coming up in a future book is inevitable. I love the idea of Voldy tempting both of them, talking about their survival of his attempt at their lives, saying how powerful they were to resist him, why not join the cause?, and then both of them rejecting him and taking up arms (wands). Such a thing, I believe, might happen in Book Six or so, with H/G eventually overwhelmed but some character sacrificing themself (Hagrid?) to save them. I know this is all pretty far-fetched but I'm all of a flutter with these ideas. Why, oh why, Ms. Rowling must you kill me slowly with the lack of a new book for nigh on two years? Has anyone read anything recently to suggest a release date? Bloomsbury says something like "In a perfect world, it would be July, 2002 but don't hold us to it." God, I'm so desperate. I think I must write another post after this one talking about future books. So if you'll excuse me a minute while I organize my thoughts to write another demented post... Thank you to everyone who wrote about Imperius and Moody/Crouch, most especially Elkins (*waves shyly back at fellow newbie though Elkins probably no longer is*) who convinced me (although I still think Crouch would have told Voldemort despite it not making a long-run difference in terms of Harry's fate) that Crouch's teaching Harry made sense. And yes, perhaps breaking Imperius is possible for all, but Harry must have an absolutely INSANE amount of innate talent on the issue. Crouch Sr. and Crouch Jr. fought the curse for months and years, respectively, and Harry almost casts it off on his first go- round? Amazing! Now I actually am leaving... Devin From devin.smither at yale.edu Wed Jan 30 08:00:03 2002 From: devin.smither at yale.edu (uilnslcoap) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 08:00:03 -0000 Subject: Future books: humor element, Voldemort/Harry encounters Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34298 So sorry to create a new thread when SO many are worth discussing, and maybe the topics I'm writing on have been done before, but perhaps people have new ideas they'd like to discuss on the same issues they've talked about before. Or maybe I'm lucky and they haven't really been brought up yet (no such luck with so many people as obsessive as myself, I'm sure). Right, firstly, I'd like to talk about humor in the books. To me, the books are relatively constant smile-bringers, and occasionally they make me burst into laughter. It's very refreshing to read something I can get a REALLY good laugh out of (although the title for most real laughs from a book goes to Catch-22 where I was almost hysterical on several occasions). Is anyone worried about the tone of the future books being SEVERELY affected by the darker subject matter? I mean, there will be a WAR on! Can the humor really stay in the same league with the foreboding over everything? Will the laughter be more of a kind of "whistling in the dark as you pass a graveyard," a stress reliever rather than the pure humor it has been in the past? I know that all stories like this must grow serious to retain interest and realism (I'm actually really looking forward to these next few books, including their tone and subject matter), but I will miss the humor if it has to suffer in the face of Voldemort's return. Would anyone care to discuss their thoughts? One thing I've been longing to discuss with others is the future of Voldemort vs. Harry, in direct conflict, that is. How many more times can Harry face Voldemort and maintain realism? Surely at some point, one of them has to succeed in finishing off the other--and Voldemort has failed three times, once directly, once through Quirrell, and once through his past self. I can't see Voldemort fouling up too much again with his own body and wand and knowledge of the wand connections between he and Harry. So the question is once again, how many more times will they come into direct conflict before the series ends? Personally, I think two. One where Harry and SOMEONE (in an earlier post tonight, I suggested Ginny--and if you are a G/H shipper, you should read that post because I think I painted *pats self on back* a pretty compelling case for that ship and even a moving picture of the possible moment when Ginny and Harry come together--but Ron or Hermione or Draco or any combination of them might work) face off against Voldemort, and are overcome but escape thanks to the sacrifice of someone else (Hagrid? Dumbledore? Lupin?). It would be VERY interesting to see Ron's or Hermione's actions in the face of Voldemort. Remember, only Harry and Ginny have ever seen an incarnation of Voldemort recently and lived to talk about it (without being a Death Eater, obviously). How would Ron and Hermione fare in the face of the Dark Lord, encountering him for the very first time, only having heard from Harry second-hand what he is like, the terror he creates? How would Ginny fare? Would she be stronger, having seen Tom Riddle before and having even possibly absorbed some of his power? What would Draco do? Would he embrace the Slytherin way and face down Harry with Voldemort behind him or would he, as I suspect, suddenly realize what good and evil actually are (not weakness and strength as he thought before, but good and evil), and team with Harry? And what about Pettigrew's bond with Harry? Great dramatic possibilities. The other occasion where Harry and Voldemort come up against one another will be the final one, of course (more on this in the next paragraph). This leaves open, what about the other book if I believe only two showdowns remain? Well, Rowling has, with great success, not brought V and H together for the climax before (in PoA). Personally, I can't imagine what PoA-like climax (in that it will lack Voldemort's/Riddle's physical presence) she will come up with in OotP or Book Six (I'm leaning toward OotP as the non-Voldemort finale one, but I could be wrong), but I'm sure it will be wondeful. What do other people think about this? Do you believe Harry can face Voldemort three more times? Perhaps more if there are multiple encounters in Book Seven? Do you line up with my theories? Do you believe Harry will always face Voldemort alone or will someone (sometwo? somethree?) stand beside him in the future? Let's discuss! Please? Now, for my other obsession (well, all right, there are many of them, but this one hits me harder recently): what do people think about the very last Voldemort/Harry encounter? I'm not even talking about HOW Voldmort will go down, or if Harry will survive, although these are interesting. I just feel these details are too far out of reach for discussion (though that hasn't stopped me before :), maybe will be always out of reach till I sit, madly taking in the last two hundred pages of Book Seven, and suddenly it will all become clear to me. I'm more interested in things like: where? how? I've been considering Godric's Hollow. Perhaps in some desperate race to get something associated with his parents' past? What about in the "Fortress of Shadows", that title that's been copyrighted recently? Anyone have some great ideas? As for how...I think that it must be in a way that is voluntary for Harry, where he knows what he is about to get into. It's all fine and well for a Portkey to get him to the fight in GoF, but by Seven, I want a Harry moved by his own actions, not by the machinations of evil. Maybe that's not fair considering his voluntary walk into fire (literally and metaphorically, respectively) in PS/SS and CoS. However, I also want a Harry more confident in his own actions. Not saved by help from outside (i.e. his mother's benediction, Fawkes and sword, mysterious wand connection). I also think the very end of the fight must be them alone. Just Harry and Voldemort, no one else. Does anyone have thoughts about this stuff? Does anyone have theories on that which I consider unfathomable (will Harry live? how EXACTLY will Voldemort be defeated? something to do with Harry's blood?--a personal beginning of a theory for me)? Once again, let's talk. All right, I have to go to bed, now...after I look up past discussion on these topics. Oh God, tomorrow won't be very good for me. Devin From uncmark at yahoo.com Wed Jan 30 08:25:51 2002 From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 08:25:51 -0000 Subject: Question: House of James Potter Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34299 Having an argument with my sister and can't find it written in any of the books. She says that James Potter was Slytherin since all 4 marauders were in the same house and Hagrid said in book 1 "There's not a single witch or wizard who went bad who wasn't in Slytherin." and Sirius Black went bad. I say that Hagrid was talking about Valdemort and Malfoy and over generalizing. Opinions? Uncmark From midwife34 at aol.com Wed Jan 30 12:35:20 2002 From: midwife34 at aol.com (jrober4211) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 12:35:20 -0000 Subject: Bagman / Witchy Fertility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34300 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "catlady_de_los_angeles" wrote: > > When Molly visits Harry at Hogwarts during GoF, she tells anecdotes > of the gamekeeper before Hagrid, a man named Ogg. That SOUNDS like > she was at school more than 50 years ago, before the CoS flashback of > Tom Riddle framing Hagrid for opening the Chamber of Secrets and > getting him expelled, after which Dumbledore kept Hagrid on as > gamekeeper. She would be at least 68 in GoF if she left Hogwarts > before Hagrid became gamekeeper, and at least 62 if Ogg was there > only for the first part of her first year. So people on the list made > up theories about how a thirteen (or fourteen) year old Hagrid > couldn't have just become gamekeeper in charge, he must have started > as assisstant to the previous gamekeeper (Ogg). > > If Molly is 70 the same year that her > youngest (Ginny) is 13 (during GoF, which was being publicised by > that interview), subtraction says she was 57 when Ginny was born. > > 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? Jo Ellen From ickle_ronniekins at yahoo.com Wed Jan 30 12:48:36 2002 From: ickle_ronniekins at yahoo.com (Ronald Rae Yu) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 04:48:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Love Protection / How to Kill Harry Message-ID: <20020130124836.48484.qmail@web21110.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 34301 Yes, we all know that Harry survived Avada because Lily died protecting him. Come to think of it, though, during the Voldie years, a person dying protecting another could not be that uncommon. Not only the Voldie era -- there are other evil wizards and wizard wars as well. So Harry's survival may not be much of a big deal. Yet apparently only Harry survived the curse. I have this question: Lily died protecting Harry -- from Voldemort. Could other wizards kill him (as he was protected only from voldemort), or does that protecting love make him Avada-proof to anyone? Surely Voldie could have just hired others to kill Harry (come on, he has a bunch of death eaters) unless he was the typical evil warlord who wants to kill the protagonist himself. And talking about killing Harry, here are some ways Voldie could have done it (not that I'm being saddistic): 1. Use any muggle killing tool. -I don't think love can protect you from bullets or knives. I've already speculated on this possibility already, and others said that guns and knives are to muggley for a muggle-hater like Voldie to use, so here are other fatality methods: 2. Expose him to screaming mandrakes. -We all know the mature ones are fatal. 3. Let him see the basilisk's eyes. -Easy for a parseltongue to do. 4. Drop him from a height. Winggardium Leviosa, then undo. 5. Pour him lots of undiluted bobutuber pus until he dies of infection or something. -Okay, I could not think of more ways but I'm sure there still are many. Try checking Fantastic Beasts. We can assume that Voldie knows these methods, being the all-powerful wizard that he is (he did the basilisk thing on book 2, so easy I wonder why he never actually got to kill somebody). But does he know that the protecting love protects? As I have said before, this could not be too uncommon. -Ron Yu __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com From judyshapiro at earthlink.net Wed Jan 30 13:12:09 2002 From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 13:12:09 -0000 Subject: Devout Students at Hogwarts (WAS: Religion Again...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34302 Elkins argued that maybe there are devout students at Hogwarts, but we just don't see them: > All that we can really deduce from Harry's POV, IMO, is that there > are no students in Harry's own circle of Gryffyndor friends who > object to Hogwarts' Christian culture. For all we know, there's > that one kid in Ravenclaw who complains *constantly* about it... < Could be. I was just arguing from what we've seen. My actual guess, though, is that JKR hasn't worked out this part of the Potterverse. I said: >> I'd guess that there are no practicing Jews or Muslims at Hogwarts. >> I just don't see what they'd eat. << Elkins replied: > I feel convinced that a school willing to make special arrangements > for a werewolf would manage, somehow, to accomodate unusual dietary > restrictions. Real world boarding schools do so, and so do summer > camps -- and they don't even have magic to help them out.... > And when the regular dinner is Shepherd's Pie yet *again,* all of > the other kids at their table are madly jealous of them. < Well, maybe Hogwarts would make accomodations if any students need them. But since we haven't seen any special foods, I doubt that any students have asked for them, which makes me suspect that there aren't any practicing students of religions with dietary restrictions. Food is one of the best-described elements of the Potterverse, and we haven't seen any special foods. Like you said, this is something the other kids would probably notice. On the topic of when would devout students pray, Elkins said: > Just as in real schools, I imagine that special dispensation is > offered to those students devout enough to request it. The devout > Muslims are allowed to slip quietly out of class to say their > prayers, and groups of devout Christians and Jews get ferried off > to their respective houses of worship once a week. < Wow, the schools you've been to must have been *way* more accomodating that any place I've been! My elementary school would deliberately schedule school picture day on the Jewish High Holidays every freakin' year! And, my job gives me trouble about holidays off, too. I suspect Dumbledore would try to be accomodating, but Snape wouldn't be accomodating at all. I said: >> my best guess is that Hogwarts is made up almost entirely of >> cultural Christians, but few if any of them are very observant. << Elkins replied: > Thus reflecting fairly well the Muggle society it parallels, no? I really don't know enough about British society to say. I would not describe my own (US) society that way, no. Lots of people here are quite religious, and at least where I live, there is an amazing mix of differnet religions, with Muslims as the second largest group. Just to make myself clear, I'm not complaining about the lack of Jews/ Buddists/ Muslims / etc. at Hogwarts. England is mostly Christian, perhaps overwhelmingly so; therefore it makes sense that Hogwarts is, too. I'm just reflecting in general on whether the wizarding world, as emplified by Hogarts, is religious. From what we've seen, I'd have to say, "not very". From Edblanning at aol.com Wed Jan 30 13:29:34 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 08:29:34 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Question: House of James Potter Message-ID: <185.2e02071.29894f3e@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 34303 In a message dated 30/01/02 12:27:31 GMT Standard Time, uncmark at yahoo.com writes: > Having an argument with my sister and can't find it written in any of > the books. She says that James Potter was Slytherin since all 4 > marauders were in the same house and Hagrid said in book 1 "There's > not a single witch or wizard who went bad who wasn't in Slytherin." > and Sirius Black went bad. > > I say that Hagrid was talking about Valdemort and Malfoy and over > generalizing. Opinions? > > Uncmark > > Over generalisation on Hagrid's part and misdirection on JKR's, I think. I get your sister's point, because at that point of the story, of course, Hagrid thinks that Sirius *did* go bad. We know, of course that he didn't. (Well, not properly, but I still haven't really forgiven him for trying to kill Snape!) Didn't JKR say in interview that James was in Gryffidor? I've just realised, this is another of the questions Harry never asks. Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jan 30 14:12:01 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 14:12:01 -0000 Subject: Secular/religious, dietary Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34304 I think the problem with discussing secular Hogwarts is that that the whole secular/religious distinction really doesn't translate too well to other cultures. A little history: the "secular arm" of medieval society was just as Christian as the Church, but it was governed by lay people instead of those in Holy Orders. Courts, governing bodies, guilds, schools, etc., naturally observed Christian festivals and were usually not even open to non-Christians. People spoke of their church-centered observances as religious and their non-church customs as secular, but they were all Christian. Separating the secular institutions of European society from their Christian foundations and making them open to non-Christians was not contemplated until the French revolution. At that time, Jews were granted citizenship, but they were expected to adapt to "modern", ie Christian customs, though not what were seen as "religious" practices. This became a point of debate between Jews and Christians, and among Jews themselves. It still is. Traditionally there was no similar division between areas of Jewish life governed by clergy and those which were not. Ceremonies conducted in a synagogue or by a Rabbi are no more sacred or important than those performed at home. A family may light Sabbath candles at home and go to synagogue for services, but the home ceremony is not "secular." So from the point of view of an outsider, the Christmas trees and the Easter break are Christian observances, even though from the point of view of someone who sees religious activity as something that takes place in Church, they may not be. I kind of like the idea that the Wizards have stuck to the Old Religion, but I don't see much support for that in canon. I do see Christian symbolism, references and even allegories all over the place in the Potterverse. As a non-Christian I hesitate to point them out to the group because I fear I will overgeneralize and step on someone's toes. It's hard to pin down what a religion *is*. No matter what faith one studies, there seems to be no facet of belief or observance which isn't revered by one branch and strictly shunned by another. Plus there 's all this claiming and reclaiming going on. I know of a Rabbi who teaches parables from the Gospel as Jewish midrash (commentary), and Christians who pray in Hebrew and wear Tallit (prayer shawls). Go figure. :-D ---- There's a Times interview which reports that Rowling has figured out "dietary requirements" for the characters. *I* am sure this is another Vampire clue, but maybe the House Elves are quite busy providing vegetarian, kosher and halal meals. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,2001230004-2001231268,00 .html Pippin From cindysphynx at home.com Wed Jan 30 14:28:15 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 14:28:15 -0000 Subject: Musing About Mundungus (WAS Acronyms, Christianty, Chang, ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34305 Tabouli wrote: > > Mundungus Fletcher is mentioned at the end of GoF as one of the "old > crowd" that presumably will be helping Dumbledore fight Voldemort. > Several people have pointed out hints that Mundungus is not to be > trusted: his name itself (Mundungus means trash or something), and > the fact that Percy Weasley believes he put in a false claim for tent > damage at the QWC. > > I found another strike against Mundungus. Towards the beginning of > CoS, Arthur Weasley complains about a hard night at work: "Nine raids! > Nine! And old Mundungus Fletcher tried to put a hex on me when I had > my my back turned." Hmmm, and Dumbledore considers this guy an ally? > I have a hunch that I know who Mundungus will turn out to be. Rita Skeeter is based on the worst stereotypes of journalists. Misquoting people. Ruining reputations. Printing private information. Fudge is the stereotypical politician. Waffling. Possibly untrustworthy. Based on that, Mundungus ought to be the stereotypical lawyer. Filing frivolous claims. Sneaky. Dishonest. What I can't figure out, though, is why the wizarding world would suddenly have lawyers. Heaven knows, the wizarding world could certainly use a few decent defense lawyers, and a few competent prosecutors wouldn't go amiss. But we are poised for a war with Voldemort, and I don't understand why Dumbledore's team would suddenly need legal counsel. Maybe certain characters are going to do some hard time in OoP in Azkaban for their transgressions (Dumbledore, Hagrid), but I don't see why they would get lawyers when no one else has. What else could Mundungus be but a lawyer? Any thoughts? Cindy From marybear82 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 30 14:45:08 2002 From: marybear82 at yahoo.com (Mary Shearer) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 06:45:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Future books: humor element In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020130144508.26417.qmail@web14006.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 34306 --- uilnslcoap wrote: To me, > the books are relatively constant smile-bringers, > and occasionally > they make me burst into laughter. It's very > refreshing to read > something I can get a REALLY good laugh out of > (although the title > for most real laughs from a book goes to Catch-22 > where I was almost > hysterical on several occasions). Is anyone worried > about the tone > of the future books being SEVERELY affected by the > darker subject > matter? I mean, there will be a WAR on! Can the > humor really stay > in the same league with the foreboding over > everything? Will the > laughter be more of a kind of "whistling in the dark > as you pass a > graveyard," a stress reliever rather than the pure > humor it has been > in the past? I know that all stories like this must > grow serious to > retain interest and realism (I'm actually really > looking forward to > these next few books, including their tone and > subject matter), but I > will miss the humor if it has to suffer in the face > of Voldemort's > return. Would anyone care to discuss their > thoughts? I, too, wondered how the tone of the books was going to change after the pivotal events in GoF. But the more I hear about the upcoming OoP, the more inclined I am to believe that little will change in terms of Rowling's unique sense of humor. What will save the laughter from the ravages of war is the fact that the story is set against the backdrop of the school. Storm clouds may be gathering, but within the walls of good old Hogwarts, the school year proceeds as usual. My family laughed the hardest (we are reading the books out loud in the evenings) at the scenes in the classrooms, the lunch table reparte, the dates to the Yule Ball, etc. In other words, the times when the verbal sparring is at its best, and the kids are acting like - well - kids. Rowling has said in an interview (sorry, too lazy to find it right now) that the characters will now be 15, and hormones will be a-poppin'. I can't wait to see how she handles all of that, but I think we can be pretty sure that a fair bit of genuine humor will come into play. We can't underestimate the resilience of our young heroes, either. The end of GoF is a good indicator of how they will choose to deal with the horrors of war. On their way home aboard the Hogwart's Express, Malfoy and company come to gloat, jeer and demoralize. When Malfoy's comments cross the line, however, he and his group are simultaneously hexed by Ron, Hermione, Harry, and the Weasley twins. The ensuing dialogue is hilarious, and the gang sits down to a game of exploding snap after heaving the Slytherins' unconcious forms out into the corridor. Message from Rowling? I think so - these kids are made of pretty strong stuff, and little will change in their group dynamic just yet. Truly, the only character to have suffered enough to alter dramatically is Harry, and it sounds as though he will do his best to carry on, characteristically keeping the pain to himself. We may see glimpses of his angst, just as we have in PoA and GoF, but he will probably continue to be caught up in the social life of the school - plenty of comedic fodder for Rowling's talented pen. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com From ftah3 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 30 14:52:50 2002 From: ftah3 at yahoo.com (ftah3) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 14:52:50 -0000 Subject: Musing About Mundungus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34307 > Tabouli wrote: > > Mundungus Fletcher is mentioned at the end of GoF as one of > the "old > > crowd" that presumably will be helping Dumbledore fight Voldemort. > > Several people have pointed out hints that Mundungus is not to be > > trusted: his name itself (Mundungus means trash or something), and > > the fact that Percy Weasley believes he put in a false claim for > tent > > damage at the QWC. > > > > I found another strike against Mundungus. Towards the beginning of > > CoS, Arthur Weasley complains about a hard night at work: "Nine > raids! > > Nine! And old Mundungus Fletcher tried to put a hex on me when I > had > > my my back turned." Hmmm, and Dumbledore considers this guy an > ally? When I first read that bit, where Dumbledore includes Mundungus Fletcher in the "old crowd," I thought it was a scream. Let's see, Dumby's got on his side (not just in terms of the "old crowd"): - normal, respectable, level-headed, if slightly uptight, McGonnagal - normal, respectable Mr. & Mrs. Weasley - nasty, ill-tempered, probable-ex-DE Snape - hot-headed, possibly suffering from PTSD due to incarcaration 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, wierd 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 Strangely, I now have great faith in the future success of the Good Guys. With colorful rabble like that inspiring loads of underestimation while probably hiding a great deal of potential and latent talent, Go Dumby & Co! But then, I am rather partial to the underdogs.... :-P cindysphinx wrote: > I have a hunch that I know who Mundungus will turn out to be. Rita > Skeeter is based on the worst stereotypes of journalists. Misquoting > people. Ruining reputations. Printing private information. Fudge > is the stereotypical politician. Waffling. Possibly untrustworthy. > > Based on that, Mundungus ought to be the stereotypical lawyer. > Filing frivolous claims. Sneaky. Dishonest. Hm, I can see the dots connected, there. But you have a very good point when you say: > What I can't figure out, though, is why the wizarding world would > suddenly have lawyers. Heaven knows, the wizarding world could > certainly use a few decent defense lawyers, and a few competent > prosecutors wouldn't go amiss. But we are poised for a war with > Voldemort, and I don't understand why Dumbledore's team would > suddenly need legal counsel. I don't think a lawyer would be of great use. And I think that Fletcher's M.O. to date seems more like the type of person who constantly *needs* a lawyer (to get off on lesser charges for attempting to hex people behind their backs, and for the filing of frivolous lawsuits). He sounds like the typical on-in-years fellow who has little else to do with his time than bug the heck out of people. He reminds me of...the guy that runs the bait shop, or the old guy who works at the gas station. The one who drives everybody nuts, but if you sit down and talk to him, you find out that he's a war veteren with fascinating and terrible stories to tell, and who knows more about how to kill a man with one bullet at a hundred yards in a hurricane than you think it's good for a sane man to know. The kind who is wierd because if he wasn't wierd he'd be really dangerous, and he rather knows it. Uh. Rrrrright. I think I just had an attack of "somebody I know gets together with slim text evidence and is birthed into a character who doesn't actually exist in the book in question," and is far more hypothetical than belongs on a list which is not a fanfic list, I'm thinking. But it's a possibility...maybe...probably not. Moving along, Mahoney From lee_hillman at urmc.rochester.edu Wed Jan 30 14:57:28 2002 From: lee_hillman at urmc.rochester.edu (Hillman, Lee) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 09:57:28 -0500 Subject: Men of Straw; semantics (was religion) Message-ID: <95774A6A6036D411AFEA00D0B73C864303B057C8@exmc3.urmc.rochester.edu> No: HPFGUIDX 34308 Greetings! John wrote (responding to Amy Z, responding to me): > I think that the > objections raised were also slightly strawy. Though I've been slightly > preoccupied recently, I can't remember anyone saying that it was possible to > call Hogwarts purely secular. Rather, IIRC the argument from > this side was > that Hogwarts was *no more* and perhaps *less* religious than British > society as a whole. > Close, John. I do think that's part of the original question, but it quickly became one of whether there can be such a thing as a secular celebration of a holy day. Which brings me right to: Judy Serenity: > I think we are using different meanings of the word > "celebrate." I am > using it in the sense of *observing* a holiday, to recognize it as a > day that is in fact holy. You are referring to just attending > someone's else's party in honor of the holiday. Okay, first of all, I once again apologize to Judy (in public, as opposed to privately) for misinterpreting her comments and running with it. When discussing this delicate and sensitive topic, one runs the risk of offending. If I have offended, I am truly sorry to have done so. Next, I think we've reached the real issue here, and as I should have said in my last post, it's one of semantics. Ah, the power of words. I think Judy's hit the nail on the head when she says we're using different meanings of celebrate. But I think that in HP, references to "celebrations" at Yuletide are meant much more closely in the sense of partying than in the sense of a solemn religious rite. I don't think anyone at Hogwarts actually expects students to pay lipservice to or pretend to believe things they don't. I think that the decorations, the feast, the giving of presents--these are connotations of the festive time of year that have only a tenuous connection to the original purpose of the holiday anymore. This goes back to the debate over what 'secular' means. It's worth noting again that the Yule log and the fir tree and the season turning from fall to winter, the return of the sun--these are all elements of "Christmas" that predate association with Christianity by a lot. They've been infused with a culturally Christian connotation, but at heart, they belong to many cultures. >From the other examples Judy gave, it seems clear that we both feel that unless one deliberately says or does something that indicates a belief in something other than his own (i.e., saying "In Jesus's name we pray"), he has no reason to feel compromised or as if he has broken faith with his creator. And I believe we can safely guess that the staff at Hogwarts feel the same. Like John's, my old school has a multi-cultural celebration every year before going on the end-of-year holidays. It's called Candlelight, and it commemorates Hannukah, Christmas, and more recently Kwanzaa and Ramadan. The common thread is, of course, the lighting of lights, but as part of the annual program, everyone is asked to sing songs from Jewish and Christian traditions. I believe that even this much participation would not be found at Hogwarts. In that sense, I do still agree that there is a "secular" component to Christmas that has absolutely nothing to do with its religious overtones. Again, unless you feel you are expected to *believe* in the Christmas story, I suppose I don't see why the celebrations take on so religious a connotation. I guess this is a weird and roundabout way of saying that we may not agree on what to believe, but we do agree that no one can force another person to believe something else. I happen to think that the references to Christmas and Easter at Hogwarts are incredibly unreligious, especially compared to other schools where there is a consistently devout approach to education. As such, I see the question of whether other religions are represented there as a question of degrees. No, there's no specific mention of kids lighting incense burners and kneeling on prayer mats. But I don't think it's because it doesn't happen; I think it's because it's immaterial to the plot. If it's a straw man, then why are we so often confronted with the question, "I noticed that Christmas and Easter are prominently mentioned, and so is Halloween. Why aren't other religions represented at Hogwarts?" Or words to that effect. I return once more to my assertion that it's natural for Hogwarts to have a Christian tradition in the name and placement of its holidays, owing to English history, and that it's likely that at one time, or perhaps many pockets of times, religious instruction or at least attendance at weekly services was expected of students. As the community has become less concerned with the presence of religion at school and more concerned with other matters, just as Muggle society has done (in pendulum swings, admittedly), religion became less important than other aspects of the curriculum. It's also possible that because Hogwarts may have always had a multi-cultural, multi-religious approach to education, that religious instruction there has never been standard. But...while I'd like to think even the Founders were so open-minded, I highly doubt that every Headmaster from then til now has felt the same way. So in the 1,000 years of its existence, I believe Hogwarts has had a changing relationship with religion: sometimes more, sometimes less. Gwen (hoping she's clearer and less inflammatory than last time) From cindysphynx at home.com Wed Jan 30 15:26:01 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 15:26:01 -0000 Subject: Musing About Mundungus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34309 Mahoney wrote: >Let's see, > Dumby's got on his side (not just in terms of the "old crowd"): > A couple more to add to Mahoney's list: --normal, respectable, competent Bill Weasley (also a curse-breaker, and every team needs one of those). --law-abiding, rule-following smart Percy Weasley. --she-of-questionable-or-possibly-nonexistant-talent Trelawney (fulfilling the role of counter-intelligence by Seeing what the other side is up to) --shrill, powerful, loyal Dobby. --a kneazle. --a chicken-bone-eating hippogriff. One thing that is worrisome about Dumbledore's team is that Voldemort has someone on his team who knows our secrets: Wormtail. He knows about Sirius' animagus form, Lupin's werewolfing. He has been hanging around Harry's dorm and the Weasley house for years, listening to everything. Wormtail seems awfully dangerous for our team. Mahoney again (about Mundungus): > I don't think a lawyer would be of great use. And I think that > Fletcher's M.O. to date seems more like the type of person who > constantly *needs* a lawyer (to get off on lesser charges for > attempting to hex people behind their backs, and for the filing of > frivolous lawsuits). He sounds like the typical on-in-years fellow > who has little else to do with his time than bug the heck out of > people. > > He reminds me of...the guy that runs the bait shop, or the old guy > who works at the gas station. The one who drives everybody nuts, but > if you sit down and talk to him, you find out that he's a war veteren That's it! Mundungus is the old fart, sly as a fox, cagey war veteran commander who never loses a battle. He does whatever he pleases, but he gets away with it because our team is *way* better off with him on it than against it. Maybe Mundungus even helped Dumbledore defeat Grindewald or something. Yes, Mundungus-as-Cunning-Strategist is much better than Mundungus-as- Lawyer. Cindy (who can't wait to see the fireworks when Moody and Mundungus clash) From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com Wed Jan 30 15:33:45 2002 From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 09:33:45 -0600 Subject: Sirius, House of James Potter References: <185.2e02071.29894f3e@aol.com> Message-ID: <3C581259.35D22664@kingwoodcable.com> No: HPFGUIDX 34310 Edblanning at aol.com wrote: > > Over generalisation on Hagrid's part and misdirection on JKR's, I think. I > get your sister's point, because at that point of the story, of course, > Hagrid thinks that Sirius *did* go bad. We know, of course that he didn't. > (Well, not properly, but I still haven't really forgiven him for trying to > kill Snape!) > > Didn't JKR say in interview that James was in Gryffidor? In interviews, Rowling states that Lily, James, and Hagrid are in Gryffindor. IT is supposed that Remus, Sirius, and Peter were also in Gryffindor. I immediately put that Mauraders in the same house. I think Hagrid is making a blanket statement that wizard who went bad were in Slytherin. I think we are discovering that each person has traits of other houses. We don't know *why* Peter was originally put in Gryffindor, but I heartily believe that he didn't go bad until *after* Hogwarts. A great place to confirm information about characters is the http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/ I'm not sure Sirius was serious about killing Snape. I think he was just hoping that Remus would bite him, and turn Snape into a werewolf himself. I don't know what the initial intention was. Sirius seems to be a loose canon at times, but I'm not sure he'd actually try to kill a fellow classmate. Obviously there is disdain between the two. Sirius also didn't mind letting Snape's head bob up against the ceiling in PoA, but I'm not sure he would have gone through with letting Remus *kill* him. But that might just be wishful thinking on my part. -Katze From bonnie at niche-associates.com Wed Jan 30 15:45:49 2002 From: bonnie at niche-associates.com (dicentra_spectabilis_alba) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 15:45:49 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore "wrote" Book 1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34311 I just got an off-list message from cindysphinx about message 33289, wherein I wrote the following: > > I'd like to propose a theory that builds on all that's been said and > then goes one step further: The spells were breakable by first-year > students because Dumbledore MEANT for Harry to face Voldemort. And in > fact, most of the events of SS were engineered by Dumbledore for > Harry's benefit. [snip long list of proofs] So cindysphinx asks: Now, here's a question: Why? Why, why, why does Dumbledore do all of these things? Why doesn't Dumbledore just put the darn stone in his pocket? Why get a bunch of kids involved? Why? :-) Well, cindysphynxwho, the only reason I can think of is that Dumbledore recognizes Harry's central role in this whole story, and I don't just mean the seven HP books. That Harry survived the AK in the first place is not just an indication of the powerful magic of his mother's sacrifice, it's a "sign," as it were, of Harry's eventual destiny (as if we didn't already know that). I'm fairly sure that as soon as the seven books are completed, we'll have a bona-fide, textbook case of Joseph Campbell's archetypal Hero's Journey, wherein Harry ultimately saves the universe from evil (no prizes for guessing that, eh?), although to a great degree Book 1 by itself works as a Hero's Journey. Dumbledore, of course, plays the wise old man who gives him instruments and advice along the way (the cloak, how Erised works), not unlike what Obi-Wan does for Luke. I don't know the degree to which Hermione and Ron are a part of it. They're definitely instrumental in Harry's development, but when push comes to shove, it's always Harry alone who has to face Voldemort. (I'd have to look again at The Hero with a Thousand Faces to see what role friends play.) Protecting the stone, then, was only secondary to giving Harry essential training. Yeah, Dumbledore could have put the stone in his pocket or in some other safe, innocuous, charmed place. He could have stuck it in the mirror of Erised and left it standing in an empty room. (This way, the stone was always safe from Quirrell/Voldy as long as they wanted to use it improperly.) Fluffy and the other spells were like neon signs saying "this way to the stone." I also wouldn't be at all surprised if Dumbledore had a say in what the other professors' spells were. So what I would *really* like to know is if JKR sees Book 1 that way. I know George Lucas deliberately crafted the original Star Wars trilogy after Joseph Campbell's stuff. I wonder if JKR did, too. As for other unresolved questions, why did Quirrell attempt to go for the stone on Halloween when he didn't yet know how to get past Fluffy? Did he not know Fluffy was there? If so, why would Snape try to head him off? Why didn't he pull a Sirius and let Quirrell find out for himself the danger that awaited him behind the door? Granted, Snape's escape and wound were red herrings, but they've got to have their own inner logic, right? --Dicentra, who thinks it's cool that GoF won the Hugo award, regardless of what others say From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com Wed Jan 30 16:02:37 2002 From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 10:02:37 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Magical Eyes References: Message-ID: <3C58191D.EE69A756@kingwoodcable.com> No: HPFGUIDX 34312 elfundeb wrote: > Dumbledore also seems to have magical eyes -- I call them Veritaserum > Eyes. For example, "Dumbledore was giving Harry a searching look. > His twinkling light-blue gaze made Harry feel as though he were being > X-rayed." (CoS, when Harry is accused of petrefying Filch's cat.) > This gaze usually appears when Harry has been accused of something, > after which Dumbledore appears to decide Harry is not guilty and lets > him go. Dumbledore also wears glasses -- perhaps the half-moon shape > allows him to look over the top whenever he wants to use the > veritaserum feature. Even if the magical power in Harry's eyes is of > a different kind than Dumbledore's I think your idea as to the > function of the glasses is a very good one. > Good one about D's eyes being like x-ray eyes. It was also said that D saw right through Riddle while he was at Hogwarts (can't remember which book). Dumbledore also *knew* that Hagrid had not opened the chamber, but there was no way he could prove it. What would Harry's power be? Perhaps able to direct his magic without having to use his wand (like someone else suggested?). Very interesting. Harry's going to end up having the upper-hand in the final battle with V. After discussing Rowling creativity, I think she'll be coming up with something other than the "Harry will have to die to kill V because of the blood link." So Harry's going to find a different way to Whack V (and hopefully not himself in the process). Perhaps it has something to do with a old magic? Lily was able to use old magic to protect Harry, and I always envisioned her stooping over Harry while V was on his way, and her doing some incantation while staring directly into Harry's eyes. I didn't imagine her with a wand, so she could've used her eyes to direct the charm. -Katze From cindysphynx at home.com Wed Jan 30 16:18:50 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 16:18:50 -0000 Subject: Sirius, Squeamishness (WAS Sirius, House of James Potter) In-Reply-To: <3C581259.35D22664@kingwoodcable.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34313 Katze wrote (about Sirius and Snape): >Obviously there is disdain between the two. Sirius > also didn't mind letting Snape's head bob up against the ceiling in PoA, > but I'm not sure he would have gone through with letting Remus *kill* > him. But that might just be wishful thinking on my part. I'm a huge Sirius fan, as I've said many times. I think I agree that 16-year old Sirius wouldn't have intentionally let Snape get killed, but he would have done it recklessly. Snape would have been just as dead, I guess, so maybe that's not the best argument to defend Sirius' honor. If Sirius has changed at all since his Hogwarts days (which is highly debatable, BTW), I think he has become even more, well, dangerous. There is no doubt in my mind that, had Harry not objected, Sirius was going to kill Peter dead. Dead, dead, dead. Had Lupin chickened out, Sirius would have pushed Lupin aside, turned up the voltage on his own wand, and blasted Peter all by himself. Had that not worked, Sirius would have killed Peter with his bare hands. Sirius doesn't have a squeamish bone in his body. By the way, Lupin and Sirius really weren't thinking all that straight in the Shrieking Shack. If I felt I had to dispatch another human being in cold blood while that person begged for his life with three 13-year old kids standing around watching, I'd ask the kids to go stand in the hall. Lupin and Sirius never even consider asking the three kids to step outside, even when Hermione turns to the wall to avoid seeing Peter murdered. Anyway, I don't think that there are that many characters in the series who are squeamish about killing people. Sirius and Lupin sure seem capable of it. Moody squeamish about killing people? No way. Moody would stand over the corpse cursing him, his ancestors and his descendants. Somehow I think Snape has it in him to kill someone, even if it isn't entirely necessary. Dumbledore and McGonnagall? Hard to say. Harry? Apparently not. Not yet, anyway. Hagrid? Yes, but he'd probably do it in a blind rage and feel bad and drink heavily afterward. He might even kill the wrong person. Arthur and Molly Weasley? No idea. Wormtail? He's one of the few characters who we know doesn't like to kill people or see people killed, although he did what he had to do when he blasted all those Muggles on the street. That assessment is based on Wormtail's reluctance to curse/kill someone in GoF, and his unwillingness to look Harry in the eye in the graveyard. Thoughts? Cindy From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Wed Jan 30 15:59:01 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 15:59:01 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore "wrote" Book 1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34314 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "dicentra_spectabilis_alba" wrote: > > As for other unresolved questions, why did Quirrell attempt to go for > the stone on Halloween when he didn't yet know how to get past Fluffy? > Did he not know Fluffy was there? If so, why would Snape try to head > him off? Why didn't he pull a Sirius and let Quirrell find out for > himself the danger that awaited him behind the door? Granted, Snape's > escape and wound were red herrings, but they've got to have their own > inner logic, right? I suspect that Snape didn't know how much Quirrell knew. Snape realized that Q was going after the stone, and probably assumed that if he bothered trying in the first place, then he must know a way to get through. As for Q -- maybe he didn't know about Fluffy, or maybe he knew and was counting on Voldy for help which Voldy wasn't quite strong enough to give yet. Or maybe he wasn't trying to steal the stone at all, that first time; maybe it was a scouting expedition to find out what the defenses were so he could be properly prepared for the real theft attempt at the end of the book. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Wed Jan 30 16:24:11 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 16:24:11 -0000 Subject: Boring Harry Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34315 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "serenadust" wrote: > Zoe. I've been wondering lately if > many of the posters even enjoy the books as written, or if they feel > that they could personally improve them by changing the characters' > behavior, or plotlines. The great debate that will still be going on when the world comes to an end. As a compulsive "pick-it-aparter", I can say that I do enjoy the books as written, and doubt I would have the talent to personally improve them, though sometimes it's tempting. I've been trying to think of a more reasonable ending for "Huckleberry Finn" for years... Harry Potter's flaws, though, are not as grating as many of my favourite works of literature, believe it or not. On the other hand, there's a different sort of criticism where one is showing appreciation for the character's flaws. For example, I love Hagrid but I think some of his flaws are overdone. Yet, I love Lupin, and think his flaws were a masterstroke. > I think that the reason we're seeing this kind of nitpicking is that > it's been a year and a half since Goblet of Fire came out, and most > of the really juicy questions and puzzles have been analyzed to death > multiple times. I wouldn't call it nitpicking. Nitpicking, imho, is more evident in fun discussions like how timeturners work, Dumbledore's gleam of triumph, and the number of children at Hogwarts. To write a critique of a character is about as far away from nitpicking as you can get. It's also not something people do after they've gone through the puzzles, it's the first thing many people do. "Was so-and-so a good character? Was he believable? Was he flawed?" etc. Zoe wrote >JKR tells us who the good guys are, and I'm > prepared > > to take her word on that. I could never do that. I mean, to some extent. You don't want to end up like my brother who hates Aragorn and Arwen, and gives long lectures about how Faramir should have been King, had a better claim to being king, is a better person, knows more about running Gondor, is more civilized etc. On the other hand, if the author portrays a repugnant person as good (JKR hasn't done that yet, imho), I'm not going along. > I'm more than willing to follow her wherever she takes the story and > characters, even if it's in a direction that I *think* I'd hate if > you suggested it today. You either trust her vision, or you don't. You must have a happier reading experience than me then. I have seen many authors who write something very good and then end it off completely unsatisfactorily (to me.) The end of Huckleberry Finn was and is a terrible experience for me. I still cannot appreciate how Chesterton destroys his fun novels in the last few pages (in my eyes, except for Napoleon of Notting Hill.) I am offended that C.S. Lewis finished his space trilogy with that failure (imho), "That Hideous Strength." I hope that Rowling will finish this off well, I have a good feeling about her finishing it off well, but I don't trust her. Trust no author until they're finished. Eileen From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Wed Jan 30 16:40:41 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 16:40:41 -0000 Subject: Mudblood Definitions / Generations In-Reply-To: <20020130120514.42554.qmail@web21110.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34316 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Ronald Rae Yu wrote: > > Suppose a mudblood male (e.g. Justin) marries a > mudblood female (e.g. Hermione, may not work out, > though) and they have a child. If the child possesses > magical powers, is he a pureblood or a mudblood? From > Ron's definition we know that a mudblood has non-magic > parents, so that makes the child NOT a mudblood. Is > he/she then a pureblood? Calling him/her half-blood > doesn't seem right. Well, according to Tom Riddle, the son would be a half-blood. The case you are describing is Harry's, since his mother was a mudblood, and Tom said that both Harry and he were half-bloods, if I remember correctly. Since those terms are aminly used by people in Slytherin, I assume they would know about it. > JKR's definition states that a > mudblood must have a muggle parentage. Muggle is > defined as someone without magic. So Hermione and > Justin lose their 'muggleness'. If they are now > wizards (not pureblood though) is any magical child of > theirs a pureblood, then? In theory, no, he/she wouldn't. The definition of pure-blood is more or less the definition of "noble" as used in the middle ages: you could be an old noble or a new noble (old nobles being "more noble" in their own eyes), and it took several generations to transform a new noble into an old one. It was bullsh*t anyway, as are the terms "mudblood", "half-blood" and "pureblood" > What if our two mudbloods have a non-magical child? Is > he/she a squib or just plain muggle? By definition > he/she is a muggle. I don't know what the exact > definition of a squib, though. Again, you and I understand the terms differently. From my point of view, a squib is just a muggle that lives in the magical world, normally because he was born in a magical family. Thus, a non-magical son of two mudbloods would probably be raised to be a squib. > Lastly, if two squibs have a child, is the child, by > Ron's definition, a mudblood? If the child is magical, > is he pureblood or still mudblood? If the child has no > magic powers, is he still a. As long as the child can use magic, he'd probably be considered a mudblood, since his parents cannot use magic. If he had no powers, but was raised in the magic world, he would be a squib. If his parents moved to live in the muggle world, he would be a muggle. > What do we make of > squibs, anyway? Are they considered muggles, by > definition? Are they considered wizards (they still > have the potential for magic -- remember Kwikspell)? > If squibs are muggles, is any nonmagical child of > theirs still a squib? Anyone has the potential to be a wizard. Whether that potential fullfils itself or not is what turns a muggle into a wizard. To be blunt about it, if you can do magic, you're a wizard. If you can't, you're a muggle. Mudblood, half-bloods and purebloods are a classification of wizards. Squib is a sub-group of muggles. They are all insults, so they're not clearly defined in any case (again, this is from MY point of view) > Follow up: Can muggles learn magic through Kwikspell? > > -Ron Yu I've always had my doubts about Kwickspell. It looks too much like those comercials that promise to give you a liquid or something that will reduce your weight in 10 kg in 10 days. They NEVER work. I wouldn't be surprised if Kwickspell is similarly a fraud. Anyway, to sum it all up, here are my own definitions of the terms discussed: Pureblood: A wizard thet can follow his ascendants for several generations of wizards (to give a number, let's say 5-10 generations) Half-blood: A wizard whose last 5-10 generations are not ALL wizards (that is, there is at least 1 muggle) (moderate insult) Mudblood: A wizard son of two muggles (heavy insult) Squib: A muggle that lives in the wizard world (moderate insult) Hope that helps Grey Wolf From bonnie at niche-associates.com Wed Jan 30 16:43:24 2002 From: bonnie at niche-associates.com (dicentra_spectabilis_alba) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 16:43:24 -0000 Subject: Sirius, Squeamishness (WAS Sirius, House of James Potter) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34317 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > > If Sirius has changed at all since his Hogwarts days (which is highly > debatable, BTW), I think he has become even more, well, dangerous. > There is no doubt in my mind that, had Harry not objected, Sirius was > going to kill Peter dead. Dead, dead, dead. Had Lupin chickened > out, Sirius would have pushed Lupin aside, turned up the voltage on > his own wand, and blasted Peter all by himself. Had that not worked, > Sirius would have killed Peter with his bare hands. Sirius doesn't > have a squeamish bone in his body. > I don't know if it's *highly* debatable that he's changed. Twelve years in Azkaban aren't going to leave you the same as when you entered, even if you weren't affected by the dementors to the extent others were. He seems to have matured some: Harry gets mad at him in GoF when he writes him and tells him not to stray outside the boundaries. "You're a fine one to tell me not to break rules," thinks Harry [to paraphrase]. But as adults often do when looking back on their teen years, Sirius cares more about the real danger than about "what it's like to be 14" and the need to run around with impunity, as he did at that age. 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.) In GoF he paces the cave trying to piece things together, pleads with Dumbledore to not make Harry relive what happened with Voldemort, keeps his hand on Harry's shoulder when he does talk about what happened after he touched the portkey, and grips his shoulder tightly when he hears about James and Lily emerging from the Priori Incantatem. At the end, he's got his hands in his face, evidently from grief. As a matter of fact, he hardly has any personality at all in GoF, functioning mostly as a sounding board for Harry. The only time he shows personality is when Dumbledore makes him transform in front of Snape et al. and he and Snape stare daggers at one another before reluctantly shaking hands. It's always been hard for me to reconcile these two Siriuses. Naturally, I prefer the rational one, but he evidently has it in him to be a pretty callous person. Not squeamish? You're right Cindy, he's got an iron stomach. But then, apparently, so does JKR. --Dicentra, who wonders where Sirius was between PoA and GoF. From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Wed Jan 30 16:56:39 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 16:56:39 -0000 Subject: Devout Students at Hogwarts (WAS: Religion Again...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34318 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "judyserenity" wrote: > Well, maybe Hogwarts would make accomodations if any students need > them. But since we haven't seen any special foods, I doubt that any > students have asked for them, which makes me suspect that there aren't > any practicing students of religions with dietary restrictions. Food > is one of the best-described elements of the Potterverse, and we > haven't seen any special foods. Like you said, this is something the > other kids would probably notice. JKR said in an interview that Hogwarts would arrange for special foods for vegetarian students, so I can't see why the same wouldn't hold for students with religious dietary restrictions. gwendolyngrace wrote: >I do find it interesting, though, because one of the only other >places I've experienced such a rigid resistance to any form of >participation is, oddly, among Catholics, who sometimes do notallow >non-baptised or unconfirmed people to receive a blessing at Communion >(and in some cases, won't even allow baptised Christians who are not >official members of the parish to receive Communion). "Any form of participation" is not the same as "every form of participation." Having experienced many Catholic churches across the U.S. and Canada, I have yet to find one that denied a blessing to non-Catholics and non-Christians at communion. In fact, they usually seem indecently anxious to force the non-Catholics and non-Christians to come up for a blessing, to show how open-spirited and ecumenical we all are. :-) Unless you're dragging people out of the pews who don't want a blessing, I think this is a positive example of participation among people of different faiths or confessions. However, there are some things that are faith-specific. One of these is Communion. The Catholic Church teaches that when you take communion, you are literally eating the Body and Blood of Jesus. Non-Christians, and even baptized non-Catholics do not believe this, so it is not appropriate that they should take Communion, even though they do not believe it's anything more than bread, because of the offence it gives to believing Catholics. It's a matter of reverence for God on the Catholic side, and a matter of simple politeness and respect for other people's beliefs on the non-Catholic side. judyserenity says: >What I am saying (and maybe Jenny Ravenclaw is saying, too) is that >it's really a problem for Jews when Christians expect us to just give >up our own heritage and act like we're Christians. And some people >here, who have Christianity in their backgrounds, seem to be >responding by saying "No, you're wrong. It's not a problem for most >Jews to be asked to celebrate Christmas. If it's a problem for you, >you must be some sort of extremist with a rigid and restrictive >mindset, otherwise you'd be happy to celebrate my holiday." Which I >think proves my point better than anything I could ever say. I couldn't agree more. There has been a movement in recent years saying that we should all mark everyone else's religious feasts in a way that's less than religious, because many people celebrate their religious feasts in a way that's less than religious. For example, I recently read an article about Ramadan in Egypt, where an Islamic cleric was complaining that too many people are treating Ramadan as a purely secular event, and ignoring its religious roots. People fast all day for the fun of having a party all night. So, does that mean that I should feel obligated to celebrate Ramadan in a secular fashion, because people of an Islamic background do? No. I'm a Catholic. That's just not my thing. So, I think I can completely understand where you're coming from. >I'm just reflecting in general on whether the wizarding world, > as emplified by Hogarts, is religious. From what we've seen, I'd have > to say, "not very". I'm rather guessing that the answer is that JKR has, as much as possible, excised religion from her tale, for the simple reason that any way you go, you'll have problems in such a setting. Little remnants from her cultural background still exist: like Draco's "invocations" of God, the monk ghost, the saint names, the godfather, but, on the whole, it's not there. I don't know if we can deduce the relative piety or not of Hogwarts students, wizarding population etc. then, because it seems that something that definitely exists in real life just doesn't get mentioned or noticed in any way. Eileen From hp_lexicon at yahoo.com Wed Jan 30 17:34:29 2002 From: hp_lexicon at yahoo.com (hp_lexicon) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 17:34:29 -0000 Subject: okay, is Blaise Zabini a boy or a girl? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34319 I know we talked about this somewhere along the line, but a search of the archives doesn't turn up anything. What's the consensus around here? Is Blaise Zabini a boy or a girl? Steve From muggle at hot.ee Wed Jan 30 17:08:01 2002 From: muggle at hot.ee (lv) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 19:08:01 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Uranus joke in different languages Message-ID: <002401c1a9b0$ad3bcc00$e7b5fac3@Sumps.AAA> No: HPFGUIDX 34320 -----Original Message----- From: charisjulia > > I'm afraid this isn't going to be of much use to you, but I >thought I'd answer anyway: In Greek the joke, errm, *isn't* >translated:-P To give the translator her due it would be extremely >hard to take a planet's scientific name and turn it into a rude joke >in Greek. The language just doesn't work that way. > > > By the way, I was amused while perusing a friend's copy of >CoS to see that Tom Ridlle was given as "Anton Morvol Hert"! Or maybe >that would be "Heart" in English! ROFL!!! As if! Or perhaps "Hurt"... >Huh... In the Estonian version, it's also translated literally, so the joke isn't there any more. I don't have an English version of the book, so I didn't even know it was a joke before I read it on this list. Shame, because I think that the Estonian translation is otherwise quite good. As for Riddle's name in CoS, it's spelled "Tom Marvolon Riddle", so the rearrangement reads "Mina Lord Voldemort" ("I Lord Voldemort" would be the literal translation into English; it's not grammatically correct in Estonian as well, but I guess it's as close to the original as it gets). lv From lucy at luphen.co.uk Wed Jan 30 17:25:17 2002 From: lucy at luphen.co.uk (Lucy Austin) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 17:25:17 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Muggleborn Definitions / Generations References: Message-ID: <009f01c1a9b3$16244380$b0ae1e3e@stephen> No: HPFGUIDX 34321 >>Ronald Rae Yu wrote: > >> >> Suppose a mudblood male (e.g. Justin) marries a >> mudblood female (e.g. Hermione, may not work out, >> though) and they have a child. If the child possesses >> magical powers, is he a pureblood or a mudblood? From >> Ron's definition we know that a mudblood has non-magic >> parents, so that makes the child NOT a mudblood. Is >> he/she then a pureblood? Calling him/her half-blood >> doesn't seem right. >and Grey Wolf wrote: >Well, according to Tom Riddle, the son would be a half-blood. The case you are describing is Harry's, since his mother was a mudblood, and Tom said that both Harry and he were half-bloods, if I remember correctly. Since those terms are aminly used by people in Slytherin, I assume they would know about it. Sorry, but I'd have to disagree on that statement! Harry is a half-blood because his mother was a muggle-born and his father was a wizard. I don't have any canon to back it up on, but I get the impression that the Potter were an old purebred family. Riddle is a half-blood because his mother is a pureblood (descended from Slytherin) and his father is a muggle, so I would have to say that as he is saying Harry is the same, then James Potter is not a muggle-born. Lucy the Drifty [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From christi0469 at hotmail.com Wed Jan 30 18:22:40 2002 From: christi0469 at hotmail.com (christi0469) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 18:22:40 -0000 Subject: Magical Eyes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34322 > I think Harry's eyes are going to be a major part of the plot, > possibly even in Voldemort's defeat... After all, we know that Harry > can't use his wand in the usual way in a duel against Voldie now. > Which means he'll have to focus his magic using a less traditional > device--why not his eyes? > > We already know that Harry can cause some pretty serious stuff to > happen without using a wand. (Aunt Marge, for ex) Is there > reference to any other student using magic to this degree w/o a > wand? I can't think of one, which makes me think this is Pretty > Unusual. > > On to mythology--supposedly, the alchemists believed that a green > light could pierce all secrets. That it could either heal OR kill > depending on how used. (Combo of basilisk & phoenix powers, > perhaps???) > > Caroline > (stopping before she gets too excited about alchemical symbolism) Harry does seem to have more inate magical ability than the average magical child. The one accidental magic incident that struck me the most was the time he was running from Dudley and gang and found himself on the roof of the school kitchens. From what we know about magical modes of travel he eother levitated himself, flew without a broom, or Apparated. Levitating himself would be the least impressive, although we have not seen the kids learn it yet. Either of the other possibilities would be rather impressive, especially as Harry was raised as a Muggle and had no clue that he had any magical ability, much less an opprotunity to develop it. When I went back and read this after GoF I thought he must have Apparated, as he was running from Dudley and was very surprised to suddenly find himself sitting upon the chimney. It seems that little witches and wizards have surprising inate abilities, since one of the twins transfigured Ron's teddy bear into a gigantic spider. Another example of accidental magic in a child was Neville bouncing when he was dropped out of a window. Apparition would be more tricky and dangerous than both these examples IMO since it is not taught to underage wizards, and it is illegal to do it without a liscense. Flying without a broom would be no less impressive, as we have not seen anyone do it so far. Harry's insinctive ability for broomstick flying was enough to impress McGonagal. Harry's abilities are coming along nicely since he started applying himself. Lupin considered his ability to conjure even a meager Patronus to be very advanced for his age. He is affected by the Veela enchantment at the WQC but manages to throw it off after Hermione brings him back to his senses. When Moody/Crouch Jr puts him under the Imperius he partially blocks it the first time, something that adult wizards have much more trouble doing. With a lot of practice he managed a Summoning spell that Flitwick considered to be perfect. Getting past his summoning spell block enable him to perform the banishing spell as well as Hermione, who undoubtedly studied it exhaustively beforehand. I think it is safe to say that Harry has an amazing potential for performing magic that is mostly untapped. He just needs to apply himself. Hopefully Harry will realize how much danger he is in with Voldemort and continues to deligently apply himself. Perhaps he will discover that there is magic in those green eyes of his (assuming that there is magic there) and begin to cultivate that as well. I would assume that he has unusual abilty coming from James, Lily and Voldemort, which would give him the potential to be more powerful than any one of them. If Ginny got some of TR's powers she could help him with or without romance. Only the future books can tell us how well Harry will live up to his potential. Christi From uncmark at yahoo.com Wed Jan 30 17:57:07 2002 From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 17:57:07 -0000 Subject: Sirius, House of James Potter In-Reply-To: <3C581259.35D22664@kingwoodcable.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34323 In response to my question about what house the marauders were in, --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Katze wrote: > In interviews, Rowling states that Lily, James, and Hagrid are in > Gryffindor. IT is supposed that Remus, Sirius, and Peter were also > in Gryffindor. I immediately put that Mauraders in the same house. > I think Hagrid is making a blanket statement that wizard who went > bad were in Slytherin. I think we are discovering that each person > has traits of other houses. We don't know *why* Peter was > originally put in Gryffindor, but I heartily believe that he didn't > go bad until *after* Hogwarts. > > -Katze I already posted that I believe Griffindor, I've read JKR 'stated in interviews' that it was Griffindor and the HP Lexicon says Griffindor, but do es anyone know WHICH interview she says it in? As far as characters taking a life, Vmort set the rules by taking the first life 10 years before SS. On his return he made it personal for Hogwart's by killing Cedric. How many today would struggle with taking a life of a terrorist to save the lives of countless innocents? Uncmark From ampaes at etsii.upv.es Wed Jan 30 19:05:21 2002 From: ampaes at etsii.upv.es (Amparo Palacios ) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 19:05:21 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Uranus joke in different languages Message-ID: <200201301803.g0UI3lE31618@smtp2.upv.es> No: HPFGUIDX 34324 John Walton wrote: > I'm going on a quest. Mission. Thing. > > I want to compile a list of how the Uranus joke translates into different > languages. If anyone with a non-English language edition could please drop > me a quick email with the *exact quote* from GOF with the Uranus joke (or > "blague de lune" in French :D), I will paste them together and share soon. > In Spanish the joke was translated. I didn't catch it the first time I read it and the second time I thought that it was a really bad joke but maybe that's just my opinion. They translated Uranus and used an hyphen on it. Uranus is translated as Urano, and it was written as Ur-ano where "ano" is "anus" in Spanish. Of course the "Ur" part didn't have any sense and that's why I didn't found it funny. Hope this helped you. Amparo From absinthe at mad.scientist.com Wed Jan 30 18:58:39 2002 From: absinthe at mad.scientist.com (milztoday) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 18:58:39 -0000 Subject: okay, is Blaise Zabini a boy or a girl? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34325 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "hp_lexicon" wrote: > I know we talked about this somewhere along the line, but a search > of the archives doesn't turn up anything. What's the consensus > around here? Is Blaise Zabini a boy or a girl? > > Steve Hi, Steve, I remember that discussion and I remember that there was no real concensus. Historically, Blaize's are male, eg. St. Blaize. But nowadays, some 'male' names are given to females, like "Leslie", "Kelly", etc. So unless we read Zambini entering a specific bathroom, I think the jury should be officially out. Milz From christi0469 at hotmail.com Wed Jan 30 19:05:59 2002 From: christi0469 at hotmail.com (christi0469) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 19:05:59 -0000 Subject: Future books: humor element, Voldemort/Harry encounters In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34326 Devin wrote > how many more times will they come into direct conflict before > the series ends? Personally, I think two. One where Harry and > SOMEONE (in an earlier post tonight, I suggested Ginny--and if you > are a G/H shipper, you should read that post because I think I > painted *pats self on back* a pretty compelling case for that ship > and even a moving picture of the possible moment when Ginny and Harry > come together--but Ron or Hermione or Draco or any combination of > them might work) face off against Voldemort, and are overcome but > escape thanks to the sacrifice of someone else (Hagrid? Dumbledore? > Lupin?). It would be VERY interesting to see Ron's or Hermione's > actions in the face of Voldemort. Remember, only Harry and Ginny > have ever seen an incarnation of Voldemort recently and lived to talk > about it (without being a Death Eater, obviously). How would Ron and > Hermione fare in the face of the Dark Lord, encountering him for the > very first time, only having heard from Harry second-hand what he is > like, the terror he creates? How would Ginny fare? Would she be > stronger, having seen Tom Riddle before and having even possibly > absorbed some of his power? What would Draco do? Would he embrace > the Slytherin way and face down Harry with Voldemort behind him or > would he, as I suspect, suddenly realize what good and evil actually > are (not weakness and strength as he thought before, but good and > evil), and team with Harry? And what about Pettigrew's bond with > Harry? Great dramatic possibilities. > Now, for my other obsession (well, all right, there are many of them, > but this one hits me harder recently): what do people think about the > very last Voldemort/Harry encounter? I'm not even talking about HOW > Voldmort will go down, or if Harry will survive, although these are > interesting. I just feel these details are too far out of reach for > discussion (though that hasn't stopped me before :), maybe will be > always out of reach till I sit, madly taking in the last two hundred > pages of Book Seven, and suddenly it will all become clear to me. > I'm more interested in things like: where? how? I've been > considering Godric's Hollow. Perhaps in some desperate race to get > something associated with his parents' past? What about in the > "Fortress of Shadows", that title that's been copyrighted recently? > Anyone have some great ideas? As for how...I think that it must be > in a way that is voluntary for Harry, where he knows what he is about > to get into. It's all fine and well for a Portkey to get him to the > fight in GoF, but by Seven, I want a Harry moved by his own actions, > not by the machinations of evil. Maybe that's not fair considering > his voluntary walk into fire (literally and metaphorically, > respectively) in PS/SS and CoS. However, I also want a Harry more > confident in his own actions. Not saved by help from outside (i.e. > his mother's benediction, Fawkes and sword, mysterious wand > connection). I also think the very end of the fight must be them > alone. Just Harry and Voldemort, no one else. Does anyone have > thoughts about this stuff? Does anyone have theories on that which I > consider unfathomable (will Harry live? how EXACTLY will Voldemort be > defeated? something to do with Harry's blood?--a personal beginning > of a theory for me)? Once again, let's talk. > > All right, I have to go to bed, now...after I look up past discussion > on these topics. Oh God, tomorrow won't be very good for me. Two encounters does sound good. There is no conon evidence to suggest the number of Volemort/Harry encounters, but I do like the theory. I could very easily see one encounter where someone accompanies Harry and ends up sacrificing themself, which would be yet another thing that Harry has to get past emotionally. My theory of the final encounter is that Harry will have to face it without any luck whatsoever. No protection from sacrifice, no Fawkes with Gryffendor's sword, and no brother wands refusing to do battle will come to Harry's aid in the final encounter, IMHO. We will finally get to see how powerful Harry is in his own right. I do think that the series will end with Voldemort being completely vanquished, as well as his DEs. Harry may or may not survive, but he will finish off Voldemort (again IMHO). I also have to say that I like your theory of Harry and Ginny getting together, though I do not subscibe to any particular SHIP. Perhaps you should write a fanfic about it. It might prove to be good therapy and ease the wait for OotP. There is info about fanfics in the Lexicon, and I think Fictionalley.org has some advice about how to do it and where to post it. I would do it myself if I had any confidence in my writing ability. Christi From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Jan 30 19:09:00 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 19:09:00 -0000 Subject: dietary In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34327 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" wrote: > There's a Times interview which reports that Rowling has figured > out "dietary requirements" for the characters. *I* am sure this is > another Vampire clue, but maybe the House Elves are quite > busy providing vegetarian, kosher and halal meals. Some of them might well be under a special diet... And no need to add religion to that. Health reasons such as allergy (which may prevent having citrus fruits, nuts, chocolate, fish, milk, tomatoes, strawberries... could be lots of others); laktosis intolerance (no milk); diabetes; keliakia (no glutein; certain grains), high blood pressure(must avoid salt), low blood pressure (EAT salt), anemic problems (must have iron-including food, like blood, liver, kidneys, meat, fish, eggs, spinach, parsil), too 'thick' blood (avoid iron food)... Could you prepare a meal that a)fulfills all nutritional needs AND b) doesn't contradict any special diet based on health/religion/other ethical concepts c) is food, not pills From cymru1ca at yahoo.ca Wed Jan 30 20:21:52 2002 From: cymru1ca at yahoo.ca (cymru1ca) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 20:21:52 -0000 Subject: Future books: humor element, Voldemort/Harry encounters In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34328 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "christi0469" wrote: > Devin wrote > > > It would be VERY interesting to see Ron's or Hermione's > > actions in the face of Voldemort. Remember, only Harry and Ginny > > have ever seen an incarnation of Voldemort recently and lived to > talk > > about it (without being a Death Eater, obviously). I tend to think (rightly or wrongly) of Tom Riddle as a different entity than Voldemort. After all what emerged from the diary was a 16 year old boy (conniving and ambicious to be sure) who had yet to become the dreaded monster that is 'Lord Voldemort' and I think that, at first atleast, neither Ginny nor Harry felt threatened. If (when?) Ron and Hermione were to meet Voldemort they would see the more hideous version of him (the serpent-like monster) so they're initial reaction would be entirely different. >How would Ron and > > Hermione fare in the face of the Dark Lord, encountering him for > the > > very first time, only having heard from Harry second-hand what he > is > > like, the terror he creates? How would Ginny fare? Would she be > > stronger, having seen Tom Riddle before and having even possibly > > absorbed some of his power? What would Draco do? Would he > embrace > > the Slytherin way and face down Harry with Voldemort behind him or > > would he, as I suspect, suddenly realize what good and evil > actually > > are (not weakness and strength as he thought before, but good and > > evil), and team with Harry? And what about Pettigrew's bond with > > Harry? Great dramatic possibilities Aside from Harry and a few select Death Eaters, no-one has set eyes on the current 'incarnation' of the Dark Lord. I think that anyone who came across Lord Voldemort would be terrified - though some of them, like Harry, will have the strength to overcome their fear and act. I don't think that it is a given that Ginny would fare better than either Ron or Hermione. Although she did encounter Tom Riddle in the Chamber of Secrets, she was a victim-she did not actively participate in the rescue, so it's hard to say how she would cope with another encounter. As far as Ron and Hermione are concerned, they've each had to overcome their fears in their adventures with Harry; Ron meeting with Aragog and Hermione riding on a hippogriff, the Chess match etc.- which may stand them in good stead should they eventually meet Voldemort. Cheers, Erica (who's been a list member for a long time but never posted...until now) From Edblanning at aol.com Wed Jan 30 20:21:54 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 15:21:54 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Sirius, Squeamishness Message-ID: <12c.ba41321.2989afe2@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 34329 In a message dated 30/01/02 15:30:45 GMT Standard Time, jdumas at kingwoodcable.com writes: > Edblanning at aol.com wrote: > > > > > Over generalisation on Hagrid's part and misdirection on JKR's, I think. I > > get your sister's point, because at that point of the story, of course, > > Hagrid thinks that Sirius *did* go bad. We know, of course that he didn't. > > (Well, not properly, but I still haven't really forgiven him for trying to > > kill Snape!) > > I'm not sure Sirius was serious about killing Snape. I think he was just > hoping that Remus would bite him, and turn Snape into a werewolf > himself. I don't know what the initial intention was. Sirius seems to be > a loose canon at times, but I'm not sure he'd actually try to kill a > fellow classmate. Obviously there is disdain between the two. Sirius > also didn't mind letting Snape's head bob up against the ceiling in PoA, > but I'm not sure he would have gone through with letting Remus *kill* > him. But that might just be wishful thinking on my part. > > -Katze > > OK, I know it may not have been his intention to get him killed, but honestly....! Someone else pointed out a few days ago that trying to get a fellow student bitten by a werewolf and condemned to a life as an outcast was not much better, perhaps even worse. I'm sorry, but I have a problem with Sirius. I don't doubt his loyalty, but I don't like the thoughtless nature of his impetuosity or the fact that he can't even acknowledge the fact that he made a mistake on this occasion. One of the attractive things about Lupin is that he realises that some of the things they got up to were immature and dangerous and has the grace to admit it. Sirius just takes the view, 'OK, so I lured another teenager into a situation where he nearly got killed, but that's OK since he was always trying to get us into trouble.' And it was *James* who went after Snape. The implication is that Sirius wasn't around, at least in any significant way. In mitigation, I suppose just keeping your sanity in Azkaban is enough: perhaps expecting him to have developed some maturity is too much, although as Dicentra, notes, he does seem to have developed a bit of a split personality by GoF, mature regarding Harry, immature regarding Snape. >Dicentra... wonders where Sirius was between PoA and GoF. Somewhere hot, until Dumbledore finds him the cave, but not sorting out unresolved psychological issues from his past. I think what Dumbledore needs most of all on his team is a therapist! If he can get *that* ill-assorted bunch with all their unresolved tensions sorted out, then Voldemort should be a cinch! Seriously though, the interaction between that lot is one of the things I'm looking forward to most in the next book. Mahoney: >- nasty, ill-tempered, probable-ex-DE Snape Probable?? Cindy: >Wormtail? He's one of the few characters who we know doesn't like to >kill people or see people killed, although he did what he had to do >when he blasted all those Muggles on the street. That assessment is >based on Wormtail's reluctance to curse/kill someone in GoF, and his >unwillingness to look Harry in the eye in the graveyard. But wasn't it Wormtail who unhesitatingly killed Cedric, or am I misreading this? He is certainly reluctant to use Harry at the opening of GoF, but, as Dumbledore has explained he is now in Harry's debt, Harry having saved his life. He certainly wasn't too squeamish to cut off his own hand - yuk! - Quite a feat with a dagger, I thought, especially since he seems not to have been using his dominant hand. ( In PoA He points with the middle finger of his right hand, which has the index finger missing, and cuts that hand off in the graveyard.) Eloise (frustrated at having had to rewrite large chunks of this as AOL suddenly decided to shut down!) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Edblanning at aol.com Wed Jan 30 20:24:50 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 15:24:50 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Miscellaneous/ St Brutus/Riddle's orphanage Message-ID: <11e.afd5908.2989b092@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 34330 In a message dated 29/01/02 11:03:32 GMT Standard Time, judyshapiro at earthlink.net writes: > Ok, now Topic 5, Miscellaneous > > Zoe Hooch pointed out that many people here have criticized the > characters in the Potterverse. I want to say that I like almost all > the characters she mentioned, including Hagrid, Snape, Lupin, and > Dumbeldore. In fact, I would like to have simultaneous crushes on > both Snape and Lupin. Definitely!! > > Marianne asked: > > What do [Hermione's parents] say to their Muggle > > > I'm kind of hoping the Grangers say that Hermione goes to St. Brutus' > Secure Center for Incurably Criminal Girls. 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. And another thing....How does the orphanage account for Tom Riddle's absences at Hogwarts? Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Edblanning at aol.com Wed Jan 30 20:27:40 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 15:27:40 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape, Sirius, the Dementors Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34331 In a message dated 29/01/02 10:02:04 GMT Standard Time, IAmLordCassandra at aol.com writes: > The glory theory is that Snape took Sirius up to the castle instead of > handing him right over to the Dementors so he could get that Order of > Merlin > he later lost. I don't know which member(s) specifically said it, but there > was mention of the idea that Snape would've thought he would get more glory > if he brought in the convicted murderer Sirius Black in alive then just to > have his soul sucked out when he's out cold ^^ > > ~Cassie~ > I've gone through several versions of this, thinking at first that he couldn't hand Sirius over to the Dementors because he was unconscious, but then, realising he could have done when he came round, assumed that he'd changed his mind (having calmed down) and came to favour the 'glory theory'. However, I'm now wondering...the Dementors had had a pretty nasty shock with Harry's patronus and were returning to their posts when Snape woke up. Perhaps they weren't going back in a hurry. I now have a vision of him standing there, summoning them in vain, stamping his foot in frustration and thinking, 'Damn, what am I going to do now?' before coming up with his little plan. It certainly seems a radical change of intent from inside the Shrieking Shack, when pure revenge at the earliest opportunity seemed to be his goal. Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Ali at zymurgy.org Wed Jan 30 20:29:11 2002 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 20:29:11 -0000 Subject: Sirius, House of James Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34332 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "uncmark" wrote: > In response to my question about what house the marauders were in, > > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Katze wrote: > > > In interviews, Rowling states that Lily, James, and Hagrid are in > > Gryffindor. IT is supposed that Remus, Sirius, and Peter were also > > in Gryffindor. I immediately put that Mauraders in the same house. snip > > -Katze > > I already posted that I believe Griffindor, I've read JKR 'stated in > interviews' that it was Griffindor and the HP Lexicon says > Griffindor, but do es anyone know WHICH interview she says it in? > snip uncmark In the interview in which JKR confirms that James was a chaser, she is asked what position he played on the Griffindor team: http//history.250x.com/vaults/c102.htm I've read alot of argument about this interview though. JKR might be ignoring the question of James' house and just confirming his Quidditch position - or she might just be assuming her answer confirms which house he's in. I just hope that we'll find out soon!! come on OoP Ali From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Jan 30 20:37:25 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 20:37:25 -0000 Subject: Sirius, Squeamishness (WAS Sirius, House of James Potter) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34333 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "dicentra_spectabilis_alba" wrote: > I don't know if it's *highly* debatable that he's changed. Twelve > years in Azkaban aren't going to leave you the same as when you > entered, even if you weren't affected by the dementors to the extent > others were. Right - reliving the worst moments of your life or thinking like a dog, nothing to do but think and feel, all alone for twelve years. He may have seen few other prisoners who were brought in, but his first contact to the World was Fudge and his paper. He's probably been thinking a lot about that night, speculating about how things would be different if he had acted differently (it's not like he has anything else to do). He's probably sworn to himself that if he ever gets out, he'll devote his life to protecting Harry. He escapes when he sees Wormtail in position to get close to Harry. This has two options: Protecting the godson and Revenge. At that sad night, they were contradictory, now they BOTH aim to same! >He seems to have matured some: Harry gets mad at him in > GoF when he writes him and tells him not to stray outside the > boundaries. "You're a fine one to tell me not to break rules," thinks > Harry [to paraphrase]. But as adults often do when looking back on > their teen years, Sirius cares more about the real danger than about > "what it's like to be 14" and the need to run around with impunity, as > he did at that age. Right... Now he understands the 'why' behind the rules (but doesn't quite manage to tell that to Harry). > 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.) He isn't after letting that Wormtail between him and Harry again! He was probably thinking along: "Harry wants the traitor killed. Was about to do it himself, but I won't let HIM to become a murderer. I'll just kill Wormtail myself... oh, he doesn't want ME to become a murderer? Right, the rat isn't worth the trouble - and I don't know the Killing Curse anyway. I'll just capture the rat, get free and clear, take care of the godson - if he wants me to..." > In > GoF he paces the cave trying to piece things together, pleads with > Dumbledore to not make Harry relive what happened with Voldemort, > keeps his hand on Harry's shoulder when he does talk about what > happened after he touched the portkey, and grips his shoulder tightly > when he hears about James and Lily emerging from the Priori > Incantatem. At the end, he's got his hands in his face, evidently from > grief. > > As a matter of fact, he hardly has any personality at all in GoF, > functioning mostly as a sounding board for Harry. The only time he > shows personality is when Dumbledore makes him transform in front of > Snape et al. and he and Snape stare daggers at one another before > reluctantly shaking hands. He's all devoted to protecting Harry. Snape smells bad (terrible offence to a dog's nose), was badly in the way when he was making friends with Harry, seems to be a Death Eater with that mark, treats Harry badly by insulting the orphan boy's dead father who just happened to save Snape's life, and was also Sirius's best friend and now lies dead, thus showing extremely bad manners... > It's always been hard for me to reconcile these two Siriuses. > Naturally, I prefer the rational one, but he evidently has it in him > to be a pretty callous person. Not squeamish? You're right Cindy, > he's got an iron stomach. But then, apparently, so does JKR. If one lasts 12 years in dreadful prison with dementors, one can last anything! > --Dicentra, who wonders where Sirius was between PoA and GoF. "Some place warm" - I think he was in Africa. As I don't think a hippogriff could fly all the way across Atlantic, America is out. So he would have crossed the Chanal to France, then South-West to Portugal, then across to Africa, where those "exotic birds" can be found. As to where Sirius got that broomstick: it could have been Harry's FIRST christmas-gift from Sirius (didn't Sirius say it was worth 13 years' christmas-gifts?) before Azcaban. (And Sirius was teaching Harry to fly!) Lily would have locked it up until Harry's old enough, of course. Sirius sent it to Harry using school Owls... He might have saved Pigwidgeon. A gentle person may have been told to get rid of it, so when Sirius asked to have it, he got it for free. Once safe in Africa, he may have visited Egypt Gringotts where Bill Weasley worked then. It is well possible that Bill somehow turned into doing Sirius favors. (Sirius saved his life from a rattle snake or something). So when Sirius got Harry's letter he had two comrades, Bill Weasley and Remus Lupin. (As Bill was partly for the Triwizard Competition and partly for assisting Sirius...) From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jan 30 20:46:08 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 20:46:08 -0000 Subject: Riddle's orphanage In-Reply-To: <11e.afd5908.2989b092@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34334 Eloise wrote: > And another thing....How does the orphanage account for Tom Riddle's absences > at Hogwarts? > > Eloise The old Dickensian stand-by: a Mysterious Benefactor. They were probably happy enough not to ask too many questions. Pippin From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Jan 30 21:22:18 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 21:22:18 -0000 Subject: Future books: humor element In-Reply-To: <20020130144508.26417.qmail@web14006.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34335 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Mary Shearer wrote: and I believe there will be MORE humor in the latter books! And particularly #5- as Gred&Forge will be there with a near 1000 Galleon start-up for their jokeshop. And as Harry said, they NEED laughter. WWW is, I think, going to have an important role... Ron's new dress-robes? Can you picture Fred&George buying them to him, Ron trying to ask where did they get the money, and why are they doing it, Fred&George not telling, but making it into a joke... From petra.delisser at saunalahti.fi Wed Jan 30 19:54:48 2002 From: petra.delisser at saunalahti.fi (brinforest) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 19:54:48 -0000 Subject: Uranus joke in different languages In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34336 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., John Walton wrote: > I want to compile a list of how the Uranus joke translates into different > languages. Well, here are the points of the Finnish jury: Lavender: "...Oooh, mik? se on, professori?" Punurmio(Trelawney): "Se on Uranus, kultaseni." Ron: "Saanko min?kin katsoa sinun Uranustasi, Lavender?" Literal translation of Ron's line would be "Can I also look at your Uranus, Lavender?" I would say that the joke is kind of half there. It's hard for me to determine, because while reading the passage, I immediately realised how it must read in English and I got the joke because of that. But I still think that it only takes very little creative thinking to get the joke even if you read it in Finnish and don't know any English. I'm happy that the translator left it in, so that I was able to appreciate the joke. And when it comes to Tom Marvolo Riddle, the Finnish translator has adapted it to Tom Lomen Valedro, which gives the anagram "Ma olen Voldemort" (I am Voldemort). Furthermore, "ma" is poetic Finnish (along the lines of "thou" in English). The more normal word for I or me is min?, but it would have been too translation-y to have the letter "?" in Tom Riddle's name - it's in very few names anyway. Of course I could write a long post about the other names that were translated... maybe another time. But for me, "Punurmio" is one of the worse ones. All you gain is easier pronunciation, and I'd like to think we're past those days. Brin From chappnee at hotmail.com Wed Jan 30 19:57:37 2002 From: chappnee at hotmail.com (~ chappnee ~) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 12:57:37 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] US/English Versions Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34337 Well I think I have the ideal position here. I live in Canada so saying so would mean that I'm extremely familiar or, at most, talk with American slang. As most of you might know, Canada's version of the books was the British version and I have to tell you, that even though I had no idea what a prefect was (I'm assuming that it is a common term in Britain?), what 'bogies' were, and what she meant by 'jumper', it wasn't the hardest thing in the world to figure out. The whole issue with confusing 'soccer' and 'football' didn't matter much to me at all. In fact, even though I understood it to mean Canadian football, it didn't confuse me because it's a minor detail and not significant to the plot. I just went on reading without really thinking much about it. Besides, she does a good enough job of explaining how Quidditch is played without having to compare it to soccer/football. I have to admit that only last night did I realise while I re-read PS again for the zillionth time, that she probably meant soccer. The term prefect wasn't that hard to figure out either: Percy, a prefect, leads everyone to the safety of their dorms when there is danger and is the subject of pride in Mrs. Weasley; Prefects get special train carts and bathrooms to themselves and I think somwhere it says that he threatened Ron that he would take points away from Gryffindor so obviously, he has some power within the school and is an advanced student. And the simple difference between 'Boogers' and 'Bogies' isn't worth mentioning at all however the difference of 'jumper' vs. 'sweater' was a bit confusing as it came up quite often in the book. Although I _did_ know, that it had to mean something else in Britain than in Canada. Exactly _what_ he was wearing didn't really matter though, now did it? All that mattered was that Ron hated his colour and that Harry was given one suggesting that he's part of the Weasley family. The point is, you don't have to know every word/slang term in a book to enjoy reading them and JKR does a pretty good job of hinting at what they mean anyway. A whole chunk of the story is Harry experiencing a huge culture shock. If Americans are able to adapt to the Wizarding culture with Harry, then why aren't they capable of getting used to British culture? - Would be my question to scholasitc. Maybe if someone outside of scholastic were to taunt them saying, "Canadians can do it, what makes you think Americans can't?" would have changed their mind because now it is a question of pride which I believe is a weak spot. I think he totally misjudged the capabilities of the American public because the way I see it, there isn't that much of a difference between Canadians and Americans except that Americans present themselves as being unintelligent - maybe they are, I don't know, but I doubt they are _that_ stupid - and maybe Canadians are a little more reserved. 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! (It is a good thing, for those who might take offense if not otherwise told so.) I liked finding out the way they refer to certain things in Britian (or at least England) just like I loved finding out that Americans have differen't 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! The books being written in British slang and taking place in Britain made it all the more believable for me and made me more excited about going there. I've always wanted to travel to Britain (namely England) and the books gave me one extra reason to go! Now, to come up with the money...ha ha! (I'm only in Grade 11 by the way.) I also liked seeing it written with the " 'u' spice " in the word 'flavour'. It's my little pet-peeve. I can't understand why Americans would drop the 'u' in flavour. It just doesn't look right! ~Chappnee, -who thinks colour should be spelled with a 'u' too but thinks 'program' should be left with only one 'm' and no 'e'. :) _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. From tracey_vampyre at yahoo.com Wed Jan 30 22:12:10 2002 From: tracey_vampyre at yahoo.com (tracey_vampyre) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 22:12:10 -0000 Subject: : Sirius, Squeamishness (WAS Sirius, House of James Potter) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34338 Someone wrote: No: HPFGUIDX 34339 Someone wrote: Message-ID: <007401c1a9d6$67aa6400$0200a8c0@Nshare> No: HPFGUIDX 34340 Finwitch wrote: >>and I believe there will be MORE humor in the latter books! And particularly #5- as Gred&Forge will be there with a near 1000 Galleon start-up for their jokeshop. And as Harry said, they NEED laughter. WWW is, I think, going to have an important role...<< Sorry if this is going over old territory but a thought hit me when reading this. There was talk a while ago about who would be the one to die in the next book. What if it was one of the twins? They are both big fans of Harry, ok maybe not fans but they both like him a lot, want to help him, he gave them the money, and if one of them went then it would /really/ affect not only him but Ron too. It could bring them closer, or tear them apart depending on the situation. Like I said, I apologise if this has already been debated to death, just point me in the direction of the old posts. :) Olly. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From perfume_girl18 at yahoo.ca Wed Jan 30 22:33:05 2002 From: perfume_girl18 at yahoo.ca (Suki Jones) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 14:33:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: Lucius theory Message-ID: <20020130223305.85984.qmail@web20302.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 34341 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" (or duck *grin*). Dragon is usually connected with Satan. That is definitely dark. Lucius, on the other hand, means "light". And judging on the way Rowling names her character's after other character's in history and by the meaning's of their names, I have a suspicion about an ancient character named Lucius. He was the only remaining character to remain loyal in a very famous story. On the names subject; Narcissa means "self-loved". It's after the story of a boy who looked into his reflection and fell in love with himself. The result was not good. Anyway, what do you think? ~St* __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com From uncmark at yahoo.com Wed Jan 30 22:42:40 2002 From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 22:42:40 -0000 Subject: Rumors of Hagrid's Death Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34342 I've been looking up JKR interviews online concerning the question of what house James Potter and the Marauders were in. I've heard JKR said they were Griffindor but haven't found which interview yet. I did find quotes on Hagrid that he's one of JKR's favorite character. I found her saying on a radio show called 'Connections' that although there will be deaths Hagrid will be around. The interview was pre-Goblet and she did let go about the DADA teacher's 'magic eye'. The only basis for Hagrid's death was the Rosie O'Donnell show with the movie cast. Richard Harris said he was signed on for Dumbledore in all the movies, but Robbie Coltrane said he wasn't. As far as deaths, we had Cedric and Crouch in Goblet of Fire. If we have a big battle with Order of the Phoenix, I could see Lupin falling against Wormtail. (Werewolf falls to silver hand.) I wonder how many students will be kept home from Hogwart's next year. Would you send your kid to a school that would be on the front line of a war against Valdemort? Uncmark From perfume_girl18 at yahoo.ca Wed Jan 30 22:23:26 2002 From: perfume_girl18 at yahoo.ca (Suki Jones) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 14:23:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: Hagrid's House Message-ID: <20020130222326.81511.qmail@web20310.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 34343 Yes, I have a question for the detectives. I'm not sure if he question has been asked before (I'm sure it has)? If Hagrid was expelled in his third year for setting the monster in the Chamber of Secret's loose, does this mean Hagrid was a Slytherin? If that is so, it's quite strange to think that Hagrid could have shared a dorm with Riddle. *smiles* ~St* __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Jan 30 22:50:33 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 22:50:33 -0000 Subject: Not So Secular Potterverse/Merlin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34344 Ah - Merlin. There was this movie about Merlin the Wizard's life. Merlin is also hold with Great Respect (Order of Merlin) in Potterverse. This movie had certain aspects... Uther Pendragon was Christian, as well as the knights, but Merlin was not. Merlin was good, but did mistakes like everyone... Yet, the best parts in the movie was when Merlin stopped his horse to give way to a snail! On other part, there were 'The Old Ways'... So um I think - 'the Purest of Pureblood'-wizards like Malfoys can link their bloodline to the Age Before Merlin - also the Old Ways. They may well be keeping the Old Ways! (Which Draco refers to as Our Ways) Then, there was Merlin (who in the movie mated a Muggle woman). Merlin's descendants may well have been a link between Christian Muggles and Wizards even then. They had Muggle Ways, that slowly took part also in Wizard Community. The Old Ways celebrate the Winter Solstice, on 21st December. Interesting is that at least in Finland about 100 years ago, the celebrations of 'christmas' begun 21st December - and lasted until 6th or 13th January. With lots of candles for light. Customs during Winter Feast have changed a lot since then. Beginning at Winter Solstice a party in Northern Finland, where Sun doesn't show up at all for some time during Winter. The party was to 'call the Sun back' - The First Sunlight seen was certainly causing great joy! 6th January, possibly - and for a moment, the whole Sun is visible for a moment on 13th - That's what lined it up, I guess. From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Jan 30 22:56:12 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 22:56:12 -0000 Subject: Hagrid's House In-Reply-To: <20020130222326.81511.qmail@web20310.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34345 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Suki Jones wrote: > Yes, I have a question for the detectives. I'm not > sure if he question has been asked before (I'm sure it > has)? > If Hagrid was expelled in his third year for setting > the monster in the Chamber of Secret's loose, does > this mean Hagrid was a Slytherin? If that is so, it's > quite strange to think that Hagrid could have shared a > dorm with Riddle. *smiles* > ~St* Except that it never *was* Hagrid! It was Tom Marvolo Riddle, Parselmouth and Heir to Slytherin in Slytherin dorm! Hagrid was merely wrongly accused. No... Hagrid was in Gryffindor (Didn't he sort of say it's the BEST house in the first book? And every student thinks his house is Best...) From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Jan 30 23:08:35 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 23:08:35 -0000 Subject: Musing About Mundungus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34346 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > Mahoney wrote: > > > One thing that is worrisome about Dumbledore's team is that Voldemort > has someone on his team who knows our secrets: Wormtail. He knows > about Sirius' animagus form, Lupin's werewolfing. He has been > hanging around Harry's dorm and the Weasley house for years, > listening to everything. Wormtail seems awfully dangerous for our > team. Yes - so the 'old gang' is out and about to find and imprison him - then they get Sirius free! Except that Voldemort would use him as messenger into Azcaban and gets him out of there... > Mahoney again (about Mundungus): > > > I don't think a lawyer would be of great use. And I think that > > Fletcher's M.O. to date seems more like the type of person who > > constantly *needs* a lawyer (to get off on lesser charges for > > attempting to hex people behind their backs, and for the filing of > > frivolous lawsuits). He sounds like the typical on-in-years fellow > > who has little else to do with his time than bug the heck out of > > people. > > > > He reminds me of...the guy that runs the bait shop, or the old guy > > who works at the gas station. The one who drives everybody nuts, > but > > if you sit down and talk to him, you find out that he's a war > veteren > > That's it! Mundungus is the old fart, sly as a fox, cagey war > veteran commander who never loses a battle. He does whatever he > pleases, but he gets away with it because our team is *way* better > off with him on it than against it. Maybe Mundungus even helped > Dumbledore defeat Grindewald or something. > > Yes, Mundungus-as-Cunning-Strategist is much better than Mundungus- as- > Lawyer. But Sirius might need help to persuade EVERYONE the fact he's innocent to the crime of murdering the very-much-alive Peter Pettigrew! (Hm. Peter grew petty?) From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Jan 30 23:11:53 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 23:11:53 -0000 Subject: Future books In-Reply-To: <007401c1a9d6$67aa6400$0200a8c0@Nshare> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34347 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Olwyn" wrote: > Finwitch wrote: > > >>and I believe there will be MORE humor in the latter books! And > particularly #5- as Gred&Forge will be there with a near 1000 Galleon > start-up for their jokeshop. And as Harry said, they NEED laughter. > WWW is, I think, going to have an important role...<< > > Sorry if this is going over old territory but a thought hit me when reading this. There was talk a while ago about who would be the one to die in the next book. What if it was one of the twins? They are both big fans of Harry, ok maybe not fans but they both like him a lot, want to help him, he gave them the money, and if one of them went then it would /really/ affect not only him but Ron too. It could bring them closer, or tear them apart depending on the situation. What if Ron dies? None is closer to Harry than him! From maryblue67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 30 23:12:30 2002 From: maryblue67 at yahoo.com (Maria) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 15:12:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: dietary In-Reply-To: <1012431032.1990.1269.m3@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20020130231230.11431.qmail@web11104.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 34348 Finwitch said: --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" wrote: > There's a Times interview which reports that Rowling has figured > out "dietary requirements" for the characters. *I* am sure this is > another Vampire clue, but maybe the House Elves are quite > busy providing vegetarian, kosher and halal meals. Some of them might well be under a special diet... And no need to add religion to that. Health reasons such as allergy (which may prevent having citrus fruits, nuts, chocolate, fish, milk, tomatoes, strawberries... could be lots of others); laktosis intolerance (no milk); diabetes; keliakia (no glutein; certain grains), high blood pressure(must avoid salt), low blood pressure (EAT salt), anemic problems (must have iron-including food, like blood, liver, kidneys, meat, fish, eggs, spinach, parsil), too 'thick' blood (avoid iron food)... Could you prepare a meal that a)fulfills all nutritional needs AND b) doesn't contradict any special diet based on health/religion/other ethical concepts c) is food, not pills ************************* Well, as a person with food allergies myself (i'm allergic to eggs and in a minor way to some fruits like strawberries), i think i can reply to this question. What i have noticed is that the elves provide quite a lot of variety in each meal. Every time Harry describes what is on the table there is chicken, and liver, and this and that, and also for the deserts, and for breakfast, etc. It is true that nobody is supervising (or seems to do so) if a given students goes through each meal only eating potatoes, and therefore not having a complete diet. However, regarding the allergies or medical conditions, i think the following. When a kid (i mean, someone who is 3 or 4 years old) has an allergy, he/she needs to be under constant supervision, since they are not responsible enough to decide what is good and bad for them. But someone from 11 on should be mature enough to know they can't have grain, or milk, or eggs, and simply wouldn't take them. After all, there is also all these other things on the table, right? Maria ===== Maryblue ---------------------------------------------------------- "Gravitation cannot be held responsible for people falling in love" - Eistein __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com From moongirlk at yahoo.com Wed Jan 30 23:25:49 2002 From: moongirlk at yahoo.com (moongirlk) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 23:25:49 -0000 Subject: Musing About Mundungus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34349 Mahoney wrote a pretty good description of the Mundungus in my head, which I have snipped. Cindy replied: > > That's it! Mundungus is the old fart, sly as a fox, cagey war > veteran commander who never loses a battle. He does whatever he > pleases, but he gets away with it because our team is *way* better > off with him on it than against it. Maybe Mundungus even helped > Dumbledore defeat Grindewald or something. Mundungus Fletcher is far and away my favorite of the characters we've never actually met, or even of the lower echelon of characters we have met. I have always thought of him as this crotchety old guy who's half-mad. A contrary old cuss who thinks it's *funny* to hex people, especially if they're annoying enough to get into his business (as Arthur must have been at the time of the hex incident). Arthur didn't seem really to bear ill-will toward Fletcher - just exasperation, like he thinks of him as a "barmy old codger", to quote Dobby quoting Dumbledore. Percy would, of course, not see the benefit of someone like that, but I think Arthur thinks of him more or less along the same lines as Moody, although somewhat less indulgently. In fact, I can just see Gus and Al as a sort of wizard version of Grumpy Old Men (much more fun than the originals!). Also, because Arthur was working when Fletcher tried to hex him, I'm guessing he's a misuser of muggle artifacts. This leads me to the following fun conclusion... can't you just see him being the inventor of the nose-biting teacups or some other equally fun prank item? Fred and George will *love* him. kimberly who intends to name a dog after Mundungus Fletcher, if ever she gets one From degroote at altavista.com Wed Jan 30 23:32:11 2002 From: degroote at altavista.com (Vicky DeGroote) Date: 30 Jan 2002 15:32:11 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Digest Number 1623 Message-ID: <20020130233211.27696.cpmta@c016.snv.cp.net> No: HPFGUIDX 34350 An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available URL: From theennead at attbi.com Wed Jan 30 23:31:23 2002 From: theennead at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 23:31:23 -0000 Subject: Future books: humor element, Voldemort/Harry encounters In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34351 On humor in the books (sorry about the, er...Non-U spelling, folks, but I'm one of them Murricans and incapable of shaking off my upbringing), Devin wrote: > To me, the books are relatively constant smile-bringers, and > occasionally they make me burst into laughter. It's very > refreshing to read something I can get a REALLY good laugh out of >(although the title for most real laughs from a book goes to Catch- > 22 where I was almost hysterical on several occasions). Ah, a reader after my own heart! Catch-22 is my all-time favorite novel. But I do find myself wondering: if Catch-22 gets your vote for "most laffs for the buck," then why would the darkening tone of the HP books worry you so? Catch-22's humor is pretty black. > Is anyone worried about the tone of the future books being SEVERELY > affected by the darker subject matter?....Can the humor really stay > in the same league with the foreboding over everything? Ah, yes. Okay. I think that I see what you mean. The humor that you've enjoyed in the past in the HP books is *not* black humor -- it's fairly whimsical humor -- and so you're worried that JKR won't be able to maintain that tone in the face of a steadily-darkening plotline. Is that it? Hmmm. Well, I think that Rowling has proven herself more than capable of dark humor as well as the lighter, more whimsical variety, so I don't worry too much that future books will lack for humor. Whether it's the sort of humor that her readers particularly enjoy, however, is another matter. It's an interesting topic, IMO, because humor is always so very subjective. Me, I found GoF by far the funniest of the books to date. The previous books, while they raised smiles in places and even a few "mental chuckles," never actually made me laugh out loud. GoF's the only one that's done that for me. But then, my sense of humor is *very* black (and also at times just plain weird), so I don't know how typical my own experience might be. Did anyone else out there find GoF the funniest of the four books? Or am I alone in this? Some of the brands of humor that JKR favors have never amused me, frankly. 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. It doesn't ruin them for me or anything (when I reach those scenes, I merely wince in irritation and then move on), but I can't say that I'd exactly mind it if we started seeing less and less of that sort of thing as the tone of the series darkens. > One thing I've been longing to discuss with others is the future of > Voldemort vs. Harry, in direct conflict, that is. How many more > times can Harry face Voldemort and maintain realism? They're already straining the leash, IMO. PoA is my favorite of the books, and I often suspect that part of the reason for that might be that it contains no direct confrontation with Voldie. Personally, I'm hoping that we *won't* see another face-to-face Harry-Voldemort confrontation in Book Five. In fact, I'd be perfectly content with no further direct conflict until Book Seven. But I don't really think that's going to happen. > So the question is once again, how many more times will they come > into direct conflict before the series ends? Personally, I think > two. I like the scenarios you propose, and I'd be happy with them. So, okay. I'll go for two. Hell, I'll even go for three, if two of them both fall within Book Seven. But I'm still hoping we'll get at least one more book that doesn't end on an H/V confrontation. -- Elkins From ambiradams at hotmail.com Wed Jan 30 23:38:24 2002 From: ambiradams at hotmail.com (Ambir Adams) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 15:38:24 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] US/English Versions Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34352 >From: "~ chappnee ~" >Well I think I have the ideal position here. I live in Canada so saying so >would mean that I'm extremely familiar or, at most, talk with American >slang. As most of you might know, Canada's version of the books was the >British version and I have to tell you, that even though I had no idea what >a prefect was (I'm assuming that it is a common term in Britain?), what >'bogies' were, and what she meant by 'jumper', it wasn't the hardest thing >in the world to figure out. I'm an almost (Feb 21 is my birthday) 25 year old American and I find it slightly insulting that the British publishers or is it the American publishers that get the books from the British publishers well anyway which ever publisher it is they don't give us enough credit in knowing what these words mean. I like reading novels by British authors that haven't been changed to fit American slang, it helps you get into the world of the story and makes it more real in your imagination, you can actually get into the culture. And it's really fun. It seems we have a lot of misconceptions about America vs Britian. I'm sure most British when they think of American's the think of Stupid people and people who have no culture. When most American's think of British (not me)they think of an emotionless culture who doesn't like to have fun. But we all know that is so not true. Both our countries have their own Stupids. Most people that read HP books are adults and they read them to their children, if a kid doesn't understand a word the adult explains what it means. And if some American adults don't understand what a word means it's not that difficult to figure it out from the description JKR gives you. She seems to know that other cultures will find it difficult to understand so she gives really good descriptions of what they are without changing the word. The publishers should have just left the words "as is" it would add more to the fun of reading. I hope when book five gets here that they don't changed anything into American slang. >The point is, you don't have to know every word/slang >term in a book to enjoy reading them and JKR does a pretty good job of >hinting at what they mean anyway. A whole chunk of the story is Harry >experiencing a huge culture shock. If Americans are able to adapt to the >Wizarding culture with Harry, then why aren't they capable of getting used >to British culture? - Would be my question to scholasitc. Maybe if someone >outside of scholastic were to taunt them saying, "Canadians can do it, what >makes you think Americans can't?" would have changed their mind because now >it is a question of pride which I believe is a weak spot. I think he >totally misjudged the capabilities of the American public because the way I >see it, there isn't that much of a difference between Canadians and >Americans except that Americans present themselves as being unintelligent - >maybe they are, I don't know, but I doubt they are _that_ stupid - and >maybe >Canadians are a little more reserved. Um you Canadians are American's too in a way. We as Americans are not a stupid culture, don't base us on what you see on TV. Jerry Springer shows a bunch of actors getting paid to act like idiots on TV. >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! (It is a good thing, for those who might take offense if not >otherwise told so.) I also liked seeing it written with the " 'u' spice " >in >the word 'flavour'. It's my little pet-peeve. I can't understand why >Americans would drop the 'u' in flavour. It just doesn't look right! I too like seeing those words written with the U it does add spice to the novel I agree with you on that 110% (I have two British friends and one of them has the British version and it seems so much better than mine, you guys even get the really cool covers, we get some lame drawing that I don't like.) I just hope that I haven't offended anyone, thanks for listening (reading) Ryoko (AKA Ambir) ------ *Sitting on a huge ship spreading the word of H/Hr around the world. Several flags are waving H/Hr rules!! H/Hr forever!! _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com From ambiradams at hotmail.com Wed Jan 30 23:48:33 2002 From: ambiradams at hotmail.com (Ambir Adams) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 15:48:33 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Future books Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34353 >From: "Olwyn" Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Future books >Sorry if this is going over old territory but a thought hit me when reading >this. There was talk a while ago about who would be the one to die in the >next book. What if it was one of the twins? They are both big fans of >Harry, ok maybe not fans but they both like him a lot, want to help him, he >gave them the money, and if one of them went then it would /really/ affect >not only him but Ron too. It could bring them closer, or tear them apart >depending on the situation. > >Like I said, I apologise if this has already been debated to death, just >point me in the direction of the old posts. :) > >Olly. Oh no!! Not Fred or George, they are my favorite characters. I think the person to die is either going to be Collin or (Forgive me H/G ers) Ginny. Since they said Ginny will have a bigger role in book 5, what's bigger than dieing, right? No not Gred and Forge (heh heh) I mean Fred and George. It would be really sad if Fred or George were to die, I would totally cry. Ryoko (AKA Ambir) ---- Sitting on a large ship spreading the word of H/Hr all over the world. with flags waving H/Hr rules!! H/Hr forever!!* _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. From ali719 at hotmail.com Thu Jan 31 01:04:20 2002 From: ali719 at hotmail.com (alihp719) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 01:04:20 -0000 Subject: Returning to Hogwarts (WAS Rumors of Hagrid's Death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34354 > I wonder how many students will be kept home from Hogwart's next > year. Would you send your kid to a school that would be on the front > line of a war against Valdemort? > > Uncmark Very interesting point! I never thought about this, but IMO, most kids will go back to Hogwarts...I can't really see JKR leaving out some of the characters that have shaped the books over the years, can you? At least, I hope she doesn't keep some of the character home! -Ali From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Thu Jan 31 01:04:57 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 01:04:57 -0000 Subject: FILK: Sirius Black Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34355 All these recent threats about Sirius, combined with listening to Nick Cave on my Walkman, have inspired me to a fit of rhyming. Since I've seen other filks posted in the past, I hope this one won't be taken amiss. Sirius Black A Harry Potter filk by Mariner (to the tune of "Jangling Jack" by Nick Cave) Sirius Black, common sense he lacked, Ditched the secret-keeper job, But he was on the wrong track, Gave the job to Pete, Said, "You know what to do," Pete ratted him out To You-Know-Who. Sirius Black and Pete Dueled in the street, Pete got away And Black took the heat, Though he didn't do it, he didn't do it. Now, Sirius Black, blamed for the attack, Got sent to Azkaban, Where he went a bit cracked. Huddled in his cell, While Dementors drooled, Till he found out Pete Was at Hogwarts School. Said, "I must escape >From this pile of rubble, Better do it on the double, 'Cause Harry's in trouble." Changed into a dog And quickly made tracks, Became a fugitive, did Sirius Black. Sirius Black Didn't do it, didn't do it Sirius Black Didn't do it, didn't do it. Sirius Black comes to Hogwarts School, Prowls outside the grounds Like a big Grim ghoul, Terrorizes Ron Without meaning to While tring to kill Peter Pettigrew. Sees the frightened school, Sees Harry and friends, Says to himself, "Pete's life must end, And I will do it, and I will do it." Well, Sirius Black As a matter of fact Meets up with Harry and friends In the Shrieking Shack, Reunites with Lupin, Exposes Pete, Looks like Sirius Black Has landed on his feet, But then Snape butts in And Peter scrams, So Sirius Black Goes back on the lam, Though he didn't do it, he didn't do it. Sirius Black Didn't do it, didn't do it Sirius Black Didn't do it, didn't do it -- Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From r_adamec at yahoo.com Thu Jan 31 00:54:42 2002 From: r_adamec at yahoo.com (r_adamec) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 00:54:42 -0000 Subject: Uranus joke in different languages In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34356 So here's the Czech version (without accent marks): "To je Uran, drahousku," podivala se profesorka Trelawneyova na jeji graf. "Hele, Levandule, muzu se na ten Uran taky podivat?" zeptal se Ron. FYI, it does not work at all. Still, when I was reading it, my first idea was "oh my, the original version must have been...". So I appreciated the translator left it in. I don't think there exists any satisfactory translation: no body part sounds similar to anything astronomical in Czech. Radek From midwife34 at aol.com Thu Jan 31 01:26:25 2002 From: midwife34 at aol.com (jrober4211) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 01:26:25 -0000 Subject: Lucius theory In-Reply-To: <20020130223305.85984.qmail@web20302.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34357 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Suki Jones 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" (or duck *grin*). Dragon > is usually connected with Satan. That is definitely > dark. > Lucius, on the other hand, means "light". > > And judging on the way Rowling names her character's > after other character's in history and by the > meaning's > of their names, I have a suspicion about an ancient > character named Lucius. He was the only remaining > character to remain loyal in a very famous story. > On the names subject; > Well, I think Lucius is derived from the name Lucifer as in Satan. In that case "the apple does not fall far from the tree" in regards to his son, Draco. As for your theory, unless JKR does a "Moody" on us, there is nothing in canon to suggest that Lucius is anything but evil. Jo Ellen From cindysphynx at home.com Thu Jan 31 01:37:49 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 01:37:49 -0000 Subject: Future books: Humor element, Voldemort/Harry encounters & Non-Characters In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34358 Elkins wrote: > Me, I found GoF by far the funniest of the > books to date. The previous books, while they raised smiles in > places and even a few "mental chuckles," never actually made me > laugh out loud. GoF's the only one that's done that for me. > > But then, my sense of humor is *very* black (and also at times > just plain weird), so I don't know how typical my own experience > might be. Did anyone else out there find GoF the funniest of the > four books? Or am I alone in this? Oh, I'd agree that GoF was the funniest book by quite a bit. CoS might also contend if you like Lockhart. PoA is my favorite book overall, but I think that is because of the characterizations, not the wit. Elkins again: > Some of the brands of humor that JKR favors have never amused me, > frankly. 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. Hmmm. I'm not sure I follow you. "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? As for my own taste in humor, I like zingers and one-liners, I guess. I also like when characters are dreadfully and painfully embarrassed, like the "Unexpected Task." I also like Sir Cadogan a great deal, but I don't know what category his over-the-top dialogue fits into. I once went to a lecture on humor in college. I was so clueless that I assumed the lecture would be, well, humorous. Instead, they talked about what makes things humorous, which isn't nearly as entertaining. :-) I don't remember much of what was said. So here's the question: what are the types of humor? Does anyone know, and are there examples of these categories in canon? Elkins again (about future Voldemort vs Harry confrontations): > They're already straining the leash, IMO. PoA is my favorite of > the books, and I often suspect that part of the reason for that > might be that it contains no direct confrontation with Voldie. 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. Kimberly wrote: > Mundungus Fletcher is far and away my favorite of the characters > we've never actually met, or even of the lower echelon of characters > we have met. 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. Cindy (starting to sweat bullets because it is almost February and we don't have an OoP release date) From NOTaMuggleFamily at aol.com Thu Jan 31 01:43:55 2002 From: NOTaMuggleFamily at aol.com (NOTaMuggleFamily at aol.com) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 20:43:55 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Returning to Hogwarts... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34359 Maybe most parents are like Fudge and refuse to believe V is back, so they have no reason not to send the kids back...if alot of parents are wary, Fudge will have to change his mind! I would guess most wizards will be on Fudges side, making life more difficult for Dumbledore, Harry, and gang. ~shahara in WI usa << > I wonder how many students will be kept home from Hogwart's next > year. Would you send your kid to a school that would be on the front > line of a war against Valdemort? > > Uncmark Very interesting point! I never thought about this, but IMO, most kids will go back to Hogwarts...I can't really see JKR leaving out some of the characters that have shaped the books over the years, can you? >> shahara lefay pagan priestess ~*~ **serendipitously smitten with severus snape** TerraSoLuna-subscribe at yahoogroups.com From judyshapiro at earthlink.net Thu Jan 31 01:57:26 2002 From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 01:57:26 -0000 Subject: St Brutus /St. Lucius? /Mundungus / Hagrid's House / Etc. In-Reply-To: <11e.afd5908.2989b092@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34360 Eloise, who approves of my crushes on Lupin and Snape, said: > 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. < Well, I'm sure JKR is just making the Dursleys as horrible as possible. (And it *was* amusing.) It is a bit out of character for the Dursleys, but they aren't telling this to the general public. They just say this to Vernon's sister, and she seems to already think of Harry as a criminal. Suki Jones said, in message 34341: > I think that Lucius is good and Draco > is bad. Why? Well, firstly; Draco's name means "dragon" (or duck > *grin*). Dragon is usually connected with Satan. That is definitely > dark. Lucius, on the other hand, means "light". < Well, Lucius makes *me* think of "Lucifer" (which means "light bearer.") And dragons don't seem particular evil in the Potterverse; it's serpents that are evil. (I don't think Potterverse dragons are related to serpents, or Harry would have just told the Horntail in parseltongue, "Hey, hand me that golden egg, will you?") I think the whole Malfoy family is evil. Suki, you are right that Narcissa has negative connotations; a "narcissist" is someone who is in love with him or herself, and treats others like dirt. Cindy said: > Mundungus ought to be the stereotypical lawyer. > Filing frivolous claims. Sneaky. Dishonest. < I don't know -- didn't Percy say Mundungus slept at the QWC under a cloak propped up on sticks? Sounds too poor to be a lawyer. And, I was hoping someone would notice that I was the one who brought up the attempt Mundungus made to hex Arthur. I was so proud to find something that (apparently) hadn't been noticed before. (sniff) Finwitch asked, in message #34345: > If Hagrid was expelled in his third year for setting the monster > in the Chamber of Secret's loose, does this mean Hagrid was a > Slytherin? < JKR has said in an interview that Hagrid was in Gryffindor. In CoS, Tom Riddle mentions he was surprised at how well his plan worked; no one (except maybe Dumbledore) realized that Hagrid couldn't possibly be the Heir of Slytherin. Elkins said: > Personally, I'm hoping that we *won't* see another face-to-face > Harry-Voldemort confrontation in Book Five. < Me, too. If Harry keeps miraculously defeating Voldy, it's going to get old real fast. I'm hoping Voldy doesn't take him on again until Book 7. Uncmark asked: > I wonder how many students will be kept home from Hogwart's next > year. Would you send your kid to a school that would be on the front > line of a war against Valdemort? < Well, Hogwarts was the safest place during "Vold War I". And, Voldy is really only after Harry. So, Hogwarts is probably pretty safe for most students. Also, Gwen sent me a nice email about our disagreement on religion. She also posted here: > Okay, first of all, I once again apologize to Judy (in public, as > opposed to privately) for misinterpreting her comments and running > with it. < Apology definitely accepted (and really not needed in the first place.) Communicating via cyberspace can lead to a lot of misunderstandings. -- Judy From IAmLordCassandra at aol.com Thu Jan 31 01:57:40 2002 From: IAmLordCassandra at aol.com (IAmLordCassandra at aol.com) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 20:57:40 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Future books: Humor element Message-ID: <85.16b7524a.2989fe94@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 34361 cindysphynx writes: > . So here's > the question: what are the types of humor? Does anyone know, and > are there examples of these categories in canon? Hmmm, would the bouncing ferret count as slapstick? Or the "accidental" banging to Snape's head on the tunnel ceiling? What about the expelliarmusing of Lockhart? Or the scene before the boggart in the closet scene where Lupin sends a wad of gum shooting up Peeves's nose? I've always counted slapstick as physical humor in which people find it funny when others hurt themselves. But I think it's usually on purpose, but these are supposed to be funny physical scenes. ^^ ~Cassie~ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From theennead at attbi.com Thu Jan 31 01:26:46 2002 From: theennead at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 01:26:46 -0000 Subject: Dehumanizing Language--Sirius' Prank In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34362 Eileen, who is a Canadian, wrote: > Actually, I'm not an American, but a Canadian... Oh, I was *so* afraid of that! From your diction, I was pretty sure that you were North American, but... sorry. > ...and capital punishment has not been a legal penalty for murder > for quite a number of years either....Even so, it [Vernon's > pro-capital punishment stance in PoA] struck me as unduly > political. Okay. So maybe it could read as highly politically-charged to a Brit as well. I don't know. Certainly here where I live, it's absolutely not a topic about which people can be counted to keep their tempers under control. On the subject of Granting Slack To Characters We Like, I wrote: > For an example of this phenomenon, I might cite my own vehement > condemnation of Moody for using nasty language to describe > Karkaroff in the Pensieve scene of GoF, while noting my own utter > lack of dismay over Sirius' use of similarly unkind and degrading > language to refer to Pettigrew in PoA. Eileen said: > That's a funny example, b/c I find it hard to stomach Sirius's > attitude in that scene, even though I can offer up a million > justifications for it. There's something about its dehumanization > of Pettigrew that just sickens me. Well, yes. It *is* sickening. It has to be, I think, for the scene to work. All of the adult characters allow themselves to become distressingly dehumanized there; IMO, that's precisely what makes that entire sequence so very effective. "Lack of dismay" was a poor choice of words, as I certainly did find Sirius' behavior dismaying. But not nearly so much as Lupin's, which made me surprised to hear you say: > And on what appears to be a third hand,(/me looks down at her hands > in amazement), I don't feel the same way towards Lupin, whom I very > much love, even though he was right with Sirius in that scene. Funny, because I found Lupin's reaction to the situation more upsetting by far. Sirius' snarling rage was only mildly painful to me because really, that was just about the only emotional state I'd ever seen him in at that point in the book anyway. Lupin, on the other hand, I'd had an entire novel to get to know and love, so his cold-bloodedness -- he totters perilously close to the borders of outright sadism in that scene, IMO -- was pretty devestating. It really brought home the extent to which the entire situation was corrupting and dehumanizing everyone that it touched. By 'lack of dismay,' I suppose I really meant 'inability to inspire me to pass harsh judgment on the character.' Sirius' use of the dehumanizing language there didn't make me think of him as someone who regularly dehumanizes people, mainly because the situation is so obviously extraordinary -- and because his use of the language is not in the least bit casual. He's furious, and he's been personally betrayed, and he's slightly deranged; and he's working himself up to murder in cold-blood someone who is grovelling for his life -- and someone he used, at one time, to care about, at that. His dehumanization of Pettigrew is deliberate, and it is personal, and it is directed at its target: even when he's ostensibly addressing Harry, Sirius' language is aimed dead straight at Pettigrew himself. There's nothing in the least bit casual or off-hand about what he is doing. Moody, on the other hand, isn't even addressing Karkaroff in the Pensieve scene, nor can Karkaroff even hear him. He's talking to a third party, in a fairly relaxed way, and it doesn't even seem particularly personal. It's a generalization of type: the use of dementors is okay for "scum like this." It seems casual, off-hand, automatic, just a reflection of how the man thinks: "Men like Karkaroff are filth and scum: they are not fully human and therefore do not warrant the considerations we accord to other people." It makes a big difference to me. It's a bit like the difference between hearing a man fling an extremely offensive gender-based epithet directly into the face of a woman who has betrayed him while they are having a screaming argument, and then hearing some guy on the street casually chatting to his friend about how he feels about "'s like that." The first man is certainly not using nice language, but I don't automatically assume that he regularly dehumanizes women as a class. The second fellow, on the other hand, is going to have to work very hard indeed if he wants to convince me that he is not, in fact, a misogynist. Hmmm. I *did* say before that I had decided to just chalk this issue down to one of personal dislike and move on, didn't I? Yes, I seem to remember that I did indeed say that. Oh, well. I guess I lied. Eileen wrote: > I also find it difficult to see Sirius's POV in the Black/Snape > debate. Oh, you don't want to get me started on the prank. You really don't. You... Oh. But you just did. Okay, then. Well. On the one hand, it *did* happen twenty years ago, so I suppose that one could argue that it's really long past time for Snape to just let it go. On the other hand, I don't feel much sympathy when the grown-up incarnation of the popular, good-looking *and* academically brilliant teenager's take on the affair is still: "Well, he was this oily, greasy, slimy kid, see, and we didn't like him, and he was always trying to get us in trouble, and besides, his hair was always dirty, and so it served him right." That doesn't win any affection points from me. I expect a man in his thirties to at the very least be able to admit that it was an incredibly stupid thing to do, that it really could have got Snape *killed,* and that if nothing else, that would have been absolutely disastrous for poor Remus. At the very *least.* Then, I'm not at all rational on this subject. This one is *intensely* personal for me, because...well... The year I turned twelve, a group of girls at the summer camp I'd been shipped off to (and believe me, you don't want to get me started on the subject of summer camps, either!) decided that it would be highly amusing to pour kerosene over my head and chase me around with a Bic lighter. As far as I can tell, this struck them as appropriate because (a) they didn't like me, (b) they thought that I was oily and creepy and weird and nasty, and (c) I didn't wash my hair often enough for their tastes, and so the idea of burning it off struck them as somehow apropos. And, no. I'm not making this up. Not even the part about the hair. Moreover, it didn't even seem to occur to the beastly little troglodytes (oops! was that offensively dehumanizing language? so sorry!) that the fact that they were actually *flicking* the lighter and making sparks fly out and big flames appear while I had kerosene dripping all over my face and down my neck really *did* mean that they could hurt me. I could have been badly burned; I could have been blinded; I could even have been killed; and maybe they didn't realize that fact, but I certainly did. I was absolutely terrified, which they all seemed to think was hysterically funny, and...well, and ugh. It was not only frightening; it was humiliating. Humiliating in the extreme. And you know what happened to them when the Powers In Charge found out what had occurred? Nothing. *Nothing.* They got a little talking to about how very reckless they had been, and how they really could have killed me. I, on the other hand, got a lecture on how maybe these sorts of things wouldn't happen to me quite so often, if only I would try to work harder on "learning to get along with my peers." Yes. Well. Like I said, my feelings about the prank, and my identification with Snape in that conflict, are not so much canonical as deeply and intensely *personal.* And while I do recognize that Snape's grudge-holding is a problem, well... I was twelve then. I am thirty-five now. Am I still angry about it? Oooooh, you bet. Oh, yes. Yes, I am. Haven't let that one go. Not by a long shot. Doubt I ever will. Angry enough that I might relish the thought of the ringleader of that little group being given the Dementor's Kiss? No. No. At least, I hope not. But still. I can't say I have any sympathy for Sirius at all when it comes to the prank, or place much blame on Snape for feeling the way he does about it. Some schoolboy grudges have more bite than others. --Elkins, who still sometimes has nightmares about summer camp. From ev_vy at SoftHome.net Thu Jan 31 00:59:16 2002 From: ev_vy at SoftHome.net (Ev vy) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 01:59:16 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Uranus joke in different languages References: Message-ID: <014201c1a9f2$9cef6900$2608f1d5@OSLII> No: HPFGUIDX 34363 As HP was translated by one of the best translators in Poland, he did a very good job. I'm not entirely happy with the translation but it's probably the best that could be done. And btw, the same guy translated also the Chronicles of Narnia, did a very good job. Th Uranus joke is translated as such: 'Och, pani profesor, niech pani spojrzy! Tu mi wyszla planeta bez aspektow! Oooch, co to za planeta, pani profesor?' (that's Lavender saying) 'To Uran, moja droga,' powiedziala profesor Trelawney, zagladajac do jej horoskopu. 'Uran, wazne cialo niebieskie.' (well, that's Trelawney saying, not hard to guess) 'Czy ja tez moge sobie obejrzec cialo Lavender?' zapytal Ron. Which translated back means: Lavender: Oh, Professor, look at that. I've got unaspected planet. Oooh, which planet is that, Professor? Trelawney looking at Levender's chart: This is Uranus, my dear. Uranus, a very important heavenly body. Ron: Can I have a look at Lavender's body, too? So the joke is retained, bit transformed, but it is there. Th guy is really good, but after having read the original first it just isn't as good as I'd like it to be. Ev vy ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ICQ: 105418158 AIM: Evvy Riddle ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ There's nothing level in our cursed natures But direct villainy. William Shakespeare "Timon of Athens" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jmmears at prodigy.net Thu Jan 31 02:43:05 2002 From: jmmears at prodigy.net (serenadust) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 02:43:05 -0000 Subject: Sirius, Squeamishness (WAS Sirius, House of James Potter) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34364 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "finwitch" wrote: > > As to where Sirius got that broomstick: it could have been Harry's > FIRST christmas-gift from Sirius (didn't Sirius say it was worth 13 > years' christmas-gifts?) before Azcaban. (And Sirius was teaching > Harry to fly!) Lily would have locked it up until Harry's old enough, > > Interesting theory but doesn't it say in POA that the Firebolt is the newest and latest broomstick on the market? I think that it also says in Sirius' note to Harry on the train, that he got the gold for it from his Gringots vault, and had Crookshanks take the order for the broom to Quality Quidditch Supplies. Jo From jmmears at prodigy.net Thu Jan 31 03:06:47 2002 From: jmmears at prodigy.net (serenadust) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 03:06:47 -0000 Subject: Returning to Hogwarts (WAS Rumors of Hagrid's Death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34365 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "alihp719" wrote: > > I wonder how many students will be kept home from Hogwart's next > > year. Would you send your kid to a school that would be on the > front > > line of a war against Valdemort? > > > > Uncmark > > > Very interesting point! I never thought about this, but IMO, most > kids will go back to Hogwarts...I can't really see JKR leaving out > some of the characters that have shaped the books over the years, can > you? At least, I hope she doesn't keep some of the character home! > -Ali I have the impression from the books that Hogwarts was considered the only relatively safe place in the Wizarding World during Voldy's last reign of terror. If the parents of the students know what's going on at the end of GoF (most probably don't), they probably rest easier while the kids are at school. The muggle-born kids probably don't even tell their parents about Voldy and somehow I doubt that Hogwarts is the type of school that sends the parents letters to keep them informed about events at the school. Jo From jmmears at prodigy.net Thu Jan 31 03:31:27 2002 From: jmmears at prodigy.net (serenadust) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 03:31:27 -0000 Subject: Dehumanizing Language--Sirius' Prank In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34366 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" wrote: > Eileen, who is a Canadian, wrote: > > > Well. On the one hand, it *did* happen twenty years ago, so I > suppose that one could argue that it's really long past time for > Snape to just let it go. > > On the other hand, I don't feel much sympathy when the grown-up > incarnation of the popular, good-looking *and* academically brilliant > teenager's take on the affair is still: "Well, he was this oily, > greasy, slimy kid, see, and we didn't like him, and he was always > trying to get us in trouble, and besides, his hair was always dirty, > and so it served him right." That doesn't win any affection points > from me. > > Then, I'm not at all rational on this subject. This one is > *intensely* personal for me, because...well... > (Elkins relates a truly horrifying and heartbreaking experience as a child at summer camp) > > > Yes. Well. Like I said, my feelings about the prank, and my > identification with Snape in that conflict, are not so much > canonical as deeply and intensely *personal.* And while I do > recognize that Snape's grudge-holding is a problem, well... > > I was twelve then. I am thirty-five now. Am I still angry about > it? > > Oooooh, you bet. Oh, yes. Yes, I am. Haven't let that one go. Not > by a long shot. Doubt I ever will. > > Angry enough that I might relish the thought of the ringleader of that > little group being given the Dementor's Kiss? > > > > > > No. No. > > At least, I hope not. > > But still. I can't say I have any sympathy for Sirius at all when > it comes to the prank, or place much blame on Snape for feeling the > way he does about it. Some schoolboy grudges have more bite than > others. > > Wow, Elkins. This is the first time I've ever been able to really understand anyone defending Snape's attitude toward Sirius. If I were you I'd probably want to personally hunt down each of those little beasts, and even the score. I don't think anyone could ever let that one go. However, would you want to take your revenge on any offspring of any of these people if they happened to fall within your current sphere of influence? Obviously, they would be a painful reminder of their parent's bad behavior, but would they be deserving of constant belittling, humiliation and general meanness just because they were available, while their parents are out of reach? It's this behavior on Snapes part that I find absolutely unforgivable. I understand why he is still bitter from the schoolboy experience, but nothing justifies his treatment of HRH and especially Neville (whose parents never had anything to do with Snape as far as we know). No matter what noble deeds he performs in future books, I can never overlook his years of pointless sadism. Jo, now worried about sending her daughter to camp this summer From cindysphynx at home.com Thu Jan 31 03:58:28 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 03:58:28 -0000 Subject: Sirius' Prank & Lupin (WAS Dehumanizing Language--Sirius' Prank) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34367 Oh, dear. I was working myself up into a pro-Sirius rant, and then I got to the part about the kerosene, which was downright criminal. Somehow, the boy who constantly snapped my bra strap in school kind of pales by comparison. This isn't going to be easy, but I'm going to give it everything I've got to explain why Sirius is not so bad, and uh, why Sirius is not so bad. A few months ago, I had the same reservations about Sirius that you expressed so eloquently, and I've come around a bit since then. Not completely, but a good bit. So here goes, and as a courtesy, I'll throw in some Lupin to soften you up before we get to Sirius. *********** Elkins wrote (about Lupin in the Shrieking Shack): >Lupin, on > the other hand, I'd had an entire novel to get to know and love, > so his cold-bloodedness -- he totters perilously close to the > borders of outright sadism in that scene, IMO -- was pretty > devastating. It really brought home the extent to which the entire > situation was corrupting and dehumanizing everyone that it touched. > I wasn't troubled much by Lupin's behavior in that scene. I didn't see him as cold-blooded, well, at least for a person about to kill someone in cold blood. He had a tragic, no-win situation to resolve, and he dealt with it in a methodical, fair, mature and business-like manner. I really don't see any other way he could have reacted consistent with his character. It wouldn't make sense for him to take Peter's side against Sirius and Harry. When Lupin tells Peter he should have known what would happen when Peter betrayed the Potters, Sirius, and killed the Muggles, well, it's hard to argue with that, and Peter didn't. Peter never even expressed any remorse for what he did, so I don't see how Lupin even has to reach the question of whether he ought to show mercy. Normally, I'm all for due process, of course. But we have a situation in which Peter was cornered 12 years ago and escaped. He could have had due process then, but chose instead to kill innocent bystanders and frame his best friend. Somehow, giving him a second chance for due process seems optional to me. Part of my reaction to that scene is that Lupin is generally quite mild-mannered throughout the book. He takes some rather nasty treatment from Snape throughout PoA without standing up for himself at all. JKR was right on the edge of causing me to rise up and demand that Lupin assert himself, but she didn't cross the line. Had Lupin shown mercy toward Peter on top of all of that, that would have been just way too much for me to take. Lupin would have been well on the way to Doormat Status in my mind. I think I actually respect Lupin more for being willing to do something rather repugnant and get his hands dirty out of loyalty to Sirius and Harry. (Dang, did I just write that?) Elkins again (about Sirius): > On the other hand, I don't feel much sympathy when the grown-up > incarnation of the popular, good-looking *and* academically brilliant > teenager's take on the affair is still: "Well, he was this oily, > greasy, slimy kid, see, and we didn't like him, and he was always > trying to get us in trouble, and besides, his hair was always dirty, > and so it served him right." That doesn't win any affection points > from me. I expect a man in his thirties to at the very least be able > to admit that it was an incredibly stupid thing to do, that it really > could have got Snape *killed,* and that if nothing else, that would > have been absolutely disastrous for poor Remus. > Let me start off by saying that you are completely, 100% right, and I can make what Sirius did sound even worse. What Sirius did was awful, and the fact that he set up a situation in which he almost used his best friend Lupin as the means to murder someone is pretty awful. Horrid. Had Lupin attacked Snape, Lupin would have never recovered and would probably have been expelled, and God only knows what MoM does to werewolves who bite people. Sirius endangered Lupin, Snape, James and Dumbledore's career, all with one idiotic decision. Was it unforgivable? Well, Lupin seems to have forgiven Sirius, hasn't he? I figure if anyone has a right to be ticked at Sirius, it is Lupin. Lupin seems to have moved on, so I guess I can swallow hard and let it go myself. That Lupin can forgive Sirius and maintain their friendship suggests to me that Sirius must have a lot of very special qualities indeed. It was a dumb mistake that a dumb kid made, it's long since over, and that's that. Now, as for Sirius' use of harsh language about Snape, his failure years later to accept responsibility for what he did, for his continued willingness to be nasty to Snape for being different . . . I see your point, of course. But where we differ, I think, is that 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. Sirius was locked up 2 years after Hogwarts; the main frame of reference in life he has is his time at Hogwarts, and he seems perpetually trapped there, growth-wise. One would expect that Snape and Lupin would truly have moved on by now, and Lupin surely has. But if Sirius isn't showing us any growth, it really isn't his fault. Consequently, I feel compelled to cut Sirius a break for still being the immature boy he was when he left Hogwarts. An independent basis for disliking Sirius could be that he was nasty to Snape while they were at Hogwarts. I'd say not, because we really don't know exactly what sort of pranks the Marauders played on Snape (other than the one), and we don't know to what extent Snape reciprocated. Given what we know about dear Severus, it seems highly unlikely that he took the Marauders' abuse without scoring a few points of his own, especially since he knew more curses when he arrived than half the kids in seventh year. I get the feeling that Severus could take care of himself fairly well, and it was all mutual combat. I have to add that Sirius is showing remarkable personal growth now that he is out of Azkaban. As someone (Dicentra?) already stated today, he's almost a different person in GoF. With that trajectory, I figure Sirius will be much easier to take by the end of the series, assuming he lives that long. Need more proof? Well, it is true that Sirius in GoF makes the same tired old remarks about Snape that he's been making since he was a boy. But Sirius does something very important in GoF: he acknowledges that if Dumbledore trusts Snape, then that is good enough for Sirius, and he moves on from there. That's growth. You need a magnifying glass to see it, but it is growth. 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. Elkins again: > But still. I can't say I have any sympathy for Sirius at all when > it comes to the prank, or place much blame on Snape for feeling the > way he does about it. Did I make any headway at all? Even an inch? Because that's really about the best I can do. Cindy (unsure if anyone has ever bought her passionate defense of Sirius, but that hasn't stopped her from doing what she can for him) From mrgrrrargh at aol.com Thu Jan 31 02:52:49 2002 From: mrgrrrargh at aol.com (mrgrrrargh at aol.com) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 21:52:49 EST Subject: Laughing Sirius Message-ID: <16a.7fea06f.298a0b81@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 34368 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? -SpyGameFan [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From hazel-rah7 at juno.com Thu Jan 31 00:26:20 2002 From: hazel-rah7 at juno.com (hazel-rah7 at juno.com) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 18:26:20 -0600 Subject: Lucius theory Message-ID: <20020130.182620.-4022445.0.hazel-rah7@juno.com> No: HPFGUIDX 34369 On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 14:33:05 -0800 (PST) Suki Jones writes: > Lucius, on the other hand, means "light". ~*But you should also recall that *Lucifer* means "lightbearer", and just look at what he became. Hmmmmm.............. very thought provoking.*~ ~*Amanda Snape*~ ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. From djdwjt at aol.com Thu Jan 31 05:19:22 2002 From: djdwjt at aol.com (elfundeb) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 05:19:22 -0000 Subject: Boring Harry Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34370 > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "serenadust" wrote: > > Zoe. I've been wondering lately if > > many of the posters even enjoy the books as written, or if they feel > > that they could personally improve them by changing the characters' > > behavior, or plotlines. > Since I'm on record as criticizing characters, I must respond that the books I love most are the ones with believable characters with real flaws. I love the HP books as written and it is the humanity of the characters that keep me going back to them, not the magic or the plot. I think the quality of the characters lies in their imperfections, and if we are quicker to cut slack to characters that we like, it's a reflection of how we might react to them as people. I may complain about Hagrid, think he's recklessly endangering the students, setting a bad example, and should not be teaching, but I don't think he's a poor character. > Zoe wrote > >JKR tells us who the good guys are, and I'm > > prepared > > > to take her word on that. > If there's one criticism I have about JKR's characters, it's that the "bad guys" (as in Harry's perpetual irritants, not the plot-twist bad guys like Pettigrew) are too flat and too obvious. Draco is too predictable and has shown IMO little growth as a character over the four books, with the same insults (Mudbloods, Weasley poverty and/or Harry's choice of friends) every time we see him; the only reason I think he might not end up killing someone is that I don't think he has the guts. I can feel sorry for him, but not much more. I'd really like to see some more development of Draco as a character in OoP. (Ditto the Dursleys, who are predictably mean and petty to Harry, summer after summer after summer after summer.) Others agree or disagree? > > I hope that Rowling will finish this off well, I have a > good feeling about her finishing it off well, but I don't trust her. > Trust no author until they're finished. > > Eileen I have found that just when I'm really tired of something JKR does, she accommodates me by doing something different. So I will trust her to do the same, to continue to surprise and to finish it off. It's possible that she would ruin it. But I'm not expecting it. Debbie (who loves Snape as a character because he is evil and good and mysterious and wants to love McGonagall but thinks she is too boring) From DMCourt11 at cs.com Thu Jan 31 05:41:49 2002 From: DMCourt11 at cs.com (bookraptor11) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 05:41:49 -0000 Subject: Sirius and Snape frozen in time (WasSirius' Prank & Lupin ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34371 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > Now, as for Sirius' use of harsh language about Snape, his failure > years later to accept responsibility for what he did, for his > continued willingness to be nasty to Snape for being different . . . > I see your point, of course. But where we differ, I think, is that > 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. Sirius was locked up 2 years after > Hogwarts; the main frame of reference in life he has is his time at > Hogwarts, and he seems perpetually trapped there, growth-wise. >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. When you wrote about Sirius being frozen in time, it occured to me that Snape too is frozen. Could it be that his personal growth was stunted by returning to Hogwarts to teach? Like Sirius, he too only had a few years away from Hogwarts. He leaves, is active with the DE's and turns spy. Then Voldemort disappears, Black is arrested and thrown into Azkaban. In the trials that follow, Dumbledore vouches for Snape, and although the books don't give a timeframe, I think it's likely that Snape began to teach shortly afterward. Spending the majority of his adult life at the same place he spent his adolescence perhaps would cause him to keep more to his old patterns of behavior. I do agree that it's not as good an excuse as being in Azkaban though, and Snape with a little effort had more of an opportunity to mature. Donna From djdwjt at aol.com Thu Jan 31 05:43:30 2002 From: djdwjt at aol.com (elfundeb) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 05:43:30 -0000 Subject: Laughing Sirius In-Reply-To: <16a.7fea06f.298a0b81@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34372 --- 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? > > -SpyGameFan > I've wondered that myself, didn't find any answer in the books (though that's no guarantee there's not one there) and concluded on my own that Pettigrew must have put an Imperius curse on him. After all, if you're going to frame someone, why not pull out all the stops and make him appear really heinous? Though he didn't have much time to (i) blow up the street, (ii) make Sirius laugh, (iii) say "Sirius, how could you?", (iv) cut off his finger, and (v) transform and escape. Pettigrew seemed kind of slow to pull of all that off at once, or to have plotted it all out in advance. Debbie From tabouli at unite.com.au Thu Jan 31 05:57:12 2002 From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 16:57:12 +1100 Subject: Fw: JKR wit, translation, Chinese linguistics continued Message-ID: <004b01c1aa1c$219f9fc0$1f0edccb@price> No: HPFGUIDX 34373 Elkins: > Some of the brands of humor that JKR favors have never amused me, > frankly. 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. (Tabouli, who has been subject to humiliating bullying in her time, shudders sympathetically at the ghastly account of summer camp. [At 10 I remember vowing in tearful fury to myself that when *I* was grown up I would *never* dismiss the cruelty children inflict on other children, or blame the victim rather than the tormentors. I hate bullying.] Then pictures herself as Snape, teaching the children of her tormentors. New and rather disturbing possibilities arise. Not that I could see myself torturing them the way Snape tortures Harry, mind - more likely the children of my tormentors would torture me as well) Actually, I'm inclined to fall in with Elkins here. My sense of humour tends to be whimso-verbal (?), not vengo-slapstick (??). I find JKR's sharp social comedy hilarious, even when she spills into Lockhartian/Trelawnesque farce, but Draco the bouncing ferret and Dudley of the Pig's Tail and Ten Ton Tongue left me lukewarm. After hearing about the girl who played the trans-Atlantic twins in The Parent Trap on the Movie list, I watched this film (might one day muse on OT about my accent-thoughts) and found myself wincing at the treatment inflicted on the Wicked Potential Stepmother, nasty though she was. Couldn't help feeling that having a new relationship with someone who has young children from a previous relationship is hard enough without children being set this sort of example as a funny and just way of getting rid of a parent's new partner they don't like (and by the way, both versions of The Parent Trap are, IMO, completely derivative of the mid 20th century Swedish book "Lottie and Lisa" without crediting it. Completely. If I were the estate of whatshisname the Swedish author, I'd be getting my lawyers out...) Radek: > I don't think there exists any satisfactory translation: no body part sounds similar to anything astronomical in Czech.< Ev vy: > Lavender: Oh, Professor, look at that. I've got unaspected planet. Oooh, which planet is that, Professor? Trelawney looking at Lavender's chart: This is Uranus, my dear. Uranus, a very important heavenly body. Ron: Can I have a look at Lavender's body, too? I know about as much Czech as your average hamburger, but as Ev Vy's example shows, I'm sure a translator with a minimal amount of imagination could find *some* way of wangling a risque joke out of the passage. I mean, we have twin moons, we have rings, we have heavenly bodies, we have rocks, we have a Red Spot... judyserenity: > I don't think the name "Cho Chang" tells us much about Northern Chinese (Mandarin) versus Southern Chinese (Cantonese) origin. I think the name could be from either dilaect. I just figured Chang is in the old Wade-Giles spelling system, not the newer pinyin system. I doubt Cho's family is Singaporean, however; I think the spelling there is Cheng or maybe Cheung.< (More than you ever wanted to know about Chinese linguistics warning) Well, nothing *conclusive* about origin, but as someone who's seen an awful lot of Chinese names in her time (and has one of her own!), my instincts aren't bad. There are a number of conventions and patterns in romanisation from different Chinese dialects and for people living in different countries, and "Cho Chang" says Hong Kong to me. More likely than Singaporean or Malaysian Chinese, partly because in those countries the Chinese tend to stick to the three name tradition (e.g. Lee Kwan Yew). IIRC, in the old Wade-Giles system, I think "Cho" would be "Chou". My feeling is that "Cho" is a non-systematic romanisation from a Chinese dialect other than Mandarin. When the Chinese left China and settled in south-east Asia, they whipped up spellings of their Chinese names in a pretty haphazard fashion. The same sound might be written as Yew, Yu or Yoo, depending on their mood on the day when they filled in the forms. It's not uncommon to find that different members of the same family spell their family name differently! In their view, it's the character that counts; any romanised rendition is an approximation anyway, so the spelling doesn't really matter. There are of course other possibilities besides Mandarin and Cantonese. Cantonese is the largest of the "Overseas Chinese" dialects because the Hong Kong and Canton province Chinese were seafarers (and hence immigrants), but other significant dialects include Hokkien (the south-eastern dialect which my mother speaks), Hakka and Teo Chew. As the different dialects have different sorts of sounds in them to some degree, you can often guess someone's origins from the spelling of their name. For example (bracketted words are the Mandarin pronunciations): *** CANTONESE (GUANGDONGHUA): Origin Canton (Guangdong) province and Hong Kong Has a lot of dipthongs, hence Cheung, Leong, and co in Overseas Chinese are likely to be Cantonese speakers (found in Hong Kong, but also elsewhere in SE Asia, in Chinese immigrant communities in Western countries, etc.). Commonly has names ending in P, K, T and M (not found in Mandarin), hence Yap, Mak, Lam. Often has "ng" at the start of syllables as well as at the end. Examples: Ng Wai Ngok, Mak Wing-Kit HOKKIEN (MINNANHUA): Origin Hokkien (Fujian) province, south of the Min river Fewer dipthongs than Cantonese (though "ooi" is characteristically Hokkien), quite a few family names usually romanised with ending in "h" (Beh, Goh, Loh). Some names ending with P,K,T,M, and starting with "ng", but less than in Cantonese. Examples: Goh Kooi Ching, Lim Bee Soo (don't know enough about other dialects to comment, but there are plenty of 'em) *** I rang my (Hokkien speaking but English educated) mother earlier today, remembered this thread, and asked her about names, and 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). She said that "Cho" was a unisex name. She also said that her own Cantonese mother swapped her name over to the Hokkien pronunciation after marrying her Hokkien speaking husband, and that some of my great-uncles spelt the family name differently from her branch of the family! As this illustrates, the "name as sacrosanct" concept is rather an individualist one... Tabouli (who has noted that the "name as sacrosanct" theme comes up a lot in HP, doesn't it Weatherby?) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From IAmLordCassandra at aol.com Thu Jan 31 06:10:31 2002 From: IAmLordCassandra at aol.com (IAmLordCassandra at aol.com) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 01:10:31 EST Subject: Laughing Sirius/Peter's wand Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34374 In a message dated 1/31/2002 12:45:34 AM Eastern Standard Time, djdwjt at aol.com writes: > > 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? > > Debbie: I've wondered that myself, didn't find any answer in the books (though that's no guarantee there's not one there) and concluded on my own that Pettigrew must have put an Imperius curse on him. After all, if you're going to frame someone, why not pull out all the stops and make him appear really heinous? Though he didn't have much time to (i) blow up the street, (ii) make Sirius laugh, (iii) say "Sirius, how could you?", (iv) cut off his finger, and (v) transform and escape. Pettigrew seemed kind of slow to pull of all that off at once, or to have plotted it all out in advance.>>> My first thought was that he put a Cheering Charm on Sirius. That would make anyone laugh ^^. Here's another question though: What happened to Pettigrew's wand after he transformed? I think that little rat would look suspicious dragging it down into the sewers. Did it float down there? Did someone pick it up? And where is it now? He certainly didn't have it when he was with the Weasleys. Whatever happened to it, I doubt the Ministry got hold of it. If they did, they could've just used that reverse spell spell and they'd know Peter blew up the street. Come to think of it, why didn't they do that to Sirius? Then again, they were pretty unfair to him... ~Cassie~ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From judyshapiro at earthlink.net Thu Jan 31 08:21:33 2002 From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 08:21:33 -0000 Subject: Laughing Sirius/Peter's wand/Humor/More Snape/Chinese In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34375 1) Laughing Sirius SpyGameFan asked: > > 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 think the key word here is "hystericallly." I don't think Sirius' reaction was a rational one; I think it was an emotional reaction to an unbearable situation. His best friend is dead, and Sirius knows that everyone in the wizarding world is going to believe he's responsible, and that they'll think he murdered 13 others, and no one will ever believe what really happened. His world has effectively come to an end, all because he thought Peter could help protect the Potters. So, he laughs at the irony of it all. 2) Peter's wand Lord Cassie asked: > What happened to Pettigrew's wand after he transformed? ....< I know we've discussed this before, but I think we didn't come to any conclusions. It's also a mystery how Voldy still has his wand, after years in disembodied form. 3) Humor Several people mentioned the "Slapstick humor" in the Potter books, such as Draco the Bouncing Ferret, Pig-tailed Dudley, various hexes, etc. I have to confess that I never even thought those scenes were intended to be funny -- I just thought the characters were shown as being violent to each other, which I found somewhat distressing. I do find the books quite funny, but it's mostly the things various people *say*. I love it when Harry claims, in PoA, that Ron gave him the bag of Zonko's tricks after the last Hogsmeade trip, and Snape replies without missing a beat "And you've been carrying them around ever since? How very touching." My favorite dialogue of all, though, is a different scene in PoA, where Hagrid is worried about Buckbeak, and Ron is trying to distract him. Ron says: "Er.. how are the flobberworms?" "Dead," said Hagrid gloomily. "Too much lettuce." I love animals, and I think Hagrid's great, but the flobberworms are just so ludicrous. And it's so unexpected when Ron's attempt at distracting Hagrid backfires. 4) More Snape (one can never have too much Snape!) Cindy mentioned that Sirius has a good reason (Azkaban) to be emotionally "stuck in time," and I agree, although I still don't like him. (Sorry, Cindy! I can't like Sirius *and* Snape, it's sort of like matter and anti-matter.) Cindy also said that Snape doesn't have an excuse for being similary immature. Donna said that staying at Hogwarts may have stunted Snape's growth, and kept him perpetually tied to his school years. Excellant theory! However, that's not really a good excuse for Snape to be immature. I love making excuses for Snape (sort of a cottage industry of mine; too bad it doesn't pay well) and I just want to say that we still don't know Snape's whole backstory. Plus, most of his friends were killed or are in Azkaban, which presumably was traumatic. So, maybe he has a good reason for failing to mature. Finwitch defended Sirius' hostility to Snape at the end of GoF, saying: > Snape smells bad (terrible offence to a dog's nose), was badly in > the way when he was making friends with Harry, seems to be a Death > Eater with that mark, treats Harry badly by insulting the orphan > boy's dead father... < Slander! Slander! (Or would that be libel? This is a written format, but sort of quasi-conversational. Well, whatever.) Snape may use too much "greasy kid's stuff" on his hair, but there's nothing in cannon to say that he smells bad. Besides, we all know dogs *love* bad-smelling stuff. ("Oooo, garbage! Should I eat it now, or roll in it first?") Anyway, I don't remember Snape insulting James in GoF. I think Snape and Sirius glare at each other in GoF because, well, they're Snape and Sirius. They've hated each other forever; no explanation required. 5) Chinese Tabouli gave us a lot of information on the possible origins of Cho Chang's name. One thing she said was: > in the old Wade-Giles system, I think "Cho" would be "Chou".... > My feeling is that "Cho" is a non-systematic romanisation from a > Chinese dialect other than Mandarin. Actually, I hadn't even been thinking about the name "Cho". I was just thinking about the surname "Chang." I know that Chang is a very popular surname romanisation under the old Wades-Gile system, but not under the newer pinyin system, and that it can be found in many places in China. So, I figured the name Chang told us something about *when* Cho's family left China, but not *where* in China they came from. I guess I just figured that the romanisation of Cho didn't mean much, because Cho's family might have been in England a long time when they named her, and wouldn't necessarily use any particular system. But, Tabouli gives a lot of interesting information on what her name might say about her origins. Unfortunately, we don't know whether JKR knows much about Chinese names. Maybe Cho Chang's name tells us something about her origins, or maybe it just tells us that JKR needs you as her expert, Tabouli, in designing Chinese names! -- Judy From j.balfour at lmu.ac.uk Thu Jan 31 09:08:34 2002 From: j.balfour at lmu.ac.uk (Balfour, Julie [HES]) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 09:08:34 -0000 Subject: Who will die? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34376 > "Olwyn" wrote: > There was talk a while ago about who would be the one to die in the > >next book. What if it was one of the twins? > Someone else (sorry!) replied: > Oh no!! Not Fred or George, they are my favorite characters. I think the > person to die is either going to be Collin or (Forgive me H/G ers) > Ginny. > 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. (Can't remember where I read/saw this - Steve?) 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). Also JKR is a massive fan of Hagrid's - she always lists him amongst her favourite characters and, knowing how much she values her loyal friends (see the BBC documentary shown over Xmas,) I believe that his character is very important to her plotline - I think Hagrid will die defending Harry. Mind you, I am not looking forward to reading it if it is true! Julie B. From Edblanning at aol.com Thu Jan 31 10:23:29 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 05:23:29 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sirius' Prank & Lupin (WAS Dehumanizing Language--Sir... Message-ID: <114.ba1e765.298a7521@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 34377 In a message dated 31/01/02 04:06:21 GMT Standard Time, cindysphynx at home.com writes: > Part of my reaction to that scene is that Lupin is generally quite > mild-mannered throughout the book. He takes some rather nasty > treatment from Snape throughout PoA without standing up for himself > at all. JKR was right on the edge of causing me to rise up and > demand that Lupin assert himself, but she didn't cross the line. Had > Lupin shown mercy toward Peter on top of all of that, that would have > been just way too much for me to take. Lupin would have been well on > the way to Doormat Status in my mind. I think I actually respect > Lupin more for being willing to do something rather repugnant and get > his hands dirty out of loyalty to Sirius and Harry. (Dang, did I > just write that?) > But to me, Lupin's silence in the face of Snapes nastiness is a sign of his maturity. He doesn't need to get involved in slanging matches. He has had a lot more than than other people's nasty comments to cope with in life: he has had to come to terms with *what he is*. He's not on the verge of being a doormat, he's just too big to get involved in such pettiness. Although of course, he is quite capable of getting his own back when he wants to (Snape-boggart). > > Elkins again (about Sirius): > > > On the other hand, I don't feel much sympathy when the grown-up > > incarnation of the popular, good-looking *and* academically > brilliant > > teenager's take on the affair is still: "Well, he was this oily, > > greasy, slimy kid, see, and we didn't like him, and he was always > > trying to get us in trouble, and besides, his hair was always > dirty, > > and so it served him right." That doesn't win any affection points > > from me. I expect a man in his thirties to at the very least be > able > > to admit that it was an incredibly stupid thing to do, that it > really > > could have got Snape *killed,* and that if nothing else, that would > > have been absolutely disastrous for poor Remus. > > > > Let me start off by saying that you are completely, 100% right, and I > can make what Sirius did sound even worse. What Sirius did was > awful, and the fact that he set up a situation in which he almost > used his best friend Lupin as the means to murder someone is pretty > awful. Horrid. Had Lupin attacked Snape, Lupin would have never > recovered and would probably have been expelled, and God only knows > what MoM does to werewolves who bite people. Sirius endangered > Lupin, Snape, James and Dumbledore's career, all with one idiotic > decision. > > Was it unforgivable? Well, Lupin seems to have forgiven Sirius, > hasn't he? I figure if anyone has a right to be ticked at Sirius, it > is Lupin. Lupin seems to have moved on, so I guess I can swallow > hard and let it go myself. That Lupin can forgive Sirius and > maintain their friendship suggests to me that Sirius must have a lot > of very special qualities indeed. It was a dumb mistake that a dumb > kid made, it's long since over, and that's that. Exactly, Lupin can forgive, but does that speak about Sirius' special qualities, or Lupin's? Lupin feels guilty about MMWP's other escapades and I think, by implication, about this one. He struggles with his conscience throughout GoF and is gracious enough to admit that in one respect, Snape was right about him all along. My impression is that Lupin alone of these three recognises the need to forgive himself for his past errors, whereas the other two haven't accepted and taken resposibility for their past mistakes, ard cannot get past the need for revenge on the one hand and the need to make reparation on the other ( by which I don't mean reparation to each other, I mean balancing the scales by doing something *they* regard as worthy). Until they do come to terms with themselves they will be, as you say, 'frozen in time'. I still think Dumbledore needs a therapist on his side! Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Edblanning at aol.com Thu Jan 31 11:52:31 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 06:52:31 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Paranoia (was: 3rd Task was: Ludo Bagman Is Ever So Evil) Message-ID: <7f.20d4fdd1.298a89ff@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 34378 In a message dated 28/01/02 22:12:37 GMT Standard Time, lav at tut.by writes: > IMHO it's impossible to stop people from trying accusing > everyone around. Perhaps this topic will be over only when > some another person will be accused. McGonagall, perhaps? ;) > > I've been thinking about this, Alexander, and now you mention it......! But I jest. No I don't think Minerva's a DE....BUT I *do* think that we all should be getting a little paranoid. Well, very paranoid actually. Hagrid gives us a little of the flavour of what it was like to live in the days of Voldemort's ascenency. You couldn't trust anyone, couldn't afford to make friends with anyone you didn't know. Even Dumbledore's team harboured a mole. Well Voldemort's back. He's gathering his supporters. There are the old suspects to worry about, there are the ones who claimed they were imperio'd - do we believe them or not? - there are the ones who kept their noses clean and avoided suspicion, there will be the new recruits to the cause. Because this is the dangerous thing about Voldemort: he's not just an incredibly powerful magician, he doesn't just want personal power, he has a cause, the kind of cause which in the muggle world has corrupted thousands of otherwise decent people, playing on their insecurites, their weaknesses, played on their desire for greatness, on that regrettable human tendency to want to put down those who are different. His supporters will be everywhere: those who willingly embrace his creed of pure-blood supremacy, those who are forced, those who follow him out of fear for themselves and their families. He will use the strong and exploit the weak. The prospect is terrifying and Harry, our protagonist will be living in this dark world of fear and suspicion. If JKR is fully to engage us in this world, then we too must feel this uncertainty. Otherwise we are mere observers and this is not how we have been so far. Yes, as we read the books second time round, its fun to pick out the subtle clues, distinguising the genuine from the red herrings, but the first time, we see everything from Harry's POV . So I for one, am not going to apolgise for suspecting anyone. ( And I'm usually such a trusting soul!) Now I know I'm getting really paranoid, as Mahoney, by the use of one punctuation mark ( writing of Snape as ?ex-DE) has awakened my biggest HP nightmare: that Snape will turn out to have been evil all along. Anyone who doesn't want to read far-fetched ramblings look away now :-) ! Ok, you have been warned... What if he's been saving Harry to preserve him for that restorative (yikes!) *potion*? Perhaps there was some problem with the Philosopher's stone solution to Voldemort's problems. Perhaps he was doubting Quirrel's loyalty to Voldemort and that was the reason for threatening him. Perhaps ( this gets even worse) he wants Harry's blood in the potion because he knows that it will make Voldemort vulnerable and he wants to be the Big Bad Wizard? Perhaps... (I told you I was paranoid)... No more, I can't stand it . Someone bring back the Snape I know and love. Eloise. Off to find a stiff drink. Too early in the day. Damn! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From laoisecronin at yahoo.com Thu Jan 31 11:56:14 2002 From: laoisecronin at yahoo.com (laoisecronin) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 11:56:14 -0000 Subject: harry potter and me photos Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34379 I was looking at the photos from the JKR interview harry potter and me and wanted to know everybody elses thoughts on the class lists.In the interview JKR said that she had a list of all the students in harry's year and how magical they were.The list has their names followed by some symbols and letters. There is either a circle or square depending on if thay are a boy or a girl and a G, S, R, or H for their house. 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.They could represent whether they are mugggle born,half blood or pure blood. Or they could represent how strong they are at magic or maybe their importance in the stories.Any other ideas?. Maybe everyone else see straight away what they mean but i've got a mental block about it or something:) (VERY infrequent poster hoping no one will hate her for her stupidity) Laoise From Caeser56 at si.rr.com Thu Jan 31 05:10:34 2002 From: Caeser56 at si.rr.com (caes56) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 05:10:34 -0000 Subject: Laughing Sirius;'Hagrid death';Silver Hand;Lucifer Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34380 --- 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? > > -SpyGameFan The text(or canon, if you prefer) never clearly states, or for that matter, gives any reason at all for Sirius' laughter. I've looked into this a bit as well, and we can only theorize. I, for one, seeing how Sirious turned out(that is, actually a good person), do not think it any sign of evil. Rather, what I think is along the more amusing lines- I think that after all the bickering about which of the Marauders was the spy, and finding out that it was Pettigrew, and that pettigrew set him up perfectly to fall for the crime, I think that all of this probably just blew his mind, and when he peiced everythign together just laughed at it for the sake of laughing- I'm sure we've all been in or met someone in the position that when things go so horribly wrong that for no apparent reason they burst out laughing. I know I have- on a road trip with friends down to Florida, in short, the car we were in must have broken down three times on the way there, and then someone left the lights on in the car at the hotel. anyway, I just cracked. I think it's a similar case- he was blaming Lupin the whole time, thinking that Peter couldn't have managed it, but it was staring him in the face. ------------Uncmark writes: >The only basis for Hagrid's death was the Rosie O'Donnell show with >the movie cast. Richard Harris said he was signed on for Dumbledore >in all the movies, but Robbie Coltrane said he wasn't. I was reading a few of the Robbie Coltrane interviews, and i want to point out two things to people to quell the "Hagrid Death"Theorists and hopefuls(personally, I like the character.) First and foremost- Coltrane, according to all the interviews i've read- is signed definently for only the first two movies, and we all know that Hagrid doesn't die in POA or GOF. Second, because of the first reason, we can safely assume(in fact, Coltrane also states it) that it has nothing to do with the character, but rather, Coltrane's desire NOT to get typecast as Hagrid, and as such he has stated that he really doesn't want to do more than two, but also isn't totally closed to the idea. So, Hagrid is NOT going to die because of any deal with Coltrane. one of the interviews is here: http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/art-main.html?2001-11/16/13.00.film from Sci-fi Wire, although I read one earlier where Coltrane talks about the typecasting problem. anyways, that will hopefully end that. ---Uncmark also wrote-----: >As far as deaths, we had Cedric and Crouch in Goblet of Fire. If we >have a big battle with Order of the Phoenix, I could see Lupin >falling against Wormtail. (Werewolf falls to silver hand.) I don't mean to pick on ya, uncmark- but I don't think this will happen either, and here's the simple reason: JKR is NOT following general Lore here. by legends(some of them anyways), werewolves don't need to be killed nessecarily by silver, just harmed enough to have the silver run in their veins, and this is in many stories and movies as well the method of 'killing' a werewolf but letting the person live- and I don't think that this would be the case in JKR's work, simply because if it were that simple why wouldn't someone have already done that to him? and even if it were that simple in terms of using silver to kill a werewolf, both the human and were forms, why wouldn't anybody have attempted it on him? I think an event or events like that would have at least been mentioned(if not also foreshadowed) by JKR if that were the case. we all should remember that while JKR takes names of folklore beasts and many other things, they are specifically hers and changed to fit her story, as in the case of dragons, which in almost any lore (especially chinese history) are extremely intelligent creatures who live for thousands of years and like to toy with humans. Suki Jones Wrote:--------------------- . >I think that Lucius is good and Draco is bad. >Why? Well, firstly;... >Lucius, on the other hand, means "light". [quote edited] As "Amanda Snape" already stated, Lucifer, of which lucius is(or seems to be) a derivative of, is the name for Satan and means "Lightbearer". But Satan was also, at some point, the most trusted Right hand of God. (I hate getting overtly religious, due to the amount of freaky-level fanatics who can't stop saying god in every sentence). I think that this is more a hint of his character's past- either that he was once a very trusted person before becoming a DE(he does come from a long line of pureblood wizarding families with a lot of influence) and that full story hasn't been told yet, or it could foreshadow how badly Fudge could, well, Fudge his job- in that he refused to believe Harry at the end of GOF that Lucius was a member of the DE's returning to Voldemort. To see my reference, see "The parting of the ways" in GOF, page 706 in the American print(i don't know if it is the same page in others). Fudge is clearly offended even at the mention of LV, let alone his followers, and it could be a comparison to Satan to say that Lucious Malfoy is trusted by Fudge, but wants instead to take his job. Well, those are my thoughts, any replies? ---Vin From theennead at attbi.com Thu Jan 31 05:36:11 2002 From: theennead at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 05:36:11 -0000 Subject: "Types" -- Stock Characters -- Identification Issues In-Reply-To: <001a01c1a617$6c9be820$4b27ddcb@price> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34381 A bit more on the various reasons people might have for "liking" certain characters over others: stock characters, characters who seem to "come alive," characters who break type, various different forms of reader identification...and so on. --- 1) Stock Characters Mahoney wrote: > What generally determines whether or not I like a character is > whether or not the character is either well-crafted ("alive" > on the fictional plane), or is a particular favorite character > type of mine. I.e., I like both Harry and McGonnagal because > they're both "alive" to me; but I like...Legolas from Tolkien's > Rings books because, even though the character is dimensionless, > he's a favorite character type (frufry mystical nature-boy archer > guy type, LOL). "If you like the stock, you'll like the soup." The Venal Aristocrat, the Good-Hearted Yet Under-educated Rustic, the Wise Old Wizard Mentor, the Grovelling Coward, the Boorish Middle Class Status-Seekers... Yes. I think that we probably all have our favorite character types, and that our preferences in 'stock' often do go a long way toward determining our liking for certain characters. I like Pettigrew, for example, largely because he's a favorite character type of mine: I've always been partial to the Grovelling Coward, especially the "capable of ruthless cunning" variant. What can I say? I just like these guys. Even when they're utterly dimensionless, even when they're pure cliche, even when I feel that I really by all rights *ought* to be finding them irritatingly de trope...I just can't seem to help myself. I always end up liking them anyway. They may be stock, but they're stock that I happen to enjoy. God only knows why. So even though I do think that Rowling has done a bit of nice work in fleshing out Pettigrew (I liked the way that she depicted his discomfort with Harry in the Graveyard scene of Gof, for example), I suspect that I'd probably feel a fondness for the character even if she hadn't bothered. Sometimes, though, even a fondness for the basic type can't save a character for me. For example, I ordinarily quite enjoy Boorish Middle Class Status-Seekers as comedic types, but I just can't bear the Dursleys. They're too broad a rendition of the type for my own personal tastes: too grotesque, too Roald Dahlesque. They irritate me, I don't find them amusing, and I'm always extremely relieved when Harry escapes from their clutches, because it means that I don't have to put up with them anymore either...until the start of the next book, that is. With the Dursleys, even my predisposition to like the type was not sufficient to make me enjoy JKR's variations thereof. Dumbledore's rather the opposite. I don't like Wise Old Wizarding Mentors as a general rule -- they tend to grate on my nerves -- but Dumbledore has succeeded in overcoming my general resistance to his overall type. I have come to like him as a character -- a great deal, in fact -- and that really is impressive, because frankly, he had quite a lot to overcome in the way of reader prejudice from the very start. --- 2) Characters who seem to "come alive," type-breakers, morally ambiguous characters. Mahoney spoke of well-crafted characters seeming to come "alive" on the fictional plane. Tabouli also brought up the issue of how well-crafted a character seems. She wrote: > Ooo, the ol' fictional/factual divide! An Oldie, but always a Goodie. ;-) > As characters, I like 'em both [Hagrid and Snape]. I look forward > to scenes where they appear. Both are interesting and flawed in > ways which drive the plot (if you think about it, both Hagrid and > Snape have played vital roles in all of the books so far). From a > writer's craft perspective, I prefer Snape. The Lovable Oaf is a > bit of a literary cliche, whereas Snape is a more singular > creation: bitter, complex, unpredictable. Of course, breaking type was Snape's *function* for the plot of the first book -- and it's a function that he continues to perform -- so it's probably unsurpising that he feels less cliched, and thus more "real," than many of the other characters. Even aside from that functional aspect of his character, though, I agree that Snape does seem unusually vital. And he's also highly charismatic: he tends to dominate whatever scene he's in and can draw the reader's attention even when he's only hovering at the periphery of the relevant action. And, of course, he's morally ambiguous, which is related to 'breaking type.' The morally ambiguous characters are nearly always favorites. As jchutney wrote: > It seems to me that the "whiter" or "blacker" a character the less > interesting. It's the "grey" like Sirius and Snape that provoke > discussion (so, is he good OR bad?) and of course, "greys" keep > readers guessing. We have no idea what Snape will do next. --- 3) Identification With Real People, Ourselves Vs. Others Tabouli, who identifies strongly with Hermione, wrote...er, whoops! I seem to have lost the citation. Well, as I seem to remember, she wrote something about how while she generally does *not* think of fictional characters in terms of how she might get on with them in real life, she does sometimes draw analogies between them and real people she has known; and that characters can either gain or lose emotional brownie points based on those associations. (Was that right, Tabouli? If not, then apologies.) She then went on to describe how this differs, for her, from identifying herself with a character: > Identification breeds empathy, certainly....I feel I *understand* > Hermione intimately, and get defensive if people misinterpret her > in the way they misinterpreted me. Nonetheless, for me it's not > the same as "liking" a character....I mean, you could say I "like" > Hermione, but it's more complicated than that - it's more that I > want her to be happy and get what she hopes for in life, > independently of liking or disliking, because she's me! > > Does that make sense? Absolutely! (And I hope that you don't feel that my snippage violated your intent in any way -- that was a great paragraph, but it seemed a bit long to cite in its entirety, as I would have liked to.) I don't identify nearly that strongly or completely with any of the HP characters, but I can imagine what it might be like -- you describe the phenomenon very well. There would seem to be a number of different ways in which one can personally identify with characters. The three characters I most strongly identify with create very different dynamics for me as a reader, because I identify with them on completely different levels, and in completely different *ways,* each of which inspires a slightly different relationship with the text. There's Snape. I identify strongly with Snape, but in a wholly negative sense: he is the sort of person I feel (or fear) that I might well have grown up to be, if my life had taken a rather different turning at around the age of 15 or 16 or so, and he's the person that I'm always on some level terrified that I might become. The points of identification are nearly all the things that I like the very *least* about myself: they're things that I'm relieved to have overcome, or things that I work very hard to suppress. He's a bit like a cautionary tale. ("If you start slipping, you're going to end up just like poor Severus -- so for God's sake, Elkins, *watch* yourself!") That's a painful sort of identification, because it breeds empathy without approval. When Snape is on his worst behavior(end of PoA, for example), he can make me cringe with something very akin to personal embarrassment; when he manages to behave admirably (end of GoF), what I feel is not so much pride as a profound sense of relief. Hermione, on the other hand, is a character I can identify with in a positive sense. I am not all *that* much like her, but there are enough points of identification to allow her to serve as a protagonist for me in a way that Harry simply cannot. (I'm just nothing like Harry. We're completely different types of people.) I am not as kind as she is, nor as generous -- and I am not in the least bit brave -- but I would like to be all of those things, and I'm enough kin to her in other ways that she can serve as a kind of exemplar. When Hermione behaves badly, I feel disappointed in her in a way that I just don't when Ron or Harry show their flaws; and when she does something particularly admirable, I feel gratified on a far more personal level. And then there's Neville. My identification with Neville is value- neutral -- it is neither positive nor negative; it is just there. Primarily it makes me *anxious* with the text, anxious and also extremely irritable, because I so often find myself thinking that Rowling just really doesn't *get* people like Neville -- or therefore, by extension, people like me. She really just doesn't understand us at all. I am often deeply irked by the things she does with Neville -- crazy though this may sound, I feel that she frequently "gets him wrong" -- and I'm deeply fearful over her plans for him in future books. Whatever she ends up doing with him, I feel almost certain that it will anger and offend me. 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. But then, you know. Reader identification can be like that. It's hardly a rational phenomenon to begin with. ---Elkins From ChibiAiChan at cs.com Thu Jan 31 05:59:18 2002 From: ChibiAiChan at cs.com (ChibiAiChan at cs.com) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 00:59:18 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Laughing Sirius Message-ID: <11c.b8de830.298a3736@cs.com> No: HPFGUIDX 34382 In a message dated 1/30/02 9:43:50 PM Pacific Standard Time, djdwjt at aol.com writes: << > 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? > > -SpyGameFan > I've wondered that myself, didn't find any answer in the books (though that's no guarantee there's not one there) and concluded on my own that Pettigrew must have put an Imperius curse on him. After all, if you're going to frame someone, why not pull out all the stops and make him appear really heinous? Though he didn't have much time to (i) blow up the street, (ii) make Sirius laugh, (iii) say "Sirius, how could you?", (iv) cut off his finger, and (v) transform and escape. Pettigrew seemed kind of slow to pull of all that off at once, or to have plotted it all out in advance. >> It could have been kind of like an ironic laugh too. Like as soon as he dissappeared he more or less figured it out, ya know? ^^* <3 Ai-Chan Look, I delurk! From chspnll at pacific.net.in Thu Jan 31 07:03:58 2002 From: chspnll at pacific.net.in (Chris Parnell) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 12:33:58 +0530 Subject: Secular Universes and our current culture; the self In-Reply-To: <1012409804.3680.11830.m3@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34383 Eileen wrote a good comment: I'm rather guessing that the answer is that JKR has, as much as possible, excised religion from her tale, for the simple reason that any way you go, you'll have problems in such a setting. Little remnants from her cultural background still exist: like Draco's "invocations" of God, the monk ghost, the saint names, the godfather, but, on the whole, it's not there. I don't know if we can deduce the relative piety or not of Hogwarts students, wizarding population etc. then, because it seems that something that definitely exists in real life just doesn't get mentioned or noticed in any way. I am a Hindu, actually, and I'd like to make a small contribution to this thread. Not about Hinduism, but about the fact that religion no longer has the moral role and social binding force, that it used to have. Nor does religion the capacity to make a closed culture like it used to, particularly Christianity, although Northern Ireland may be an exception to this suggestion I render. 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. So I agree, and take Eileen's comments even further, that JKR is simply reflecting culture as it is today, with the vestiges of religion as the binding force in the background, or being the forgotten structure that actually binds society. It is largely a secular Potterverse with Christian roots. I dont want to take that any further except to say that it seems appropriate that all these clues are in the background. Harry Potter and co are dealing with a reality that is permeated with the workings of spirit, albeit via wands. What is gradually happening and it may spread, as Mad Eye was trying to teach in DADA, that the real doer or force or power of magic and witchcraft is the self, which lies within. Witness Mad Eye trying to teach students in DADA to resist the Imperius Curse by force of their mind and will, elements of that inner self. My two sickles. CP From Zorb17 at aol.com Thu Jan 31 07:09:30 2002 From: Zorb17 at aol.com (Zorb17 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 02:09:30 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Humor element Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34384 Cindy asked: <> You're in luck - the theatre history class I took last quarter brushed on the types of comedy. Here's the list I have, with some examples: Satire - ridiculing an institution or an individual aligned with an institution; illustrates weaknesses; political in nature; shows an unreal world. HP is rife with this, IMHO. Off the top of my head, I can point out Fudge (actually, the Ministry in general). Farce - physical comedy; characters leave a state of dignity; events get out of control. Again, many examples: the Amazing Bouncing Ferret, Canary Creams, the Ton-Tongue Toffees, to name a few. Parody - ridicules works of art, icons. I think Sir Cadogan falls into this category, as a parody of the chivalrous knight. Dark Comedy - serious theme treated lightly. Once again, all over the place. I'd put the Dursleys' mistreatment of Harry here. Actually, I think the Ferret and other such violent-seeming episodes could fit here as well. Romantic - ridicules the problems of love; harmless misunderstandings. I don't want to touch this one with a thirty-nine and a half foot pole; personal SHIP preferences will likely get in the way of what one considers "harmless." Looking back, I think JKR's got all these bases covered. Am I missing any categories? Zorb [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From theennead at attbi.com Thu Jan 31 08:13:21 2002 From: theennead at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 08:13:21 -0000 Subject: Sirius' Prank & Lupin (WAS Dehumanizing Language--Sirius' Prank) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34385 Jo, who is now worried about sending her child to summer camp, asked: > However, would you want to take your revenge upon any offspring > of any of those people if they happened to fall within your > sphere of influence? No, of course I wouldn't. At least, I should certainly *hope* that I wouldn't. But you know, even if I *did* find in myself that kind of vengeful impulse (which I doubt that I would, but I suppose it's possible), I would still manage to resist it somehow. Desire is one thing. Action is something else entirely. We all have sadistic and vindictive impulses (er...don't we?). That doesn't make it acceptable to go so far as to act on them. I do find Snape's problems with grudge and bitterness and envy and resentment -- as well as his instinct for cruelty -- all highly sympathetic. I identify with them: they're tendencies that I share, things that I have struggled with myself. But his behavior is absolutely appalling, and while I can often (more often than I'm comfortable with, actually) empathize with it, I can in no way *condone* it. (Oh, and BTW, about summer camp? If your child doesn't get picked on regularly at school, then s/he will probably be just fine at summer camp. If your kid's the Designated Scapegoat, on the other hand, as I always was...well, you just never know. S/he might be just fine at summer camp anyway. But I'd be wary.) Cindy wrote: > This isn't going to be easy, but I'm going to give it everything > I've got to explain why Sirius is not so bad, and uh, why Sirius is > not so bad. I think that people may have misunderstood me here. I don't actually think that Sirius is a bad guy at all. I *like* him. Honest, I do. And even the prank doesn't really make me think all that badly of him. It was a monstrously thoughtless and insensitive thing to do, yes. But he was sixteen. I did some pretty stupid things as a teenager myself. I'm perfectly willing to forgive him for the prank, myself. (Hell, easy for *me* to say, right? He didn't play the prank on *me.*) Or, as Cindy wrote: "It was a dumb mistake that a dumb kid made, it's long since over, and that's that." But at the same time, I can't really feel too harshly towards Snape for still feeling angry about it, either. Yeah, I know. It's Snape. He holds onto grudges forever, he can't ever let anything *go,* he's trapped in an arrested state of development, and on top of all of that, he's also cruel and vindictive and sadistic and unjust. Yes, yes, yes. All granted. But I just can't find it in my heart to blame him for this particular grudge. Did he ever even receive an *apology?* I somehow doubt it. Or if he did, then I'll bet it came from James, on Sirius' behalf. Ugh. Horrid even to contemplate. (Not, of course, that I think that he would have accepted an apology, even if one had been offered to him. But still.) And besides, the hostility is hardly one-sided, is it? Sirius gets all snarly over the mention of Snape's name even *before* Snape shows up and starts putting on his Great Big Bad Villain Act. The anger and the hatred are mutual, which doesn't absolve either one of them for being such Big Babies, of course, but which does make me feel more generous about Snape's attitude. Let's face it -- Snape's not exactly a turn-the-other-cheek kind of guy. Unlike his vendetta against Harry, or his viciousness to Lupin, his hatred of Sirius is not and has never been a one-way street. Eh. I agree with you that he can't have been expected to have gained much in the way of maturity while moaning in Azkaban. But he didn't go to prison until he was in his twenties, no? Plenty of time for it to have occurred to him that maybe trying to use one of his best friends as a weapon to murder another teenager might have been a tad, well, *impetuous,* to say the least. Plenty of time to have come to the conclusion that "he was utterly unpleasant, and so deserved it" is perhaps not the most appropriate sentiment to express when you're talking about an action that could have *killed* someone. I mean, I like the guy too, Cindy. But he certainly is *flawed.* Of course, for all we know Sirius might be perfectly willing to acknowledge that his prank was a dreadful error *now*. It has, after all, only come up that one time -- and he was kind of distracted by being all obsessed and hell-bent on his vengeance on Peter at the time. So, you know, I'm not even willing to go so far as to say that he's *not* sufficiently mature these days to admit that he was wrong. I was just saying that the one comment on the event that he *did* make didn't win him any points from me. And that I can't honestly blame Snape for still being peeved about it. As for Lupin... > So here goes, and as a courtesy, I'll throw in some Lupin to soften > you up before we get to Sirius. Lupin can always soften me up. There, now you see? That's precisely why I rearranged the subject matter. Didn't want to get _too_ sloppy while talking about Sirius and Snape, after all. That just wouldn't do. But Lupin now... > I wasn't troubled much by Lupin's behavior in that scene. I didn't > see him as cold-blooded, well, at least for a person about to kill > someone in cold blood. He had a tragic, no-win situation to > resolve, and he dealt with it in a methodical, fair, mature and > business-like manner. I really don't see any other way he could > have reacted consistent with his character....Peter never even > expressed any remorse for what he did, so I don't see how Lupin > even has to reach the question of whether he ought to show mercy. Again, I think that you misunderstood my major point there. What I found so chillingly dehumanizing about Lupin's behavior in the Shrieking Shack wasn't so much his eventual agreement to help Sirius kill Peter (although that is pretty chillingly dehumanizing, IMHO) as it was what I perceived as a decided tinge of sadism that started to creep into his tone toward the end of that scene. Clearly we read his dialogue there very differently. You say that he deals with the matter "in a methodical, fair, mature and business- like manner." I would say that in some ways he does. But in other ways...I don't know. The particular manner in which he addresses Peter himself struck me as fairly sadistic, actually. It's a particular type of sadism, a sadism that masks itself as mild- mannered reasonableness -- 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. Not that I'm equating the two characters, of course. Lupin's a sweetie. But the situation is an ugly one, and it has a nasty effect on all of those people, each according to his temperament. Sirius gets brutal, and Peter grovels pitifully, and Lupin...well, Lupin starts to edge into a rather sophisticated brand of verbal cruelty. That's just how someone of his particular temperament expresses extreme anger and hostility. -- Elkins From lav at tut.by Thu Jan 31 07:22:00 2002 From: lav at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 09:22:00 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Who Will Die? - Sirius Laughing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <592339413.20020131092200@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 34386 Greetings! > Debbie/elfundeb wrote: e> I'd really like to see some more development of Draco as e> a character in OoP. (Ditto the Dursleys, who are e> predictably mean and petty to Harry, summer after summer e> after summer after summer.) Others agree or disagree? e> Debbie You know, now that you have mentioned this, I have started thinking about yet another thread - about "how many more V/H clashes there will be". Assuming that somebody is going to sacrifice own life to save Harry Potter, I think it can be one of Dursleys. Yep, that would be really unexpected, and will leave Harry with a big slap on his face. > SpyGameFun wrote: SGF> I never was quite sure -- maybe I missed the SGF> explanation in the book -- why Sirius was laughing SGF> hysterically after Peter blew up the street full of SGF> Muggles and turned into a rat. Anyone know? SGF> -SpyGameFan IMHO that was mundane hysteria. You haven't missed the explanation anywhere, simply because there is none so far. But I think he just "got off his wheels", as it was too much stress on a single day. Many a muggle was driven insane by the comparable level of psychological damage. Sirius seems to be tougher person. But then he should be such, if we are going to see him fighting Voldemort gang in books 5-7. Yet another possible explanation is that he was laughing to avoid crying. Sounds weird but that's a method I myself use to "save the face" from time to time. Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, (Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed), always happy to throw weird ideas into the community. From ck32976 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 31 13:51:22 2002 From: ck32976 at yahoo.com (ck32976) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 13:51:22 -0000 Subject: Snape's grudge against James for Sirius' prank (WAS Sirius' Prank & Lupin ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34387 All of this discussion (with some very great points) about Sirius's prank, Snape's hatred for Sirius & the rest of the marauders, etc. has got me thinking about Snape. I understand entirely why he hasn't forgiven Sirius. I personally like Sirius very much, but I am able to see how Snape would feel toward him. I don't think that I would be all that willing to forgive him either. (Just a note: As a former camp counselor, I am appalled by the reaction to Elkins' kerosene incident, and I am certain that I would not be able to find it in my heart to forgive those girls!) With that said, I think it is unreasonable that Snape still holds a grudge against Lupin and James. Lupin had no control over himself that night, and had he known what Sirius had done he would have put a stop to it himself. James did save Snape's life. Although IMO he was acting in part to save Sirius & Lupin from the outcome of Snape getting all the way down the tunnel to the Shrieking Shack, he wouldn't have wanted to see Snape dead or turned into a werewolf, regardless of his feelings toward him (also IMO). Snape sees them (the marauders) as one unit, and seems to believe that they were all in on the prank, which I see as very unfair. I'm not saying that he neccessarily has to like James or Lupin, but to blame them for Sirius' actions is uncalled for. He (Snape) even tells Harry that James was in on the prank, and treats Harry terribly because of his hatred for James (not a good quality in a teacher, but that has been discussed). Also, Snape doesn't ever (IIRC) say anything negative about Pettigrew. At first I was thinking that was because he's dead, but death doesn't seem to have gotten James off of the hook. Well, I've babbled on long enough, and I apologize if this post doesn't make all that much sense. I just needed to make that point (assuming that I've made any point at all). Also, I hope that I haven't insulted any Snape fans. Carrie From vheggie at yahoo.com Thu Jan 31 14:14:11 2002 From: vheggie at yahoo.com (vheggie) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 14:14:11 -0000 Subject: name meanings - Lucius, mundungus/Neville Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34388 Only a quickie, because I've barely been able to keep up over the past few weeks, let alone contribute: 1)Both Lucius and Severus were Roman leaders of one sort or another (IIRC Severus lead troops in Britain, and Lucius was Caesar, briefly) - any classical scholars out there able to drag up any information on them? 2) Mundungus Fletcher...YAY! I remember posting some thoughts about him a few months ago; firstly - a fletcher makes arrows - any connection? A Maker of magical weapons? A craftsman of some sort? Secondly - Fletcher Christian was a mutineer form the Bounty - is Mundungus' betrayal or rebellion foreshadowed? Or is this just another way of confirming the 'rumbustuous non-conformist' image we've had of him already? I've seen 'Mundungus' described both as rubbish, and as a particularly acrid smoking tobbacco, so this picture of a grumpy old man who knows a lot more than he's letting on, fits my bill perfectly. 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? From blpurdom at yahoo.com Thu Jan 31 15:18:54 2002 From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 15:18:54 -0000 Subject: Still Crouch and not Moody/Imperius plot hole (Was: Secular Universes) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34389 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Chris Parnell" wrote: > Harry Potter and co are dealing with a reality that is permeated > with the workings of spirit, albeit via wands. What is gradually > happening and it may spread, as Mad Eye was trying to teach in > DADA, that the real doer or force or power of magic and > witchcraft is the self, which lies within. Witness Mad Eye trying > to teach students in DADA to resist the Imperius Curse by force of > their mind and will, elements of that inner self. ::sigh:: That would be all well and good if it really WERE Moody teaching them this. But we must remember that it was Barty Crouch, Jr., and almost everything he did had the purpose of helping Harry to win the Triwizard Tournament so that he would be the one to touch the cup and be transported to Voldemort. That's why he was nice to Neville and gave him the book on Mediterranean water plants. That's why he prodded Harry to figure out to use his flying to get past the dragon. The Imperius lesson is the one thing which Crouch did which doesn't add up. (That's why I wrote "almost everything.") Why should he want Harry--or any of the students--to be able to resist Imperius? The other things he did potentially contributed to Harry winning the Tournament; unless one of the other Champions cursed Harry (and Krum only cursed Cedric when HE was placed under Imperius by Crouch) this wouldn't be a necessary part of his training. In fact, because he learned to resist Imperius, Harry angered Voldemort in the graveyard. (Too bad Harry didn't yet know that Moody was really Crouch, Voldemort's servant, so he could have told Voldemort what a stupid thing his star Death Eater did.) The only possibility that comes to mind is that Crouch wanted to guarantee that Harry COULDN'T overcome Imperius, and the only way he could find out one way or the other was to incorporate it into a lesson. Of course, once he learned that Harry was the only one who came even close to overcoming it completely on the first try, he had no choice but to continue with the lesson, the result being that Harry ended up mastering the resistance. You'd think, though, that after that, Crouch would have contacted Pettigrew to tell him to tell Voldemort not to bother with the Imperius when he confronted Harry, because it would be pointless. (Unless, again, he didn't want to admit to what a stupid thing he did.) I have to say, though, even given my rather insane ability to play devil's advocate for Crouch and concoct the above excuse for him, I think that JKR didn't think of this possibility and the Imperius lesson is really just a big ole plot hole. During the time he was under Veritaserum, Crouch outlined his entire plan for Harry and Dumbledore. Teaching Harry to overcome Imperius wasn't part of the plan he discussed. Harry needed to learn to overcome Imperius to confront Voldemort, and this is how he learned. There's no logical reason for Crouch to do this. I doubt it would even be in character for the real Moody, so he doesn't have that excuse either. JKR quite simply needed for Harry to learn to do this and she failed to come up with a plausible rationale for it. --Barb http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HP_Psych http://schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb From bonnie at niche-associates.com Thu Jan 31 15:36:39 2002 From: bonnie at niche-associates.com (dicentra_spectabilis_alba) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 15:36:39 -0000 Subject: Dehumanizing Language--Sirius' Prank In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34390 > On the subject of Granting Slack To Characters We Like, I wrote: > > > For an example of this phenomenon, I might cite my own vehement > > condemnation of Moody for using nasty language to describe > > Karkaroff in the Pensieve scene of GoF, while noting my own utter > > lack of dismay over Sirius' use of similarly unkind and degrading > > language to refer to Pettigrew in PoA. > > Eileen said: > > > That's a funny example, b/c I find it hard to stomach Sirius's > > attitude in that scene, even though I can offer up a million > > justifications for it. There's something about its dehumanization > > of Pettigrew that just sickens me. > > Well, yes. It *is* sickening. It has to be, I think, for the scene > to work. All of the adult characters allow themselves to become > distressingly dehumanized there; IMO, that's precisely what makes > that entire sequence so very effective. [snip Elkins's horrific summer-camp episode, which I wouldn't forget, either] I've got to pop my two sickles in here, folks. One thing we're forgetting is that Sirius and Lupin (and the rest of the WW, except Harry's generation) went through an all-out war. When your friends and family are being betrayed, tortured, and murdered, the stakes change dramatically. It's life or death you have to worry about, not whether the language you're using is "dehumanizing." Peter effectively murdered James and Lily, and Sirius's and Remus's emotions about that incident aren't going to fade with time--you don't just "get over" something like that. In their minds, killing Peter wasn't revenge so much as it was the elimination of a very real threat in their midst--a continuation of the war. It's very hard for those of us who've never had war in our streets to understand, but someone who knows what it's like to see your friends and family killed by the enemy isn't going to judge Sirius and Remus harshly at all, just as Elkins doesn't judge Snape for still being angry about the 20-year-old prank. It's easy to be disturbed by what happened in the Shrieking Shack (I think that was the point in many ways) but I don't know how justified we are in "having a problem" with Sirius or Remus or Severus, for that matter, because we *don't really know* what they've been through. As for the hatred between Sirius and Severus, remember that they've shared more than boyhood rivalry at Hogwarts--they were on opposite sides of the war. Sirius knows Severus supported Voldemort, and it's entirely possible that he hates him for being on the side that killed his friend and who knows who else that Sirius loved. If you were a family member or friend of someone who was lost on 9/11, could you have friendly feelings for an Al Qaida defector? Ever? JKR means to deal with the extremely difficult emotions and consequences that result from death and murder. She's pulled the kid gloves off. So should we. --Dicentra, who's also done despicable things in the past and therefore forgives Sirius From marybear82 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 31 15:42:36 2002 From: marybear82 at yahoo.com (Mary Shearer) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 07:42:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] RE: Who will die? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020131154236.2683.qmail@web14004.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 34391 --- "Balfour, Julie [HES]" 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. (Can't remember where I > read/saw this - Steve?) 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). Also JKR is a > massive fan of Hagrid's - she always lists him > amongst her favourite characters and, knowing how > much she values her loyal friends (see the BBC > documentary shown over Xmas,) I believe that his > character is very important to her plotline - I > think Hagrid will die defending Harry. I have never spent any time on this list contemplating who might be given the axe, but you may be right...I saw the interview with Rowling on this topic on A&E's "Biography." She did appear to be very sad about having to write this particular character's death. If it *is* Hagrid, not only is she going to have to write a death scene for a favorite character, she is going to have to portray the grief that comes in its wake. How will this affect Harry, a young man with too much sorrow heaped on him to begin with? Hermione, who champions Hagrid fiercely? And Ron, who hasn't had to deal with a major tragedy in his young life yet? Quite enough to make any author look wistful. Builds a pretty good case for Hagrid to be the one, if JKR wants to write a pivotal death scene yet keep the trio intact. > Mind you, I am not looking forward to reading it if > it is true! Oh - I am! But I looooove all the emotionally charged scenes. I was a delighted soggy mess at the end of GoF, and, much as I would hate to lose Hagrid, there would certainly be plenty of emotional resonance to go around. Mary - who really, truly isn't bloodthirsty...just loves a good melodrama. Question - *would* such a scene degenerate into melodrama? Somehow, I don't think JKR would allow it - but I trust her to make it plenty dramatic. > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com From bonnie at niche-associates.com Thu Jan 31 15:42:46 2002 From: bonnie at niche-associates.com (dicentra_spectabilis_alba) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 15:42:46 -0000 Subject: Laughing Sirius In-Reply-To: <11c.b8de830.298a3736@cs.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34392 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., ChibiAiChan at c... wrote: > In a message dated 1/30/02 9:43:50 PM Pacific Standard Time, djdwjt at a... > writes: > > << > 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? > > > > -SpyGameFan > > > I've wondered that myself, didn't find any answer in the books > (though that's no guarantee there's not one there) and concluded on > my own that Pettigrew must have put an Imperius curse on him. After > all, if you're going to frame someone, why not pull out all the stops > and make him appear really heinous? Though he didn't have much time > to (i) blow up the street, (ii) make Sirius laugh, (iii) say "Sirius, > how could you?", (iv) cut off his finger, and (v) transform and > escape. Pettigrew seemed kind of slow to pull of all that off at > once, or to have plotted it all out in advance. >> > > It could have been kind of like an ironic laugh too. Like as soon as he > dissappeared he more or less figured it out, ya know? ^^* > > <3 Ai-Chan > Look, I delurk! We don't know for sure that Sirius was laughing at all. We only have the word of Cornelius Fudge, and I don't have much faith in his version of the events. For all we know, Sirius was sobbing into his hands, or standing there nonplussed, or trying to revive a Muggle, or whatever. --Dicentra, who doesn't trust Fudge at all From ck32976 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 31 14:30:38 2002 From: ck32976 at yahoo.com (ck32976) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 14:30:38 -0000 Subject: Lucius theory In-Reply-To: <20020130223305.85984.qmail@web20302.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34393 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Suki Jones wrote: > > And judging on the way Rowling names her character's > after other character's in history and by the > meaning's > of their names, I have a suspicion about an ancient > character named Lucius. He was the only remaining > character to remain loyal in a very famous story. > On the names subject; > Narcissa means "self-loved". It's after the story of a > > boy who looked into his reflection and fell in love > with himself. The result was not good. > Anyway, what do you think? > ~St* Although I commend you for going out on a limb with your Malfoy theory, and I find it interesting, I cannot agree totally. You say here that the character in the famous story "remains loyal". Lucius has remained loyal ... to Voldemort. I don't have GoF handy to find the quote, but in the graveyard scene, V says something about Lucius not renouncing the old ways. Even if what you are trying to say is that Lucius is "undercover", Muggle torture doesn't seem to me the kind of position a person for the "good" side would willingly take on. Unless of course he is really trying to hide his true loyalties, but I cannot bring myself to see this. On the other hand, I have noticed JKR's habit of placing great meaning in the names of characters, so I cannot explain the meaning of his name, unless of course it is a reference to the remaining loyal thing. I'm certainly not trying to burst your bubble, because it is an interesting theory, I just needed to add my input. Carrie From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Thu Jan 31 14:47:45 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 14:47:45 -0000 Subject: Snape mentioning Peter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34394 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ck32976" wrote: > Also, Snape > doesn't ever (IIRC) say anything negative about Pettigrew. At first I > was thinking that was because he's dead, but death doesn't seem to > have gotten James off of the hook. As far as I can remember, Snape never says anything much about Pettigrew at all, good or bad. I suspect he doesn't consider him worth mentioning. Pete was (in Snape's view, if not necessarily in reality) just a marginal hanger-on with the *real* Marauders, and therefore beneath Snape's notice. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From jbryson at richmond.infi.net Thu Jan 31 15:21:28 2002 From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 15:21:28 -0000 Subject: Musing About Mundungus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34395 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "finwitch" wrote: > But Sirius might need help to persuade EVERYONE the fact he's > innocent to the crime of murdering the very-much-alive Peter > Pettigrew! (Hm. Peter grew petty?) What Serius needs (and all he needs), is for the wizarding public to see Wormtail, dead or alive, in custody or not. Black only needs to show that he didn't Vaporize Pettigrew at the time of James and Lilly's murders. Once that's done, he's cleared. I think. Interesting that nobody did a Prior Incantatus on Black's wand, when he was arrested. I think even the Los Angeles Police would have done at least that! Tex From mrgrrrargh at aol.com Thu Jan 31 15:40:17 2002 From: mrgrrrargh at aol.com (mrgrrrargh at aol.com) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 10:40:17 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Laughing Sirius/Peter's wand/Humor Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34396 Judy: > Anyway, I don't remember Snape insulting James in GoF > I do believe that it was in PoA... during the "candy in pockets" scene. As for the humor: One of my favorite jokes was in GoF when Voldie tells Wormtail that his task would be something that most of his followers would give their right hand to perform. Only funny on the second reading. Cassie: > What happened to Pettigrew's wand after he transformed? I assumed that much like robes it stays with the person when they transform. Judy (Again): > So, he laughs at the irony of it all. That was my best guess too, but why has no one in the books questioned that? -Spy Game Fan (who is now quoting above the response now -- because the list elves run my life *weg*) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From wmj007 at hotmail.com Thu Jan 31 15:41:42 2002 From: wmj007 at hotmail.com (engbama) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 15:41:42 -0000 Subject: Laughing Sirius;'Hagrid death';Silver Hand;Lucifer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34397 Vin Wrote in part... > As "Amanda Snape" already stated, Lucifer, of which lucius is(or > seems to be) a derivative of, is the name for Satan and > means "Lightbearer". [Material removed.] > Fudge is clearly offended even at the mention of LV, let alone his > followers, and it could be a comparison to Satan to say that > Lucious Malfoy is trusted by Fudge, but wants instead to take his > job. > > Well, those are my thoughts, any replies? > > ---Vin Yes as a matter of fact I do have a reply to this line of reasoning. I tend to agree with you in part; however, not entirely. While I agree that "Lucius" is most likely a play on "Lucifer" and thus at some point in his background Lucius Malfoy was most likely a "good" person - IMO I think that "trusted" is a better word than "good" - He "fell from grace" - No religeous overtones intended here - or rather he has had his private falling and will yet have his public one. Also as has been stated before - thought I can't remember who posted it to give them credit said that "Malfoy" could be latin for "bad faith" OR in other words that He can't be trusted. There are my thoughts on what I agree with ... Now for what I don't. I do not think that Fudge considers LM to be his follower or his pal but that he is just a human ostrich who sticks his head in the sand at the first sign of danger so that he will not have to deal with something that he feels is not going to happen - because he refuses to believe that LV can come back. (I think the previous sentence is a run-on but I am not sure how to fix it - English never was my strong point.) All of the previous paragraph is my opinion. If I am wrong then let's hope that what JKR makes it interesting! ENGBAMA - ENGineer from AlaBAMA trying to graduate From ck32976 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 31 15:25:05 2002 From: ck32976 at yahoo.com (ck32976) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 15:25:05 -0000 Subject: Wormtail's willingness (Was: Sirius, Squeamishness) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34398 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > Wormtail? He's one of the few characters who we know doesn't like to > kill people or see people killed, although he did what he had to do > when he blasted all those Muggles on the street. That assessment is > based on Wormtail's reluctance to curse/kill someone in GoF, and his > unwillingness to look Harry in the eye in the graveyard. > > Thoughts? > > Cindy Also, Wormtail killed Cedric. Yes it was on Voldemort's orders, but he did kill him. So we know that although he may not particularly like to kill, he will do it. Carrie ***A note from your friendly mod, here. This message was edited to reflect the change of topic (from Sirius to Peter). And a note to Carrie that this short message and the previous short message (about Malfoy) should probably have been combined. But due to moderator error, I did not realize two emails were from the same member. However, as the content is fine, I'm letting this through with those notes. (Gwenny Elf)*** From mrgrrrargh at aol.com Thu Jan 31 15:54:48 2002 From: mrgrrrargh at aol.com (mrgrrrargh at aol.com) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 10:54:48 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] harry potter and me photos Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34399 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? -Spy Game Fan 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. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cindysphynx at home.com Thu Jan 31 16:07:10 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 16:07:10 -0000 Subject: Sirius' Prank & Lupin & What Would Dumbledore Do? In-Reply-To: <114.ba1e765.298a7521@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34400 My goodness! So many excellent comments about my favorite characters in my favorite scene in my favorite book! I have a lot to say, but I'll try to avoid repeating myself: ***************** Eloise wrote (about Lupin's mild-mannered behavior): > But to me, Lupin's silence in the face of Snapes nastiness is a sign of his > maturity. He's not on the verge of being a > doormat, he's just too big to get involved in such pettiness. Good points. I guess I'm not saying Lupin should get right down in the mud with Snape and sink to Snape's level to prove he's not a doormat. But there are ways to stand up for yourself without getting immature about it. Granted, we don't know what, if anything Lupin does to stand up for himself when Harry is not around. Part of what I liked about Lupin-The-Cold-Blooded-Killer in the Shrieking Shack is that, without that scene, we would have no way to know that Lupin is Tough. After that scene, I left with the feeling that Lupin is going to be a valuable soldier in the war. He isn't going to become violent for no reason, but he will use violence for a good reason, and he'll do what he has to do. Compare Lupin to Hagrid, for instance. Both are gentle men. I feel confident, however, that in the fight against Voldemort, Lupin can be counted on to do the right thing in the right way, that his response to a threat will be measured and precise. Hagrid? Who the heck knows how he'll respond to a threat, whether real, perceived or imagined. That tough and reliable part of Lupin's character was established almost entirely in the Shrieking Shack scene. So, yeah, I liked that Lupin can be a Cold Blooded Killer. 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? Eloise again: > Exactly, Lupin can forgive, but does that speak about Sirius' special > qualities, or Lupin's? I'd say both. Lupin can forgive Sirius because Lupin is thoughtful and mature, of course. But I think if Sirius were just a hot-headed, irrational jerk and nothing more, then Lupin would have decided Sirius' friendship wasn't worth the trouble and just cut him loose and moved on. Lupin's ability to forgive reflects well on Lupin, but it also tells us that there is more to Sirius than meets the eye. Elkins wrote (about Sirius): > I think that people may have misunderstood me here. I don't > actually think that Sirius is a bad guy at all. I *like* him. > Honest, I do. Doh! You mean I squandered my best pro-Sirius rant to preach to the converted? Now I have no ammunition left if some anti-Sirius member shows up next week. :-) Elkins again: >I'm perfectly willing > to forgive him for the prank, myself. (Hell, easy for *me* to say, > right? He didn't play the prank on *me.*) After I posted my pro-Sirius rant, I realized I had omitted something important about Snape. Most of us operate on the assumption that Snape was the victim of the prank, and then we move on to whether Snape ought to bear a grudge against Sirius. In fact, there were at least three victims of the prank: Snape, Lupin and James. James was a victim because he risked his own life to save Snape, and James might have been expelled had Snape been injured or killed. James is a completely innocent victim, but we know that he nevertheless remained close friends with Sirius until James died. That suggests that James was able to forgive Sirius right away and move on. Lupin (as I said earlier) is a victim. Had Snape been bitten or killed, Lupin would have been expelled for sure. He might have also been executed (think Buckbeak). Lupin is a completely innocent victim, and the one who had the most to lose. Then there's Snape. No way is Snape a completely innocent victim of this prank. He was being nosy, and his motives were not pure. He was snooping specifically to get the Marauders expelled. No one dragged him to the Willow to follow Lupin; Snape went there voluntarily, for all the wrong reasons. That doesn't excuse what Sirius did, of course, but Snape surely bears some responsibility for what happened. Lupin (and James) is a completely innocent victim in this prank and Snape is not. That's why I think that if Lupin (and James) can forgive Sirius, then Snape ought to be able to get over his grudge, too, and the grudge does not justify Snape's behavior in PoA toward Sirius or Lupin. Elkins again (about Snape): >But I just can't find it in my heart to blame him for this > particular grudge. Did he ever even receive an *apology?* > I somehow doubt it. Or if he did, then I'll bet it came from > James, on Sirius' behalf. Interesting point. I feel certain that Sirius never apologized for the prank and that he never, ever will. No way. Not gonna happen. Sirius didn't inherit the apology gene. He doesn't apologize for choking Harry, tackling Harry, breaking Ron's leg, slashing the Fat Lady, slashing the curtains, and helping get Harry's parents killed. He does manage to eek out a "Forgive me, Remus" for thinking Lupin was the spy and he apologizes for startling Harry, but those are the least of Sirius' transgressions. That said, it is possible that Sirius will "apologize" in some other way. You have to understand that I think Sirius has a big bull's eye on his back and will never survive the series. I wonder if it is more likely that Sirius will die saving Snape's neck than he will die saving Harry. Wouldn't that be something to see? In some respects, Sirius' character seems internally inconsistent, even without considering how he is different in GoF. Sirius seems to have no "guilt receptors" with respect to the prank. He just doesn't get it, and can't feel any remorse about it. On the other hand, he feels tremendously guilty about his role in changing the secretkeeper. Regardless of what Sirius proposed, it was James who made the decision to use Peter. Nevertheless, Sirius sees James' death as Sirius' fault. The prank was a much worse error in judgment than the secretkeeper fiasco, yet Sirius doesn't see it that way. Why? Elkins again (on Sirius' arrested development): >But he didn't go to prison until he was in his twenties, no? > Plenty of time for it to have occurred to him that maybe trying > to use one of his best friends as a weapon to murder another > teenager might have been a tad, well, *impetuous,* to say the > least. According to the time-line, Sirius went to Azkaban 2 years after Hogwarts. That would have meant Sirius was around 20. I think there's precious little difference in maturity between an 18-year old and a 20-year old man. I would expect no growth at all out of Sirius in those two years, and that's exactly what happened. As for Snape's lack of growth, I'm can't accept the idea that he's developmentally arrested because he is still teaching at Hogwarts. Once Snape becomes a teacher, his role changes and his outlook should change. He has 12 years of real-world life experience that Sirius just doesn't have. No, the only excuse I can think of for Snape's arrested development is his status as half-dementor. :-) Elkins again (about Lupin's dialogue in the Shrieking Shack): >Lupin starts to edge into a rather sophisticated brand of verbal > cruelty. That's just how someone of his particular temperament > expresses extreme anger and hostility. Yes, I think we are reading that scene differently, although I think your point is quite valid. I took another look, and Lupin seems to have two types of dialogue once Peter reappears. Much of what Lupin says to Peter is just effective cross-examination: "I'd like to clear up one or two little matters with you, Peter, if you'd be so --" "You knew Sirius was going to break out of Azkaban . . . When nobody has ever done it before?" "I must admit, Peter, I have difficulty in understanding why an innocent man would want to spend twelve years as a rat." The remainder of Lupin's dialogue with Peter is really rather matter- of-fact, which is a cover for the surprise that Peter is alive: "Well, hello, Peter . . . Long time, no see." "We've been having a little chat, Peter, . . You might have missed the finer points while you were squeaking around down there on the bed." "No one is going to try and kill you until we've sorted a few things out." That leaves us with Lupin's parting line: "You should have realized . . . if Voldemort didn't kill you, we would. Good-bye, Peter." I didn't see a whole lot of sarcasm, anger and hostility there. Cindy (confident that Lupin could find paid work as a lawyer) From jbryson at richmond.infi.net Thu Jan 31 16:09:20 2002 From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 16:09:20 -0000 Subject: What Does It Mean To "Like" A Character? -- "Types" -- Hagrid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34401 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lucky_kari" wrote: > I also find it difficult to see > Sirius's POV in the Black/Snape debate. I'm not sure we know all we need to know(or all we will finally know) about the Sirius/ Snape incident. Black tells us he told Snape--what? Oviously he said enough to lure Snape into the Whomping tree, which all the Hogwart students must have known about at the time, but not about the werewolf thing. But why? Black just tells us he did it, not why. I hope we find out more later, and I think the jury should stay out until then. I wonder if Snape Cajoled at least some information from Pettigrew, and that what Black said was based on what Snape already knew. Could it be that Snape Black-owled them because he wanted to see a real werewolf? Tex From moongirlk at yahoo.com Thu Jan 31 16:40:23 2002 From: moongirlk at yahoo.com (moongirlk) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 16:40:23 -0000 Subject: ... & Non-Characters In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34402 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > > Kimberly wrote: > > > Mundungus Fletcher is far and away my favorite of the characters > > we've never actually met, or even of the lower echelon of > characters > > we have met. > Cindy mused: > It is funny that we can have favorite non-characters, isn't it? I know, I think it prooves that even if this stuff doesn't end up in the category of capital-L Literature someday, it's definitely top- shelf entertainment. In Mundungus Fletcher's case it's the name, coupled with the *rottenness* of the few things we do know about him. I love the name - I have a thing for the way things sound (in fact I collect yellow elephants simply because it's fun to say yellow elephant) and Mundungus is about the funnest name to say I think I've ever encountered (and then also I like the Fletch movies, if that matters). But the fact that every time he's mentioned it's as doing something sort of... mischevious, adds to the fun of him. I just can't wait to get to know him. Cindy again: 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. That's so strange - I had the same thought. Diggle has the same sort of wacky reputation as Fletcher, but somehow he doesn't do it for me the way Gus does. Weird. Toss > in Rookwood and Mulciber, and I don't see how OoP can miss > > Cindy (starting to sweat bullets because it is almost February and we > don't have an OoP release date) I keep telling myself all this waiting is character-building. It's good to learn delayed gratification, right? kimberly who never listens to herself when she's going on about building character. From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Thu Jan 31 16:53:25 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 16:53:25 -0000 Subject: US/English Versions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34403 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "~ chappnee ~" wrote: > Well I think I have the ideal position here. I live in Canada so saying so > would mean that I'm extremely familiar or, at most, talk with American > slang. As most of you might know, Canada's version of the books was the > British version and I have to tell you, that even though I had no idea what > a prefect was (I'm assuming that it is a common term in Britain?), what > 'bogies' were, and what she meant by 'jumper', it wasn't the hardest thing > in the world to figure out. English boarding school novels had introduced me to the "prefect". While I first thought "bogies" might be another word for multiple "bogie-men", thus making the jellybean more disgusting, if you think about it, that didn't interrupt my reading in any way, and it became perfectly obvious what the word meant when it was in a Troll's nose, for heaven's sakes! 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. It seemed obvious enough in the text. As for British food, I had no idea until very recently what a Yorkshire puddding was, for heaven's sake, but I liked the sound of it. Later, I learned that I hated the taste of it, but that's another story. One of the funniest things I've always found about British books is the food. In a book set outside of the English speaking world, exotic food is well exotic. But food described in English that really doesn't sound right in your culture is charming. For example, "Ron reached for another piece of steak and kidney pie!" My response: "What? ICCCCCCCKKKK!" (Though I'm sure it's very good. :-) or in the Railway Children, the line that always cracked us up at school was where someone makes a remark about how strange it felt to be eating apple pie for breakfast instead of pigeon pie! > > The whole issue with confusing 'soccer' and > 'football' didn't matter much to me at all. In fact, even though I > understood it to mean Canadian football, it didn't confuse me because it's a > minor detail and not significant to the plot. It took about three readings in to remember that Dean Thomas's favourite football team was playing soccer. And I know the difference between the words. But, as you pointed out, it's not essential to the plot. >Maybe if someone > outside of scholastic were to taunt them saying, "Canadians can do it, what > makes you think Americans can't?" would have changed their mind because now > it is a question of pride which I believe is a weak spot. WOOOOHOOOO! Somehow I think that would have worked. >I think he > totally misjudged the capabilities of the American public because the way I > see it, there isn't that much of a difference between Canadians and > Americans except that Americans present themselves as being unintelligent - > maybe they are, I don't know, but I doubt they are _that_ stupid - and maybe > Canadians are a little more reserved. Not unintelligent, but Americans really are pretty clueless about what goes on outside their country. This is unfortunate imho because they tend to assume the best about everyone else, and fall for any imposition other countries try. One of the more harmless being that Canadians are very polite and humble. :-) I've had a long experience in both countries, and while Canadians will say, "Sorry" to a lamppost they ran into, it often is the equivalent of "What the **** are you doing?" Canadians are more prone to road-rage, studies have shown. There was a story about a year ago in the national newspapers that there is a consensus amongst the international diplomatic community, that Canada is one of the more arrogant countries in the world. I think one French diplomat put it as, "You sit down to dinner with a Canadian and they immediately start boasting about their health-care system and how they aren't Americans, and acting as if you were from some third world country that doesn't measure up to Canada." (OK, that's a paraphrase.) In fact, the strong anti-American feeling that seems to permeate Canadians would probably shock our unwitting neighbours south of the border........ Anyway, I'm a Canadian who loves the U.S., and give me the "Ma'ams" you'll get in much of the U.S. vs. the "Yous" that you'll get in Canada, any time. (Though I still have my reasons for preferring my country.) > > 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! Yes indeed! >I liked finding out the way they refer to certain > things in Britian (or at least England) just like I loved finding out that > Americans have differen't 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! I remember being at the Dallas-Fort Worth airport when I was 9 or so, and the lady was saying "soda? soda? soda?" and was thinking, "whiskey and soda?", "soda with your hamburger?" My mother finally heard it and said. "Soda is pop." > I also liked seeing it written with the " 'u' spice " in > the word 'flavour'. It's my little pet-peeve. I can't understand why > Americans would drop the 'u' in flavour. It just doesn't look right! Noah Webster decided that the U.S. needed a different spelling to go with their new national identity. Go figure, but I think he will rot in hell for all the pain he has given me over the years. Yours Truly, Eileen From boyblue_mn at yahoo.com Thu Jan 31 16:57:58 2002 From: boyblue_mn at yahoo.com (boyblue_mn) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 16:57:58 -0000 Subject: OT: Can there be Magic? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34404 This is off topic in terms of Harry Potter, but it is on topic in explaining that Harry Potter, Diagon Alley and magic are very real possibilities, and hopefully this will stimulate your imagination. Can there be Magic? -Can there be Magic space like Diagon Alley? -Can there be Magic itself; magic forces or energy? Recently while traveling to Los Angeles, I bought a 'Discovery' magazine that unlocked the answers to the above questions, and the answer to all of them is YES. The Physical World- Did you know that, according to science's best calculations, that the physical world as we know it, every spark of energy, every atom, every rock, tree, grain of sand, every galaxy, every star, planet, and speck of space dust, only represents about 4% of the universe. I'm not saying OUR star or OUR planet, I'm saying that the accumulation of everything that we perceive as the physical universe is only about 4% of the true universe. 96% of all that exists is in a dimension or form that is beyond our ability to detect or comprehend. The rest of the unseen universe is made up of 'dark matter' and 'dark energy'. In a way, it is a shame they named it 'dark' matter. That makes it sound like they are saying evil matter, but in this case 'dark' simply means unseen. Dark Matter/Dark Energy- By matter, we mean anything with substance, anything we perceive to be solid, tangible, and real. So, if there can be a real tangible world of matter and substance that is unseen by us mere muggles, that would seem to be the magic world; the world of unseen/dark matter. A world of a magnitude beyond the greatest muggles comprehension. That would seem to explain the existence of Diagon Alley. If we combine all the ordinary matter and all the unseen/dark matter, we can still only account for 1/3 of the universe. That leaves the remaining 2/3's as unseen/dark energy. If our perception of the spectrum and intensity of muggle energy is as great as it is, imagine how powerful the energy that makes up the other 2/3's of the universe must be. It must be an energy and force capable of things beyond the mere muggle's wildest dreams. There is also a residual 'static' of unseen/dark energy and matter. Periodically, for micro units of time, bits and pieces of the unseen world pop into the real world then quicly disappear, and these crossovers are detectable as this unseen/dark static. So if the boundary between the seen and unseen, the muggle and magic world, is being crossed by this random static, then surly any one who has a command of the unseen/dark forces that make up 96% of the universe, can cross that boundary at will. So there you have it, the existence of matter, of material substance, capable of comprising the physical magic world, and the existence of forces capable of doing things that are beyond a muggle's ability to even imagine, capable of doing magical things. We mere mortals, we mere muggles are so arrogant as to believe that our reality is the total reality. That we are the center of the universe and all things are defined by our existence. Well, my mere mortals, my mere muggles, our reality is no more than a footnote, in the true reality of the universe. BB From lee_hillman at urmc.rochester.edu Thu Jan 31 16:58:21 2002 From: lee_hillman at urmc.rochester.edu (Hillman, Lee) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 11:58:21 -0500 Subject: Types of Humour (and HP examples) Message-ID: <95774A6A6036D411AFEA00D0B73C864303B057DB@exmc3.urmc.rochester.edu> No: HPFGUIDX 34405 Hi, ho, it's Gwenny-the-pedant here, bringing you another of my fascinating treatises on something that has nothing to do with what I should be doing right now! Cindy asked: "So here's the question: what are the types of humor? Does anyone know, and are there examples of these categories in canon?" Fret not, Cindy, I have decided to procrastinate while answering your questions! This is all out of my cagey memory, so I hope others will chime in with further breakdowns if this email sparks them. Also, I'll be supplying examples from HP as I can think of them, but pardon me if this explanation uses performance as its framework. As an actor, this is how I learned this stuff. First off, there are of course two main branches of comedy: High and Low. High comedy is generally more cerebral in nature. That is, the humour comes from shared intelligence and an assumption that the audience is paying close attention to the words being spoken. Low comedy is generally more physical in nature, and often plays to, interestingly enough, the lowest common denominators of human frailty. So, within these two categories, there are different "types" of humour. I'll start with the Low Comic Humour classifications first. And note, these aren't necessarily "official," just convenient labels: 1. Physical humour. This is often confused with slapstick, since they're very similar. But purely physical humour is still *realistic* humour. The best example I can think of in general is an episode of "Frasier" that aired last season, featuring Niles trying to iron a pair of pants. If you've seen it, you know what I'm talking about--unfortunately, I can't describe it well enough and it would take too long. Suffice to say that physical humour sets up situations where the audience sees something in the physical world (or is clued in to that object or person) and the joke builds on how that object affects the people interacting with it. There aren't many instances of physical humour in HP, probably because it is so visual in nature. I suppose the Canary Cream would count here. 2. Slapstick. Slapstick is different from physical humour, because by its nature it involved the interactions of people with each other or with things in a non-realistic way. It is exaggerated, and it is generally violent (physical humour alone need not be violent). Slapstick is a good way to categorize things like Snape blasting Lockhart across the room with his spell, or perhaps a better example is when the kids curse each other. This is Three Stooges stuff. Pies in the face, things like that. Non-realistic. 3. Scatological humour. Scatological humour is about the lowest most comedy gets. It's any joke based on a bodily function, the more embarrassing, the better. So Ron's line about "Uranus" is a scatological joke, but flatulence, dungbombs, Wormtail's insult to Snape on the map, etc.--these are all based on scatological sources as well. A great example is when Harry's wand gets stuck in the troll's nose in PS/SS. (Troll bogies!) HP is actually peppered with this stuff, which is probably not an accident, because kids at that age think scatological humour is the best stuff going. Scatological humour can be either physical or verbal, but it's usually classified as low. 4. Low sexual humour. Sex, being such a central part of life, actually gets a place in both High and Low comedy. It's how it's handled that's the difference. Ron's "Uranus" line could get itself a double entry here, because it's also a proposition of sorts. Generally, we haven't seen too much low sexual humour in the books. An outside example would be any instance of a man winding up with his nose inside a buxom woman's cleavage (something I've had to do in no less than 4 shows in 2 years!), because it's both clearly sexual in nature and completely obvious. The kids speculating about Hagrid and Maxime might apply as low sexual humour, but I'm not sure about that. High Comedy 1. While we're on the subject of sex, high sexual comedy generally involves romantic tension. So the entire chapter "The Unexpected Task" in GoF would count, especially his conversation with Cho. It's not the crude sort of nudge, nudge, wink, wink humour of low sexual comedy. It's lighter. It has more to do with the knowledge of the audience that they know something the characters don't, or that the characters do know but are trying to work around. 2. One-upmanship. This can slip into low comedy pretty quickly, especially as insults become less about wit and more about "Yo' Mamma." But one-upping a rival is generally a high form of comedy. Draco's snappy comments and Harry's comment about Dudley learning the days of the week generally fall into this category. Again, it's verbal in nature, for the most part, and it's about establishing a pecking order. See again the insults on the Marauder's Map. 3. Timing. This is a hard one to qualify, since physical routines, by definition a low comic form, rely on timing or they don't work. But in high comedy, timing refers to the drawing-room comedy complications such as "who's behind the curtain" and one character leaving a room just as the other one enters. Timing humour occurs when characters know things other characters don't, or when by accident of entrance/exit/getting caught, a character is either present or absent while important/funny stuff is going on. Technically Snape's getting knocked out in the shack might qualify, but not really, since it's an example of timing for tension. Neville's meeting with Harry by the humpbacked witch is sort of an example. Snape popping up behind the kids every time they're insulting him is another. 4. Farce. This is one of the most famous forms of comedy, especially in the form of mistaken identity. Twins who look nothing alike, but whom no one can tell apart. Long lost family members. Extraordinary circumstances. Farce operates on the confusion and contrast of appearance with reality. Much of Rowling's descriptive humour involves farce. The Dursleys, for example. Vernon's outspoken opinions are very much to be taken as a farce, as is Dudley's tyrannical example of a spoiled brat. Farce is over-the-top, melodramatic humour. Farce also moves up and down the scale from high to low, but generally the audience has to be paying attention for the payoff, so I'm including it as a high form. Quibble away, it's my essay. 5. Abstract or off-beat humour. This type of high comedy takes advantage of the non-sequitur, or the bizarre twist. Dumbledore is the personification of off-beat humour. From the scar shaped like a map of the Underground to the school alma mater to the socks in the mirror to the room filled with really excellent chamber pots, Dumbledore is always a little unbalanced. But funny. 6. High-reference. "It's not obscure, it's high-reference." Like abstract humour, this is only going to appeal to the people who get it. It's humour based on a common frame of reference, and depending on how mainstream the reference, the more people will get it. An HP example would be the "Salem Witches' Institute," which is a joke on a couple levels. Another is the reference to Cockroach Cluster, which as someone recently pointed out, is a Monty Python reference. Those who think that Lockhart is based on that poncy designer fellow (Laurence ???) are crediting Rowling with a high-reference caricature (not saying they're wrong, just who knows?). 7. Puns and wordplay. This is perhaps the highest of high comedy. Witty and quick comments or elabourately set up shaggy dogs, when high comedy is based on the cerebral, there can be nothing higher than jokes that rely on a facility for language. Rowling liberally sprinkles puns all through the books (and we use them around here a lot, too). Anything ending in "Alley" is a pun on the adverbial form of the word used. Her puns come out less in dialogue than in description, however. Wordplay by itself is different than the aforementioned one-upmanship, because one-upping is by definition insulting; wordplay need not be. Snape likes to play with words, and so does McGonagall, actually. Fred and George look for loopholes in language, but that's not quite the same thing. Here's another one. "I'm taking Sirius Black seriously. Seriously." And that's it. I think I hit all the major forms, or that at least, anything I missed sorta falls into one category or another. Now, it's important to remember that not everyone likes every kind of comedy, and that even people who generally claim, for example, not to like slapstick may still find a particular instance of it to be humourous. But JKR seems to represent most of the types pretty interchangeably, as appropriate, which I think is another explanation for her widespread appeal. Any thoughts? Additions? Refutations? Gwen From jbryson at richmond.infi.net Thu Jan 31 17:05:00 2002 From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 17:05:00 -0000 Subject: Laughing Fudge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34406 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "dicentra_spectabilis_alba" wrote: > --Dicentra, who doesn't trust Fudge at all That's two of us. Fudge was smiling after the Dementor did its thing on Crouch, Jr.. You wouldn't want to take a Dementor along for protection unless you could _really_ control it. IMHO, it was no accident that the Dementor ate Crouch, Jr. while under Fudge's control. That doesn't mean Fudge is a DE, but Crouch Jr. may have known something that would embarass Fudge politically, such as the reality of V's present status. He may also have know Wormtail was still around, which would have cleared Black of his murder. Tex From boyblue_mn at yahoo.com Thu Jan 31 17:25:59 2002 From: boyblue_mn at yahoo.com (boyblue_mn) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 17:25:59 -0000 Subject: Lucius theory In-Reply-To: <20020130223305.85984.qmail@web20302.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34407 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Suki Jones 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 NOTaMuggleFamily at aol.com Thu Jan 31 17:44:24 2002 From: NOTaMuggleFamily at aol.com (NOTaMuggleFamily at aol.com) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 12:44:24 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] OT: Can there be Magic? Message-ID: <5f.21b02bd0.298adc78@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 34408 Of course! Seek out some Neo-Pagans or Ceremonial Magicians...we're all over the place! Why do you think some nutty xians want to burn the HP books?? =/ ~shahara in wi usa (check out WitchVox for connections all over the world) << Can there be Magic? -Can there be Magic space like Diagon Alley? -Can there be Magic itself; magic forces or energy? >> shahara lefay pagan priestess **serendipitously smitten with severus snape** From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Thu Jan 31 17:54:11 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 17:54:11 -0000 Subject: Secular Universes and our current culture; the self In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34409 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Chris Parnell" wrote: > 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. Sorry, I don't buy this. I think religion is now starting on the upswing again, and there will be many centuries ahead where people die in fear of the Divine, and many centuries where they don't. I don't buy the "world heads in one direction" theory at all. >So I agree, and take > Eileen's comments even further, that JKR is simply reflecting culture > as it is today, But that's a contradiction of what I said. I said JKR is not at all reflecting culture as it is today, and not even trying to. :-) Otherwise, interesting perspective. Eileen From blpurdom at yahoo.com Thu Jan 31 18:33:36 2002 From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 18:33:36 -0000 Subject: Snape mentioning Peter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34410 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ck32976" wrote: > > > Also, Snape > > doesn't ever (IIRC) say anything negative about Pettigrew. At > > first I was thinking that was because he's dead, but death > > doesn't seem to have gotten James off of the hook. > > As far as I can remember, Snape never says anything much about > Pettigrew at all, good or bad. I suspect he doesn't consider him > worth mentioning. Pete was (in Snape's view, if not necessarily in > reality) just a marginal hanger-on with the *real* Marauders, and > therefore beneath Snape's notice. This gave me a "hmmm" moment. Snape's attitude toward Pettigrew could mean a couple of different things. Possibility #1: This would imply that none of the Death Eaters knew anything about the identity of the real Secret Keeper, including Snape, who was supposed to be spying for Dumbledore BEFORE Voldemort's fall. This doesn't speak very well of his spying abilities, unfortunately. (I had high hopes for his being a really great and clever spy, too.) Possibility #2: If Snape DOES know of Pettigrew's part in Lily's and James' deaths (although I think he's a very good actor if he knew) it might be because he's really still loyal to Voldemort and was then as well (functioning as a double-agent). This speaks better of his abilities as a spy, but not very well of his character. Since this would also mean Dumbledore being wrong about Snape and Ron being right, this seems highly unlikely. Peter didn't seem to have anything to do with the "prank" that Sirius pulled on Snape that almost cost him his life. Perhaps what we really need to wonder about is what Pettigrew's attitude toward Snape is. Snape was targeted by Sirius, and Snape almost died because of it. However, he was NOTICED by the other Marauders, which is more than you could say for Peter much of the time, from what we know. Perhaps the "prank" putting Snape in the spotlight, as it were, was the impetus for Peter deciding that he wanted to be more Slytherin-like (even more Snape-like) and when he eventually joined the DEs, perhaps it was in emulation of Snape! --Barb http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HP_Psych http://schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb From bonnie at niche-associates.com Thu Jan 31 18:47:50 2002 From: bonnie at niche-associates.com (dicentra_spectabilis_alba) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 18:47:50 -0000 Subject: Potterverse as metaphor (WAS: Secular Universes and our current culture...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34411 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lucky_kari" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Chris Parnell" wrote: > > 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. People also used to die looking forward to meeting with the Divine, and that's not terrible at all. In fact, some still do. > [snippage] > > >So I agree, and take > > Eileen's comments even further, that JKR is simply reflecting > culture > > as it is today, > > But that's a contradiction of what I said. I said JKR is not at all > reflecting culture as it is today, and not even trying to. :-) > Otherwise, interesting perspective. > > Eileen The whole discussion on religion in the Potterverse has been interesting, to say the least. Too bad it's a moot point. Orson Scott Card observes that when a writer creates a universe different from our own (different rules, such as the existence of magic), that fictional universe stands in a metaphoric relationship to the real world. That which exists as an abstraction in the real world often becomes tangible in the fictional world, and therefore becomes a metaphor. For example, when magic shows up in a fictional world it is almost always a metaphor for power. I think that magic in the Potterverse falls into this category. And one of JKR's main themes is "what you do with that power makes you good or evil." Religion, a kind of an abstraction in the real world, also becomes tangible (sort of) in the Potterverse. We have God in the figure of Dumbledore and Satan in the figure of Voldemort. Loyalty to Dumbledore represents faith in God (or Goodness or whatever you choose), and loyalty to Voldemort represents sin (turning away from that which is Good). With religion made into a metaphor, there is no place for "real" religion as we know it in our world. 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. To introduce real-world religion into the Potterverse would muddy the waters considerably. JKR is determined to study death and evil and its consequences (as she has stated). She's not trying to examine all the nuances of faith vs. disbelief or anything like that, and she's not trying to be politically correct. She wants to make her case that good and evil arise from individual choices, not from how you were born or who your family was or what your innate abilities are. All fiction (all art, for that matter) takes a tiny chunk of the real world and tries to make sense of it. Because without interpretation, all we have is a chaotic, undifferentiated reality. JKR is looking at only a few aspects of reality, and religion in the real world isn't one of them. That's my two sickles' worth. --Dicentra, who needs to look for more metaphors in the series From uncmark at yahoo.com Thu Jan 31 18:07:53 2002 From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 18:07:53 -0000 Subject: Why does everyone hate Hagrid? In-Reply-To: <20020131154236.2683.qmail@web14004.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34412 --- In HPforGrownups@ "Balfour, Julie" 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. (Can't remember where I > > read/saw this - Steve?) 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). Also JKR is a > > massive fan of Hagrid's - she always lists him > > amongst her favourite characters and, knowing how > > much she values her loyal friends (see the BBC > > documentary shown over Xmas,) I believe that his > > character is very important to her plotline - I > > think Hagrid will die defending Harry. --- In HPforGrownups@ "Mary Shearer" wrote > I have never spent any time on this list contemplating > who might be given the axe, but you may be right...I > saw the interview with Rowling on this topic on A&E's > "Biography." She did appear to be very sad about > having to write this particular character's death. If > it *is* Hagrid, not only is she going to have to write > a death scene for a favorite character, she is going > to have to portray the grief that comes in its wake. > How will this affect Harry, a young man with too much > sorrow heaped on him to begin with? Hermione, who > champions Hagrid fiercely? And Ron, who hasn't had to > deal with a major tragedy in his young life yet? Quite > enough to make any author look wistful. Builds a > pretty good case for Hagrid to be the one, if JKR > wants to write a pivotal death scene yet keep the trio > intact. > I didn't see the A&E interview, but did hear several JKR interviews where she said Hagrid would be around all 7 books (and I can't see him as a ghost!)He more likely will become a liaison to the giants and a possible ship with Madame Maxime. As I wrote before the ONLY evidence I can find suypporting Hagrid's demise was the Rosie O'Donnell show. When Richard Harris said he had signed on for Dumbledore for all the movies, Robbie Coletrain said he hadn't. The quote of deaths I found were that there are deaths coming (in a pre-Goblet interview.) We had Crouch and Diggory in book 4 and I'm sure we will have more in the next books. There are several secondary characters that could be killed with the required grief for Harry to go through. On Voldemort's side, I could see him hunting down any distant Riddle cousins (possibly a Hogwart's student who did not know thay were related) massacring the entire village of Little Hangelton or the orphanage he grew up in. In Harry's group I could see some of the hangers on dying. How about the Creevy brothers taking a spell for Harry or Krum dying for Hermione? Or a spy who saw Harry at the Yule Ball targets Harry's date (one of the Parvatis) or god forbid... Cho! Harry would face as much grief as he would over Hagrid there and the book would lose limited one-dimensional characters. (Has Cho had over 20 lines in the entire Harry Potter books?) Or for the required grief and soul-searcghing and a bit of 'it serves them right' Voldemort attacks Privit drive a takes out the Dursley's. On top of guilt over being glad they died, Harry finds himself inheriting a house a small fortune of embezzled Grunnings money that he doesn't want. There is gossip accusing Harry being racist against houseelves, I think some of the readeres are racist against half-giants. Uncmark From mjollner at yahoo.com Thu Jan 31 18:27:59 2002 From: mjollner at yahoo.com (mjollner) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 18:27:59 -0000 Subject: Laughing Sirius, Meaning of Religion, Signif. of Names Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34413 Hoo, boy! Too many posts to keep up with these days, but I'd like to contribute a bit to the following... (1) Laughing Sirius >SpyGameFan 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 had come *thiiiiis* close to catching the one responsible for the Potters' deaths, only to have said guilty party completely turn the tables on him and frame him quite publicly (and brilliantly). When I studied acting waaaay back in undergrad, this type of "opposite" reaction was one we were encouraged always to consider when thinking of how to approach a role. Say you are playing a character in a scene who has just flunked an important exam and whose friends have asked what score she/he got. You might take the most obvious choice and play the scene with a gloomy face. Or you might cry. But it would be much more interesting to put on a queer sort of smile or even laugh when you tell your friends you failed. That would be a much more interesting choice, one that would flesh out the character and give him/her more depth than the "obvious" choices. Playing the opposites does this. When I read that part, I thought the hysterical laughter was the most believable response Sirius could have: he had just lost people he loved directly because of the person he recommended to protect them, he knew he'd been *had* by said betrayer and he knew there was not a damned thing he could do about it. The laughter only plays up the pathos of the situation and the fact that Sirius fully understands its irony and hopelessness. Really, he's beyond anything rational at that point. (2) Meaning of Religion >Chris Parnell wrote: >I'm rather guessing that the answer is that JKR has, as much as >possible, excised religion from her tale, for the simple reason that >any way you go, you'll have problems in such a setting. and >On all fronts, religion is losing its excessive moral control over >people's lives, and that is a good thing. (major snipping) 'K, I'm with you on that first part - addition of religious conflict in addition to all of the other conflicts going on in HP would only muddy the narrative without adding anything necessary. However, I have to disagree with you *big-time* on that second point! Christian fundamentalism is on the rise in the US and plays a greater role in politics here now than it has in years. I worked in politics and government for several years in the 1990s, and the pervasiveness of its influence was much stronger when I left than when I started. This situation certainly hasn't gotten any better with Shrubya's unfortunate election to the highest office in the land. To illustrate the growing hold of fundamentalist Islam, V.S. Naipaul has written at least two books detailing his travels in Pakistan, Indonesia and Iran (and one other country whose name escapes me). He wrote one in the 1970s, but his sequel/update from 1998 ("Beyond Belief: Islamic Excursions Among the Converted Peoples") is perhaps more immediately compelling. On a more emotional level -- choosing my words *very* carefully, don't want to think about the smoke I saw over my shoulder coming from the Pentagon on September 11 nor my soldier nephew currently interrogating Taliban in Guantanamo Bay -- one need only to have followed events of the past several months to realize that religion has NOT lost its control over some people's lives. Yes, I'll leave it at that. (3) Significance of Names >vheggie wrote: >1)Both Lucius and Severus were Roman leaders of one sort or another >(IIRC Severus lead troops in Britain, and Lucius was Caesar, >briefly) - any classical scholars out there able to drag up any >information on them? I'm not a classical scholar, but I do work in a library, so I dug up some info on this. I read in "The Amateur Historian's Guide to Medieval and Tudor London" the other day that the person responsible for starting construction of the wall around what was then Londinium was named Severus. A quick check of the Gale Group's "Biography Resource Center" gives this Roman empereror's full name as - are you ready for this??? - Lucius Septimius Severus! He lived from 146 to 211. Mjollner, erstwhile actress/political flack/librarian From jbryson at richmond.infi.net Thu Jan 31 18:29:50 2002 From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 18:29:50 -0000 Subject: OT: Can there be Magic? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34414 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "boyblue_mn" wrote: > Can there be Magic? > > -Can there be Magic space like Diagon Alley? > -Can there be Magic itself; magic forces or energy? Arthur Clarke said something like: "A sufficiently advanced technology is indistiguisable from Magic." I like Lazurus Long better: "Magic is technology you don't inderstand." My own definition of magic is "real" results from symbolic actions. The incantations, wand-waving, potions, herbs, etc., are symbols that (in the Potterverse) cause real events. Clicking a mouse on an icon causes physical results in your computer, too. The difference is that, with the computer, we, or somebody, knows all the chain of causes and effects that results in the event. JKR doesn't explain all the chain of magic in the Potterverse. So we call it magic. If we knew, or even had a vague notion of how JKR's magic worked, it would be technology; and HP would be science fiction, not fantasy. Physically, "Wizard Space" is mathematically possible. Diagaon Alley, the tents at WTC, Moody's trunk, would be a bubble in the space/time continuum, and would work just fine. 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. Transfiguration and conjuring also requre a lot of physical energy. Crouch/Moody had to dispose of the difference in mass between Malfoy as brat and Malfoy as ferret. That difference would release the energy of several thermonuclear bombs. Then he has to recover that energy to change him back to a brat. A werewolf would have to come up with a lot of energey every month, even if man and wolf had about the same mass. Wormtail and Prongs would have to account for even more, to account for the mass difference. For what it's worth, Nasa is investigating "Zero Point Energy." 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. Tex From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Thu Jan 31 19:06:30 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 19:06:30 -0000 Subject: Snape mentioning Peter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34415 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "blpurdom" wrote: > Snape's attitude toward Pettigrew > could mean a couple of different things. > > Possibility #1: This would imply that none of the Death Eaters knew > anything about the identity of the real Secret Keeper, including > Snape, who was supposed to be spying for Dumbledore BEFORE > Voldemort's fall. I'm pretty sure Snape didn't know -- he's genuinely convinced of Sirius' guilt, which he wouldn't be if he knew Peter was the secret-keeper. And we know that at least some of the other DEs knew, since Sirius heard them in Azkaban, cursing Pettigrew's name. > This doesn't speak very well of his spying > abilities, unfortunately. (I had high hopes for his being a really > great and clever spy, too.) I don't think we have enough information to say how this reflects on Snape's spying ability. Even the cleverest spy can't find out *everything*, and we don't know a)what other information Snape provided and how useful it was; and b)how much time passed between Peter's joining the DE's and James and Lily's deaths. It's possible that betraying his secret-keeper duty was the first traitorous thing Peter ever did. Maybe he was planning to sell out for a while, but was afraid to try it until he had something of value to offer Voldemort; and Sirius' switch gave him the opportunity. If so, then Snape simply wouldn't have had the time to discover what happened. How did the other DE's know? Maybe they were present when Peter showed up with the information, while Snape was off doing something else -- reporting to Dumbledore, or burgling Malfoy Manor or somesuch. > > Possibility #2: If Snape DOES know of Pettigrew's part in Lily's and > James' deaths (although I think he's a very good actor if he knew) > it might be because he's really still loyal to Voldemort and was > then as well (functioning as a double-agent). This speaks better of > his abilities as a spy, but not very well of his character. Since > this would also mean Dumbledore being wrong about Snape and Ron > being right, this seems highly unlikely. 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. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From bonnie.abrams at cwine.com Thu Jan 31 17:53:14 2002 From: bonnie.abrams at cwine.com (sing2wine) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 17:53:14 -0000 Subject: Imperius & Religion Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34416 Barb writes: Harry needed to learn to overcome Imperius to confront Voldemort, and this is how he learned. There's no logical reason for Crouch to do this. I doubt it would even be in character for the real Moody, so he doesn't have that excuse either. JKR quite simply needed for Harry to learn to do this and she failed to come up with a plausible rationale for it. I have two theories on this. Crouch as Moody was teaching a lesson on all the curses and had to include this....or....it was a plot detail to make the shock of finding out Crouch was Moody even more intense - JKR loves these kinds of surprises and hasn't yet explained a number of them (Sirius' mad laughter...would you have thought he was a "good guy" with the scene at which that is mentioned?...Crouch Jr.'s pleading at the trial...would you have thought he was a seasoned death eater?) Judy wrote: I'd guess that there are no practicing Jews or Muslims at Hogwarts. I just don't see what they'd eat. (Can't see what a devout Buddhist or Hindu would eat, either. Maybe the Patils only avoid beef?) Well, maybe Hogwarts would make accomodations if any students need them. But since we haven't seen any special foods, I doubt that any students have asked for them, which makes me suspect that there aren't any practicing students of religions with dietary restrictions. Food is one of the best-described elements of the Potterverse, and we haven't seen any special foods. Like you said, this is something the other kids would probably notice. 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. Pippin writes: I kind of like the idea that the Wizards have stuck to the Old Religion, but I don't see much support for that in canon. 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 From ladjables at yahoo.com Thu Jan 31 21:02:20 2002 From: ladjables at yahoo.com (ladjables) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 21:02:20 -0000 Subject: Imperius & Religion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34417 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Barb writes: > > Harry needed to learn to overcome Imperius to confront Voldemort, > and this is how he learned. There's no logical reason for Crouch to > do this. I doubt it would even be in character for the real Moody, > so he doesn't have that excuse either. JKR quite simply needed for > Harry to learn to do this and she failed to come up with a plausible > rationale for it. 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. His faith in Voldemort is unshakeable because he doesn't really believe anyone can defeat V. If I remember correctly, doesn't Crouch tell the class that the Unforgivable Curses require a certain amount of power, that if the students tried to inflict Avada Kedavra on him, he would wind up with nothing more than a nosebleed? So perhaps even if Harry has some special ability for resisting Imperius, once Voldemort performed the curse on him Harry would be way out of his league. Or so Crouch thought. If this applies to only Avada Kedavra I'm way off though! Ama From chappnee at hotmail.com Thu Jan 31 21:07:53 2002 From: chappnee at hotmail.com (~ chappnee ~) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 14:07:53 -0700 Subject: Confusion with my Last Post about US/English Versions Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34418 I would like to explain something to everyone because I know some people were a little bit confused when I wrote: 'I think [the scholastic employee] totally misjudged the capabilities of the American public because the way I see it, there isn't that much of a difference between Canadians and Americans except that Americans present themselves as being unintelligent - maybe they are, I don't know, but I doubt they are _that_ stupid - and maybe Canadians are a little more reserved.' My intention was not to say that Americans were stupid at all. On the contrary, I was stating that Americans aren't as stupid as Scholastic believes them to be. I was saying that there reasoning was ludicrous because Canadians who I consider to be almost like Americans(slang-wise) could understand the books. What made Scolastic think they couldn't? When I said that they _present_ themselves as unintelligent, I immediately said that I doubted that they were _really_ stupid but that I couldn't really say one way or another. My apologies, I should have said '_really_' in the first place instead of '_that_'. I guess I didn't explain that well enough. When I said Canadians were a little more reserved, I didn't mean to imply that Americans _weren't_ reserved or that they were stupid because of it. No, not at all. It is true though, on the media they don't exactly focus on intelligence when presenting an American and therefore I said the word 'present'. And before anyone swings a fist at me, let it be known that I _don't_ believe this stereo-type! Ryoko wrote: >Um you Canadians are American's too in a way. I agree, I AM an American as I am from North America and whenever someone uses that term to refer to citizens of the U.S only (and that is quite often), I go on this rant on how it isn't right! But I can't think of a better term to call them so what can I do? I'm stuck! It is so funny because the one time I let in to calling U.S. citizens American, I get my head cut off for it. (Not by you Ryoko, thankfully the person did it privately.) Ironic isn't it? Ryoko also wrote: >I have two British friends and one of them has the British version and it >seems so much better than mine, you guys even get the really cool covers, >we get some lame drawing that I don't like. 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. At least I think you do if my memory is right. We actually can get both versions and my brother rented the American version from the Library one time. Can someone correct me if I'm wrong? Anyway, I hope that clears things up with some people. I didn't mean to offened anyone or call anyone stupid. My apologies if you misunderstood me. :) ~Chappnee _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com From elfriede.schaden at chello.at Thu Jan 31 21:26:00 2002 From: elfriede.schaden at chello.at (gypaetus16) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 21:26:00 -0000 Subject: Sirius and Snape frozen in time (WasSirius' Prank & Lupin ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34419 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bookraptor11" wrote: > Spending the majority of his adult life at the same place he spent > his adolescence perhaps would cause him to keep more to his old > patterns of behavior. I do agree that it's not as good an excuse as > being in Azkaban though, and Snape with a little effort had more of > an opportunity to mature. > > Donna 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). I cannot imagine that a highly social species as Homo sapiens (even if this species consists of a large number of magical genes) is able to grow up and to mature alone. 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. Gabriele From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jan 31 22:32:14 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 22:32:14 -0000 Subject: Is Lupin Passive Aggressive? was Re: Sirius' Prank etc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34420 Cindy said: Eloise wrote (about Lupin's mild-mannered behavior): > But to me, Lupin's silence in the face of Snapes nastiness is a sign of his > maturity. He's not on the verge of being a > doormat, he's just too big to get involved in such pettiness. to which Cindy added: >>Good points. I guess I'm not saying Lupin should get right down in the mud with Snape and sink to Snape's level to prove he's not a doormat. But there are ways to stand up for yourself without getting immature about it.<< There are ways to stand up for yourself without going behind people's backs, too. 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. 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. He takes a teaching position but puts off telling what he knows about Sirius and about the One-eyed witch. He's reasonable in the face of Snape's provocation but ridicules him behind his back. He doesn't leave a lesson plan for his sub though he knows he'll be absent. He agrees to take his potion but forgets to do so. He displays all this poor behavior on the job but blames his lack of work entirely on his lycanthropy. 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. 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. 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. Can we hear from the actors on the list about that? IIRC, the animal companions in folktales represent the id: the part of the self that seeks immediate gratification and has no concern for others. Ultimately, the animal character is either restored to human form or killed (sometimes as a prelude to restoration). This symbolizes the ability of the mature self to restrain the id. IMO, Rowling is playing off this archetype by giving the major male characters animal forms or metaphors. To some extent they are all stuck in immature behavior patterns, a situation which should be resolved by the end of the story. Of course I would like to see Snape quit picking on Neville. But I would also like to see Remus become forthright enough to confront Snape directly. I notice it was Remus' decision not to revive Snape in the shack...if they'd brought him around Snape would have seen Pettigrew and had to accept the truth. On the question of their progress toward maturity, they all didn't start in the same place. To say that Snape is the most "stuck" ignores his progress away from being a Death Eater. If he used to be like any of the other DE's we've seen, he's come a long way already. Actually, I'd say Lupin is also "stuck" at this point, though he's stuck in a better place than Snape. But I have hopes for Remus, I really do. Pippin who admires Cindy and Amy Z for standing by their wolf and who thinks the answer to the bonus question is: Dumbledore would have stunned Pettigrew, given Remus his potion, awakened Snape and sent him to get Fudge. From theennead at attbi.com Thu Jan 31 22:19:36 2002 From: theennead at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 22:19:36 -0000 Subject: Real Wizards Aren't Squeamish (Pettigrew, Wizarding Culture) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34421 Quite some time ago, Cindy wrote: > Oh, I think there is one character even less sympathetic than > Karkaroff, who has at least reformed himself into a headmaster > of a school. Pettigrew is worse, IMHO. Aw. Poor widdle Peter. Can't you cut him some slack, Cindy? I mean, what's he ever really *done* -- other than betraying all of his friends, facilitating the return of Voldemort, abducting Bertha Jorkins and aiding in her torment and death, and murdering 12 anonymous Muggles and poor Cedric Diggory, that is? I mean, hey. We all make *mistakes,* right? Heh. No, you're right. Pettigrew's seriously bad news. But I still find him more sympathetic than Karkaroff somehow. Maybe that's because Karkaroff still has some pride. He's smug and preening and sleek and vain, he vacillates between smarming up to Dumbledore and snarling accusations at him, he's mean to his students (with the exception of Victor), and his solicitousness to Victor...well, maybe that was just me. 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? OK. So maybe I just have a very sick mind. But even leaving aside for the moment the question of inappropriate relations between Karkaroff and his pet pupil, there still wasn't very much there to garner my sympathies -- until he starting reacting to the reappearance of the Dark Mark, that is, at which point he did start to rack up some sympathy points with me. I sympathize readily with desperation, and with people trapped in no-win situations. 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...") And, yeah. That *does* make him somewhat sympathetic. To my way of thinking, at least. 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. And then there's also the squeamishness issue. Cindy, again: > Wormtail? He's one of the few characters who we know doesn't like > to kill people or see people killed, although he did what he had to > do when he blasted all those Muggles on the street. That > assessment is based on Wormtail's reluctance to curse/kill someone > in GoF, and his unwillingness to look Harry in the eye in the > graveyard. Agreed. Although he *is* capable of killing without even a moment's hesitation. 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. He may not care much for it, but he doesn't *falter.* 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. Although I do feel a certain degree of contempt for the hypocrisy displayed by those who condone killing while being themselves unwilling to get their hands dirty, it still makes me think better of people when they seem squeamish about it. I don't like killing. Cindy wrote: > Anyway, I don't think that there are that many characters in the > series who are squeamish about killing people. I think that this is an important observation, and one that strikes to the heart of a number of the topics I've brought up here recently: Where the Bleeding Hearts?, for example, or my discomfort with the idea of the equation of weakness and wickedness. I very much liked Barb's observation that the most Bleeding Heartish character we've seen so far is Hermione, as well as her suggestion that this might have a lot to do with the fact that Hermione is muggle-born and thus out of step with wizarding culture as a whole. I agree with her entirely. Wizarding culture is *not* our own, and it differs in ways that run far deeper than a mere reliance on magic over technology. The wizarding culture of the books strikes me as one that retains much stronger traces of Warrior Ethos than our own does. Wizards seem for the most part decidedly un-squeamish about killing, or indeed, about violence in general. Students at Hogwarts are exposed as a matter of due course to a degree of physical risk that strikes many readers (it would seem) as excessive or even horrifying, and they are expected to learn to handle this with aplomb. Timidity is only marginally better tolerated by the teachers than it is by the students themselves (far less so in Snape's case, but even the generally humanistic McGonagall has very little tolerance for it); cowardice is simply and purely and completely loathed. The pureblooders' emphasis on the concept of "wizarding pride" is also telling, to my mind, as is the fact that duelling is still a common enough practice for it to be taught as an extracurricular option at Hogwarts. Pride -- and a particular kind of pride at that, a *combatative* pride -- is evident throughout the books as a trait on which the culture as a whole places a high degree of emphasis. It's always struck me as amusing -- amusing and also kind of sad, really -- that the Slytherins seem to ascribe to this ethos very nearly as closely as the Gryffyndors do. They're supposed to value cunning and deceit, and achievement through any means possible, and all of that, right? They're supposed to value *sneakiness*. They're supposed to value the ends over the means. So why on earth should they care about things like warrior pride, or physical courage, or dignitas, or in-group loyalty? But they do. They care about all of that a great deal. We see it with Voldie and his Death Eaters, and we see a lot of it with Draco Malfoy. Accused of having bought his way onto the Quiddich team, Draco actually loses his *temper.* If he's such a good little Slyth boy, then shouldn't he have simply smirked? After all, isn't that just the sort of practice that he's *supposed* to be engaged in? Finding the underhanded way to get things for himself? Exploiting a situation by any means possible? Really, he should be taking *pride* in his utterly House-sanctioned behavior. But he's not. He's ashamed. And he doesn't like being accused of cowardice, either. And he feels honor-bound to avenge insults against his mother's name. And... And, well, it's all just plain *sad,* if you ask me. The poor Slyths just can't win: their House emphasizes the very values that their overall culture most strongly militates against. No matter how many times they may win the House Cup, no matter how loudly and shrilly they may proclaim their superiority by virtue of blood or money, no matter how successful their Old Boys may have been at attaining positions of power and prestige, the fact still remains that they're losers by cultural default, and they know it. Small wonder that they're so prone to envy and resentment, or that Evil Powers find them so very easy to corrupt and to seduce. > By the way, Lupin and Sirius really weren't thinking all that > straight in the Shrieking Shack. If I felt I had to dispatch > another human being in cold blood while that person begged for his > life with three 13-year old kids standing around watching, I'd ask > the kids to go stand in the hall. You would think. But if wizarding culture really does adhere to a fairly strong warrior ethic, then maybe it wouldn't particularly occur to Sirius and Lupin. After all, the kids are wizards-in- training. They're expected to be pretty tough. And, of course, Ron couldn't walk. But yeah, I agree that if they'd been thinking more clearly, they probably would have at least tried to send the kids out of the room. -- Elkins From pollux46 at hotmail.com Thu Jan 31 23:16:19 2002 From: pollux46 at hotmail.com (charisjulia) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 23:16:19 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Dubious Disciples(WAS Musings about Mundungus) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34422 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ftah3" wrote: > When I first read that bit, where Dumbledore includes Mundungus > Fletcher in the "old crowd," I thought it was a scream. Let's see, > Dumby's got on his side (not just in terms of the "old crowd"): > > - normal, respectable, level-headed, if slightly uptight, McGonnagal > - normal, respectable Mr. & Mrs. Weasley > - nasty, ill-tempered, probable-ex-DE Snape > - hot-headed, possibly suffering from PTSD due to incarcaration 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, wierd 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 > > Strangely, I now have great faith in the future success of the Good > Guys. With colorful rabble like that inspiring loads of > underestimation while probably hiding a great deal of potential and > latent talent, Go Dumby & Co! > > But then, I am rather partial to the underdogs.... :-P > Mahoney Yeah, I know what you mean! Thinking about Dumbledore and his "crowd" old or new always leaves me with a wide grin spread from ear to ear! Go League of the Magnificently Misunderstood! Seriously, from ditsy Muggle enthusiasts to under-fed werewolves Dumbledore certainly has a rather miscellaneous group of supporters to say the least. Why, even Harry is "Disturbed and Dangerous"! The only thing they all seam to have in common is that it is tremendously easy to underestimate and defame them all. Oooh, score for Voldie! How has he managed to concentrate all the respectable, well-thought-of wizarding citizens on his side? A "Giant Mistake" of Dumbledore's? It can't be helped of course and if you want the best and worthiest you have to put up with certain side affects of their dynamic personalities. So Sirius may be an escaped convict accused of mass murder and betrayal, but D. (and I along with him) is probably ready to overlook this in favour of the determined, loyal, passionate, dare devil character (I'm enumerating traits that would be useful in a fight against V.) that led to these charges. And after all you probably have to be slightly crackbrained to be ready to take on the evilest wizard of all times. I think we're going to hear more about this in the next books. It seems to me that JK Rowling has set up in GoF the level on which the Good v. Evil fight will take place in OoP: not bloody battles this time but instead a popularity race of sorts. Who will the wizarding community side with? Dumbledore and his dubious disciples or Fudge supported no doubt by Lucius Malfoy and other "esteemed" personalities? And then, when his opponents are all nicely confused, only then will Voldemort strike. Every requisite for such a scenario is taken care of. For one thing Dumbledore is already warning against the danger of division: "Lord Voldemort's gift of spreading discord and enmity is very great. We can fight it only by showing an equally strong bond of friendship and trust". And when Dumbledore says something I for one take notice! Of course this phrase also informs us of one of Voldemort's many meritorious talents, which I would hate to see go to waste. 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. Devin wrote: >One thing I've been longing to discuss with others is the future of >Voldemort vs. Harry, in direct conflict, that is. How many more >times can Harry face Voldemort and maintain realism? >Do you believe Harry can face Voldemort three more times? This theory also gives my answer to Devin's question. I don't see Harry facing Voldemort again till the last book, the fifth and sixth only building up the final confrontation. This actually works out quite symmetrically too, for then Harry and Voldemort come face to face three times in the whole series: in books 1,4 and 7,while there's a gap of two books between each conflict. Charis Julia. From david_p at istop.com Thu Jan 31 22:03:53 2002 From: david_p at istop.com (david_p2002ca) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 22:03:53 -0000 Subject: name meanings - Neville In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34423 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "vheggie" wrote: > Only a quickie, because I've barely been able to keep up over the > past few weeks, let alone contribute: (snip snip snip) > 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 From Brwneil at aol.com Thu Jan 31 21:40:59 2002 From: Brwneil at aol.com (orange364) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 21:40:59 -0000 Subject: SHIP: Rowlings and ships Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34424 When the series started Harry and crew were 11. As we enter books 5,6,and 7 they will eventually reach age 17. Fanfic seems to have really gotten into the relationship issue. How do you think Rowlings will handle this? Keep in mind she has to keep a PG rating. "orange364" From racjom at yahoo.co.uk Thu Jan 31 23:52:29 2002 From: racjom at yahoo.co.uk (racjom) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 23:52:29 -0000 Subject: Uranus joke in different languages Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 34425 This is a bit late, but I was very busy and I don't have the book with me because I lent it to a friend. After all this talk about the joke, I had to find out how it was translated and went to check it in the bookstore. I was a bit dissapointed. It's not translated at all. I guess that's why I didn't remember it. In the Slovene translation: ,,Uuu, Lavender, a pokazhes tvojega Uranchka she meni?'' jo je vprashal Ron. Uuuh, Lavender, would you show me your little Uranus, too? asked Ron. The little Uranus does not have any additional meaning. Ah, well. Humour is probably one of the hardest things to translate, but the translator could have shown some more imagination, he has shown it elsewhere. Mojca From bludger_witch at yahoo.com Sun Jan 27 15:52:06 2002 From: bludger_witch at yahoo.com (bludger_witch) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 15:52:06 -0000 Subject: Help - Need Quotes! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 35477 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... 2. Ron calling Snape "ugly old bat" - and other bat references regarding Snape (not sure if this one is PS or not) 3. A reference to the anti-Muggle motives behind Voldemort's attacs - I'm pretty sure it was mentioned somewhere in PS but can't find it I'd really appreciate it if someone has those quotes handy. Dinah