From golden_faile at yahoo.com Mon Jul 1 01:20:58 2002 From: golden_faile at yahoo.com (golden faile) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 18:20:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Diversity in Literature & Media (WAS book differences) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020701012058.82751.qmail@web14609.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40617 --- cindysphynx wrote: > Liz wrote (addressing why Dean Thomas is described > as black): > > > It's called PC - politically correct - and it's > the reason American > > books and tv shows tend to be not so great. > > Hmmm. To tell you the truth, I'm having a hard time > following you, > Liz. I hope you'll allow me to probe a few of your > statements > here, just to make sure that I fully understand the > implications of > what you are saying. > > I do not understand why JKR should *not* describe > Dean Thomas as > black. She frequently describes the physical > attributes of her > characters, either directly (hair color, eye color, > height, etc.) or > indirectly (describing a character as flushing or > growing pale, > which indicate a skin color consisistent with those > observations). > Liz, is a description of Dean Thomas as black > somehow different in > your eyes? > > Okay, I've stayed quiet long enough. I do see what Liz is saying to a certain extent. However, as a black person, when someone describes me, they usually will describe me as a black female, my name doesn't tend to give away any information about me, so this is part of my description. By and large I have to agree with Cindy. Why is this such a big deal? I could see if it somehow ruined the story, but didn't you enjoy the book just as much? As for me, I think it's great that the wizarding world is a diverse place. I would have read the books regardless, but learning that it was, just made my reading experience that much better. So... if you were picturing the wizarding world as a diverse place, that little line should not have bothered you at all(IMO). Laila __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com From buffyeton at yahoo.com Mon Jul 1 02:27:09 2002 From: buffyeton at yahoo.com (EtonBuffy) Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 02:27:09 -0000 Subject: Wizarding Entertainment Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40618 The wizarding world seems to lack something major, its own form of entertainment. They don't have movie stars, or tv stars, though they do seem to have radio, even if it's not listened to at Hogwarts (a popular band played at the Christmas dance in Gob of Fire). So why the lack of wizarding entertainment? From bard7696 at aol.com Mon Jul 1 02:27:37 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 02:27:37 -0000 Subject: Diversity in Literature & Media (WAS book differences) In-Reply-To: <20020701012058.82751.qmail@web14609.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40619 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., golden faile wrote: > > --- cindysphynx wrote: > > Liz wrote (addressing why Dean Thomas is described > > as black): > > > > > It's called PC - politically correct - and it's > > the reason American > > > books and tv shows tend to be not so great. > > > > Hmmm. To tell you the truth, I'm having a hard time > > following you, > > Liz. I hope you'll allow me to probe a few of your > > statements > > here, just to make sure that I fully understand the > > implications of > > what you are saying. > > > > I do not understand why JKR should *not* describe > > Dean Thomas as > > black. She frequently describes the physical > > attributes of her > > characters, either directly (hair color, eye color, > > height, etc.) or > > indirectly (describing a character as flushing or > > growing pale, > > which indicate a skin color consisistent with those > > observations). > > Liz, is a description of Dean Thomas as black > > somehow different in > > your eyes? > > > > Okay, I've stayed quiet long enough. I do see what > Liz is saying to a certain extent. However, as a black > person, when someone describes me, they usually will > describe me as a black female, my name doesn't tend to > give away any information about me, so this is part of > my description. By and large I have to agree with > Cindy. Why is this such a big deal? I could see if it > somehow ruined the story, but didn't you enjoy the > book just as much? As for me, I think it's great that > the wizarding world is a diverse place. I would have > read the books regardless, but learning that it was, > just made my reading experience that much better. > So... if you were picturing the wizarding world as a > diverse place, that little line should not have > bothered you at all(IMO). > > Laila > First, the inclusion SHOULD have been handled better. But again, no one has presented any evidence, and Cindy has essentially dared someone to do so, that this change was made against JKR's will. But this notion of political correctness somehow ruining American entertainment is frankly wrong, especially when you consider two of the most popular shows in recent American TV history -- Seinfeld and Friends -- are as white as the driven snow. But, back to the books. I'm also not sure why this is such a big deal, especially considering how race has been handled in the other stories. We have three black characters that we know about -- Dean, Lee Jordan and Angelina. These kids don't do anything stereotypical. The girl is an athlete, but she dates a white kid with no apparent self-consciousness. There are no Black Power protests. There are no speeches about how the Wizards of the 17th and 18th century dealt with the Muggle slaves who showed magical talent. No rap music. A big deal has been made about their names not "sounding black" but what would the reaction have been had Dean become DeAndre? or Lee become LeBron? or Angelina been Aiesha? My guess is the hue and cry would have been worse. So, the problem, apparently, is that one sentence, where we find out Dean is a black kid. Just his very existence is a problem, apparently. I work for a newspaper and one hot summer day, one of our photographers took a picture of a some black kids playing under a sprinkler in someone's yard. Cute picture. Made the front page on a slow news day. My editor got yelled at by one of the townspeople for "putting it in our face." Exactly what was in his face? Or, as has been USED in this thread "rammed down our throats." Apparently, the existence of black people. That's what this boils down to. Do you want to know if a black kid attends Hogwarts? If you "knew" already, great, more power to you. But if you're so enlightened as to know already, then why would it bother you to have it acknowledged? Darrin From editor at texas.net Mon Jul 1 03:14:57 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 22:14:57 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Animagi References: Message-ID: <006a01c220ad$7b3e32a0$097c63d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 40620 Kangasboy has done the damned near impossible.... > I am sorry if this has already been brought up, but I don't > remember it ever happening. . . You know, I don't think it ever has. A new thought. And here we thought it couldn't be done. > I was re-reading Prisoner of Azkaban last night, and I noticed > something strange. > Towards the end, (on page 309) Lupin asks Harry "Tell me about > your Patronus.", and Harry tells him about the stag, and how he > thought he'd seen his father, etc. Lupin replies by telling him > "Your father was always a stag when he transformed". This > "always" is interesting, as it seems to imply that everytime a > wizard transforms, s/he has a choice as to which form they take. > If the "always" wasn't there, it would follow logically that each > wizard has only one animagus form. > So what do people think? Does the wizard's choice influence > their animagus form? Or is there only one, innate animagus > form possible? JKR seems to have made it clear in interviews that one has only one Animagus form, and what that form is somehow has to do with your inner self. But your observation is correct. The only thing I can think of is that Lupin might not know too much about the Animagus spell. He doesn't know it, never mastered it. Perhaps the knowledge that one is limited to one form comes in the advanced stages of the spell. I really don't know. Good catch. --Amanda From catlady at wicca.net Mon Jul 1 03:15:49 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 03:15:49 -0000 Subject: sacrilege / Animagic again / magical education system / entertainment Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40621 Pam of Scotland wrote: << I'm not sure why you think this scene is sacriligeous? Doesn't sacrilege refer to the misuse of some religious or consecrated ground, building or artefact? >> Or symbol or ritual. In the graveyard scene, Voldemort abuses some consecrated Christian symbolic rituals. << As noted in another thread, I don't have GoF here but I don't think it's ever occurred to me that the graveyard is in any way consecrated ground. In this part of the west of Scotland there are very few churches with churchyards that will still take burials. Many, many churches have been closed and the grounds and buildings deconsecrated. (snip) More likely the old churchyard is now a flattened piece of grass with interesting headstones set into the boundary wall. >> The grave markers were still in that graveyard: Harry was tied to one, hid from curses behind another. I thought that the graves and markers were always removed when they deconsecrate a graveyard? Btw, according to a nitpicker I met, the difference between 'graveyard' and 'cemetary' is that a 'graveyard' must be attached to a church. I think he got it confused with 'churchyard'. << One corner of it is devoted to the burial of deceased Roman Catholic nuns from the local convent but I do not think any part of this graveyard is consecrated ground. >> Can a Catholic answer if Catholics are bured in consecrated ground? Can an Anglican (Little Hangleton has been decided to be in England not Scotland) answer if Anglicans are buried in consecrated ground? << It assumes that Voldemort had the Christian sacraments somewher e in his head - there's no evidence for that. >> Hmm. I thought it only assumes that JKR had the Christian sacraments somewhere in *her* head. Kangasboy (may I call you Roo?) wrote: << Does the wizard's choice influence their animagus form? Or is there only one, innate animagus form possible? >> JKR said that the wizard cannot choose his/her animagus form, but rather it is based on hiser personality. See my posts #38420 and #39272 for citations. *HOWEVER* I have never heard of any wizard who became an Animagus then going through the whole process again in hope of getting an additional animal form, so I don't know what would happen if one did try. Could he/she have another innate animagus form? Another thing I wonder is, if Remus became an Animagus, could he avoid his werewolf transformation and its accompanying madness by transforming into his animal just before the scheduled time for his transformation or just after his transformation? Vinny good privacy / Vinny general practioner wrote: << So, about the magical education system. Does the middle-class wizarding family have an option besides sending their progeny to an expensive private school? >> Even tho' JKR's depiction of Hogwarts is based on expensive private schools, we don't know that Hogwarts IS an expensive private school. We *do* know that the impoverished Weasleys are sending a passel of children there, and that JKR said in an interview that Hogwarts is the only wizarding school in the British Isles, and that Fudge speaks to Dumbledore in a way that suggests that he, as Minister of Magic, has some power over the Headmaster of Hogwarts. (GoF. ch: The Parting of the Ways, Fudge: "Now see here, Dumbledore,"..."I've always given you free rein, always." ... "There aren't many who'd have let you hire werewolves, or keep Hagrid, or decide what to teach your students, without reference to the Ministry.") So it is possible that Hogwarts is a public school in the USA sense, funded and commanded by the government, with the Board of Governors as an elected or appointed School Board. It is also possible that Hogwarts is NOT funded by the government, but charges no tuition, not even room & board, because it has such a large endowment that has had 1000 years to grow since the Founders. << what about elementary education? There doesn't seem to be much general education going on at Hogwarts, i.e. reading and mathematics; it seems to be a big vocational school. They must go somewhere to learn how to read and write and do math? >> Besides home-schooling (by parents or tutors), there could also be small, local, wizarding primary schools. I imagine that primary education would be a good career for witches who HAVE to have paid employment but don't want to spend more time away from their own children than absolutely necessary; a very small school could even be located IN the teacher's own home. << And what about higher education or university? Is it normal to go straight from high (secondary) school to your job? >> See my post #40214. Pam of Scotland wrote: << I like to think that these teachers are the ones who spot children like Hermione (muggle born) and perhaps even influence the way their mental abilities develop. >> Such a teacher may have helped Hermione and her family, and Colin and Dennis Creevey and their dad the milkman, to cope with the Strange Things that happened when the children got emotional, but didn't need to 'spot' them: JKR said in an interview long ago that there is a magic quill that writes down the name of every magic child born in the UK. Once a year, McGonagall looks in the quill's book for all the children that 'are' 11 that 'year' and addresses Hogwarts admission letters to them. I am worried how such a system could deal with Muggle-born magic children who emigrated with their parents to UK after birth but before age 11. The Random Monkey wrote that her << car gets sixty rods to the hogshead, and that's the way she likes it! >> Recently, in the line of work, I searched the Web and found that a 'chain' is either 100 feet or 66 feet and a 'rod' is 5.5 yards ... which is pretty clearly 1/4 of the 22 yard chain, which in turn is 1/80 of a mile, therefore 1/10 of a furlong. That all fits together very logically, except the 1/10 part ... Anyway, I passed this on to my boss in an e-mail with the Title line: "Chains and Rods". Then I was afraid that she would see that title and think it was some kind of BDSM porn spam. So I asked her the next day, and she (she is such an innocent!) said she had thought that title referred to FISHING! Squeak!Pip wrote: << James and Lily may have had Harry baptised (or christened), thus acquiring Sirius as godparent, because they wanted pretty family pictures, or because the ceremony had a genuine spiritual meaning to them. >> Or had Harry named or dedicated or blessed in a baby naming ceremony of some ancient wizarding religion that also involves a godparent. Or just taught him to refer to their best friend as his godfather, as my parents taught me to refer to my mother's best friend from college, my Auntie Dorothy, as my godmother, even tho' none of us were Christians and I was not christened. I believe that there is a lot of Anglican background in the British wizarding world and some pureblood wizarding folk who are devout Christians (I wrote a fic in which Cedric Diggory's mother finds a bit of comfort from her Christian faith), but I don't think the word 'godfather' is evidence. << you fill in a (long) form about your family income or lack thereof. >> This MIGHT be one thing that wizarding folk have easier than Muggles: it seems that everyone knows everyone in the wizarding world, so the Weasleys would have only to sign up their names and their school children's names on a list and all the Board of Governors (or whoever decides) would say: "Oh, Arthur and Molly! As poor as church-mice, and all those children. They surely do need the money." Even if not everyone knows everyone, maybe they would just have to write: "My children need financial aid to attend Hogwarts" with one of those Anti-Cheating Quills mentioned in canon... Eton Buffy wrote: << The wizarding world seems to lack something major, its own form of entertainment. They don't have movie stars, or tv stars, though they do seem to have radio, even if it's not listened to at Hogwarts (a popular band played at the Christmas dance in Gob of Fire). So why the lack of wizarding entertainment? >> I think that they have plenty of entertainment, at least outside of Hogwarts, just that it's LIVE entertainment. I believe that the music, drama, quiz shows, etc on wizarding Wireless Network are performed live on radio, and that wizarding folk go out to see live concerts and theatre and so on. (And Quidditch matches.) They have Floo and Apparation, so the 'going out' part would be easier for them than for us. I suppose the wizarding population of the island of Britain is around 20,000. So if the biggest singing star, apparently Celestina Warbeck, performed in a 1000-seat hall (which is considered a fairly small hall by Muggle standards), she could sing to the whole wizarding population in 20 shows. Since not the whole wizarding population wants to hear Celestina Warbeck live every 20 days, surely those who want to hear her live once a week would be able to do so. I'm sure there would be plenty of other choices, bands or singers or plays performing in bars, bookshops, people's living rooms, and the large supply of entertainment versus limited demand would hold prices down to where you'd have to be as poor as a Weasley for the admission cost to be painful. The reason for the lack of sound recording and moving image broadcasting is because wizarding technology has fallen behind Muggle technology. The Wizarding Wireless Network is clearly an attempt to imitate Muggle wireless. Because Muggle wireless is called 'wireless' by comparison to telegraphy, which is called "wire". The wizards couldn't come up with the name 'wireless' on their own, because they didn't have 'wire' to compare it to. From cindysphynx at comcast.net Mon Jul 1 03:18:02 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 03:18:02 -0000 Subject: Diversity in Literature & Media (WAS book differences) In-Reply-To: <001501c22082$6a25e1a0$473468d5@xxx> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40622 Rosie asked: >>>>>>>>>>> Um, I'm not trying to be rude, but could you just explain this to me - I don't understand. You thought that most parts of the UK were pretty much all-white, with the exception of London & other major cities, right, and you thought that most of Scotland was all-white too? And this meant that Hogwarts would be all-white, because it's located in (probably) Scotland? I don't quite follow this because don't we know that students come from all over the UK, probably lots of them from London (West Ham, Kings Cross, Diagon Alley, etc etc)? And what about people like Parvati and Cho.. did you think they must be white too, if it wasn't explicitly stated? <<<<<<<<<<< Yes, you have it mostly right. I have only been to London (well, I spent a day in Birmingham on business in a conference room, and I had a layover in Shannon) for four days as a tourist, and I didn't stray far from London. I formed the impression that London is diverse. I had no knowledge of any significant numbers of people of color in the UK outside of London. I thought that Scotland was pretty much all white. Sad, but that's what I thought. And I suspect if I walked down the street in lots of places in the U.S. and asked people the racial composition of the UK and boarding schools there, most Americans would say they are entirely or predominantly white. As for whether the students come from London or not, the only thing I knew was that the school was *not* in London. So that meant rural areas. Rural areas that I (incorrectly) thought to be racially homogenous. As far as the areas you mentioned, I do have to smile. I have *no idea* about the racial composition of West Ham, Kings Cross etc. Again, sad but true. I have figured out that Wimbledon is the name of a tennis tournament and a subway stop, though. ;-) Seriously, it really isn't a scandal that I didn't know this information. I mean, do Brits know the racial composition of Ward 3 in Washington, D.C.? How about the Richmond District in San Francisco? I know the answers because I am intimately familiar with these areas. I wouldn't expect someone who had only been a tourist in the U.S. for a few days to have any idea, and if their assumptions were wrong, I wouldn't hold it against them. As far as Pavarti and Cho, I figured Cho was likely Asian. Pavarti is a name I didn't recognize. I didn't believe either was necessarily black, however. Rosie: > I mean, fair enough if people over in America understand very >little about the UK, but how far would you take this? Uh oh. A slippery slope! This is a slippery slope, isn't it! ;-) Well, fortunately for me, I don't have to go down this slippery slope. When an author and a publisher are deciding how to market and release a book internationally, they have some decisions to make. For the most part, I accept that there may be some edits for different markets. If the author doesn't object, neither do I. Whew! Slippery slope deftly avoided. ;-) Olly wrote: >>>>>>>> I wasn't going to get involved in this, but Cindys post did annoy me a bit and this just clinched it, sorry if I come off angrier than I mean to. Most of Scotland is... a mix of everything. Glasgow, for instance, is one of the major places that immigrants (illegal and otherwise) are housed when they come into the country, and the rest quite a happy mix of just about any culture you can think of. <<<<<<<<<<<<< > >>>>>>>>>> Saying that most of Scotland is white, specially if you haven't been there, is like the assumption that we all wear kilts, eat haggis and have heather growing out of our ears, and that's just plain annoying and more importantly Wrong.<<<<<<<<<<<< Aw, come on. There's no reason to be annoyed. I am simply uninformed about the racial diversity of Scotland, and am willing to admit my ignorance so that Rosie and others will understand the foundation of some of the things I've discussed. You're supposed to admire me for being secure enough to admit that there is something in the world that I actually don't know. It's part of my charm, you see. ;-) Besides, this thread and others like it have helped educate me. So my prior erroneous belief that boarding schools in the UK and Scotland are racially homogenous can be removed from the tottering heap of Things Cindy Doesn't Know. One down, thousands to go. ;-) Besides, you're not supposed to be *annoyed.* You're supposed to smirk and roll your eyes at the so-called educated and reasonably well-traveled Americans who don't know *squat* about the world. ;-) Anyway, speaking for myself, I didn't intend to say that Scotland is all-white. That would be a rather foolish thing for me to say, as I had no idea. I intended to convey the idea that I *assumed* that Scotland was not racially diverse, but I'll take your word for it that it is. But your remarks clarifying the racial diversity in Scotland really don't undermine the central point that I was trying to make, which is this: many, many Americans in the target audience for this book have *no clue* about the racial diversity of boarding schools in the U.K., and they might not pick up on it from reading the book if the book isn't explicit about it. Cindy (who must be getting really confused, because she genuinely assumed that "most of Scotland" *is* white because she was unaware that whites are a minority race in Scotland, but who hopes someone will set her straight if this is the case) From elfundeb at aol.com Mon Jul 1 03:21:51 2002 From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb at aol.com) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 23:21:51 EDT Subject: Mrs. Lestrange, Mr. Lestrange & Barty's loyalty Message-ID: <1a7.4725706.2a5124cf@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40623 In a message dated 6/26/2002 6:30:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time, skelkins at attbi.com writes: > The > only female Death Eater that we know of is the mysterious Mrs. > Lestrange, and she is both married to another DE *and* (if she is > indeed the Pensieve woman) a person of unusual charisma, dedication, > and strength of will. In other words, she is just the sort of woman > that you often find as the sole exception to the rule in a male- > dominated organization -- and she had an in through her husband, as > well. > My first reaction to this was that if two of the four Pensieve defendants were Mrs. and Mrs. Lestrange then Voldemort really is dismissive of women -- because in the graveyard he extolls their virtues as if they were a single person (and under the historic common law, they were, and the one was the husband) and promises to honor them both beyond their dreams. However, neither of the two unidentified men in the Pensieve gives any reason to be impressed with them or their loyalty. One is staring blankly and the other was "nervous-looking." They never say a word. They look, well . . . defeated. Mrs. Lestrange, assuming it was she, puts them all to shame, sitting like a queen in her chains. Only Mrs. Lestrange and her harangue and Crouch Jr., who actually tried to fight off the dementors who came to take them away (more about Crouch Jr. below), showed any fight in them. Mr. Lestrange doesn't deserve any credit; indeed, if he has no more backbone than that, his wife could've eaten them for breakfast every morning. But then I began to wonder if maybe Mr. Lestrange wasn't there at all. I think the circumstantial evidence certainly suggests that Mrs. Lestrange was there -- she clearly demonstrated the faithfulness that Voldemort cites in the graveyard and there aren't any good candidates. But the unidentified men there with her act as though she could have swallowed them whole. Mrs. Lestrange says "We alone were faithful!" in the Pensieve, which seems to match Voldemort's statement, "They went to Azkaban rather than renounce me." However, there were already quite a few DEs in Azkaban at the time -- Travers and Mulciber -- and why not Mr. Lestrange? I think anyone in Azkaban gets to claim to have been loyal to Voldemort. I also think it would have been pretty easy for Mrs. Lestrange to have convinced the authorities that she wasn't involved the first time the suspects were rounded up, but perhaps less so for her husband. So perhaps Mr. Lestrange was already in Azkaban at the time of the trial. So under this scenario, Mrs. Lestrange is working hard to revive Voldemort in part because she wants to get her husband out of Azkaban. She rounds up the others, who (except for Crouch Jr.) act in the Pensieve like they're rather sorry they let themselves get talked into this. She organizes the little visit to the Longbottoms to get information on Voldemort's whereabouts. She picks them because of the Longbottoms' popularity. She takes Crouch Jr. along because he knows the Longbottoms and that will get them in the door. She's the one who does most of the torturing, and it's her idea to torture Mrs. Longbottom; if she can be a secret DE, so can Mrs. Longbottom be privy to Auror secrets. And when it fails, and she is sentenced to Azkaban, she's still defiant, because living alone and pretending she wasn't involved just doesn't appeal to her. Why not? She has nothing to lose. That's my alternative theory, anyway. I don't think there's any canon disproving it, despite the fact that Voldemort talks about them as though they were one person. Now for Crouch Jr.: > Aesha asked: > > > In my opinion, the moment that > > Barty Jr. started crying and screaming to his daddy that he didn't > > do it, and so on and so forth- well, he denounced the Dark Lord. > > How is that loyal? > Elkins responded: > It isn't, very. I agree with you. I don't think that Voldemort > knows about it. > I think I've been converted to a modified version of the theory that Barty Jr. was innocent. Not really innocent, but innocent enough so that all of his statements in the Pensieve are nominally true. Because if that's the case, nothing he did in the Pensieve was disloyal to Voldemort. Barty Jr. says 3 things in the Pensieve regarding his involvement: "Mother, stop him, Mother, I didn't do it, it wasn't me!" "I didn't do it, I didn't do it, I didn't know!" "Father! Father, I wasn't involved! No! No! Father, please!" None of these statements is a direct renunciation of Voldemort. They claim only that he wasn't involved in a specific event. The truth of these statements depends on just what he didn't do and wasn't involved with and didn't know. If his job was to get the Longbottoms to open the door, if he didn't know in advance what Mrs. Lestrange intended to do, and if Mrs. Lestrange (and perhaps her other companions) did all the actual torturing, then all his statements are true assuming Barty Jr. is limiting his denials to whether he personally did the torturing for which they are being tried -- which is the gist of the crime of which he is accused (yes, there's also a reference to capturing Frank, but that's probably what the other two men were there for -- to capture Frank when the door was opened. So, if he let the others do all the work, I think he can be legitimately hailed as a faithful servant. Debbie (in a totally unrelated aside, my family went to the zoo yesterday where we saw a "basilisk lizard" -- and it was 100 percent green, a very, very Slytherinish green) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From divaclv at aol.com Mon Jul 1 03:52:15 2002 From: divaclv at aol.com (c_voth312) Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 03:52:15 -0000 Subject: Wizarding Entertainment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40624 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "EtonBuffy" wrote: > The wizarding world seems to lack something major, its own form of > entertainment. They don't have movie stars, or tv stars, though they > do seem to have radio, even if it's not listened to at Hogwarts (a > popular band played at the Christmas dance in Gob of Fire). So why > the lack of wizarding entertainment? Since wizards have had literal "moving pictures" for some time now, my guess is that they wouldn't be too impressed with film and television. :-) As for the rest--leisure activities for wizards have only been touched on briefly for the most part, but so far we know they have their own radio stations, magazines, celebrities, enhanced forms of games like chess, and of course Quidditch. I don't think they lack for sources of entertainment. ~Christi From chetah27 at hotmail.com Mon Jul 1 06:13:54 2002 From: chetah27 at hotmail.com (aldrea279) Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 06:13:54 -0000 Subject: Cursing in HP (WAS Re: cultural references (was: Britishisms, swearing)) In-Reply-To: <000801c22066$79e06fa0$23b068d5@xxx> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40625 Random monkey said: >>"One thing that interested me... Unless I'm mistaken, there wasn't any swearing at all in the books until the fourth one. I know before that, there was mudblood, but that has little significance to us, and people toss it around here like it was nothing; Ron said something once that made Hermione gasp "Ron!" but that's implying a curse, not saying one.>> Oh...and I seem to remember something where "Ron told Draco to go do something that made Hermione gasp"(I'm thinking this is in the forest near the QWC in GoF)...or otherwise I'm mixing up my series. But that always implied to me that Ron was using a very naughty word(any particular one come to anyone's mind? *grin*), and no, JK didn't type it, but she basically told us which word Ron had used. Rosie replied: >>Um... I have heard said that Ron says "I'm not going to take any crap from Malfoy this year" in one of the books (PoA, I think) although in my (British) copy he says "rubbish" not "crap".>> I don't consider "crap" really a curse word. But do you think JK might be graduating her language as she graduates the book's themes? Alot of people seem to think that the books are bridging from (mostly) Children's Books to Adult Books, and so the degree of language is likely to change. Random Monkey replied: >>I come from the Midwest, the type of place John Mellencamp (or whatever he calls himself this week) would sing about. I wasn't allowed to say "crap" until I was seven or so, and my parents never really allowed me to say "damn" at home (although sometimes they just ignored that I used it). My mother swore a lot, though, mostly while driving, so I didn't understand until I was older that there were different levels of swearing.>> Well, Howdy Midwest, meet Southeast! =P I have to say I think all of this depends on the parents and the upbrining. I myself am a 15 year old living in Arkansas(deep south?). The very worst swear word I have ever said out loud would probably be "bitch"- and usually I whisper it at that(which greatly amuses my friends) and I only use it when quoting someone else. Until a couple years ago, my parents would give anyone in my family a stern talking-to if we used such words as: crap, stupid, shut up, sucks(actually, we still get in trouble for using this word- though I have gotten to where I can control my tongue around my parents) or any of the normal curse words. Infact, just today I used the word "stupid" around my younger sister and she felt the need to run to my mom and tell her that I had used the word. I still won't say "shut up" to my younger sister because I know she would run to my mother with that also. So, my opinion is that it basically goes by the parents. I know kids that were cursing like sailors in middle school. I have cousins (probably second or third) whom are alot younger than I am(elementary age) and use such curse words that I myself have never used aloud. I imagine Petunia and Vernon are the type who wouldn't have Dudley cursing like a sailor *smiles*, but the occasional "damn!" or such might slip past them. Ron, on the other hand, does have 5 older brothers. I doubt Arthur or Molly support such language, but I can't picture Fred, George, or Bill working too hard to restrain themselves around ickle Ronnie-kins. Also, to support this: Malfoy has no problem with using Mudblood. I doubt old Lucius would, either. But Ron regards it as a nasty insult bordering on curse word, as do alot of the wizarding world based on the reaction it got out of the Gryffindor team and Hagrid. ~Aldrea, who very descreetly kept saying "worst she ever said", because the mental cursing is a different thing....right? =P From chetah27 at hotmail.com Mon Jul 1 06:44:41 2002 From: chetah27 at hotmail.com (aldrea279) Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 06:44:41 -0000 Subject: Being chosen for Hogwarts (WASRe: Magical education system) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40626 Pam of Scotland wrote: >>I'm fairly sure that JKR has said that Hogwarts is the *only* wizarding school in the UK and Ireland. I also think that there is some evidence that some wizarding children do not get into Hogwarts although they may be able to perform some magic. Wasn't it Neville whose family were worried he wouldn't get in?>> Well, I suppose that if you're a squib, you wouldn't be getting a letter. Poor old Argus...I wonder if that's what happened to him? *g* Oh! *light bulb* Idea! What if, when you perform that magic that happens when you're scared or hurt or whatever, just magic...what if, -that's- when your name goes down? Hagrid's remark..something like "He's had his name down since he was a baby!"...would that be because of Harry's whole deflection thing agianst Voldie? That would go with the people who are suspicious of the whole Mother-Love line we've been fed so far. That would also go with Neville's family trying to scare some magic out of the boy: they -wanted- him to not be a squib and get his name down on that Hogwart's list! I know the Magic Quill writes down your name...well, does it say specifically in canon when you're born? *coniders running downstairs to get books, but sees that it's 1 AM and doesn't feel like running anywhere* I think someone said earlier it writes down the name when magical children are "born"... could born be used in a sort of spirutal sense? Like when the Magical Moment, the moment when the child first uses some sort of magic, -that's- when they are "born" as a wizard? Hmm.... Pam again: >>I like to think that these teachers are the ones who spot children like Hermione (muggle born) and perhaps even influence the way their mental abilities develop. And it would have been this teacher who would have got to know Hermione and her parents well so that when the Hogwarts letter appeared, Hermione's parents could be reassured about what was going to happen.>> I'm guessing, that as the Ministry has a way to detect when magic happens(cannon: Dobby's charm in the kitchen- Ministry knew. Harry blowing up his Aunt- Ministry knew), then Hogwarts' Magic Quill would know when the said magic is happening. And as for Muggle parents being reassured...I wonder, would true Muggle children be sent a (slightly) different letter than the one Harry got? I mean, I remember(maybe it was just the movie, *shrugs*) Hagrid saying something about Hogwarts, then looking at Harry and going "you'll know all about that". And he knew Harry wasn't getting his letters...soo, was he just assuming that Petunia and Vernon had been telling Harry all about his parents and letting him keep in touch with his wizarding self? Perhaps true magical muggles(bit of an oxymoron, eh? *grins*) that don't even know a Wizarding world exists, would have their parents sent a letter telling them all about Hogwarts? I mean,that would help with some of the questions that must come up from being accepted into a "Schoolf of Witchcraft and Wizardry". And it seems Hogwarts has already figured out what to do if someone just throws the letter out: increase the number they get rapidly until they go so insane as to go out to a shack on the middle of an island, then send a half-giant to knock some sense into them. *smiles* Hmm. ~Aldrea, who decides with a yawn that after a day full of boating, sleep is now in order since she has caught herself up for the day here. From Pam at barkingdog.demon.co.uk Mon Jul 1 07:39:05 2002 From: Pam at barkingdog.demon.co.uk (pamscotland) Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 07:39:05 -0000 Subject: Christian Symbols and Symbolism WAS Re: Religion in the Potterverse etc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40627 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bluesqueak" wrote: > > Pam writes: > > I was once a very committed Christian and I know how hard it is not > > to see Christian symbolism or anti-Christian symbolism in > > everything. > > Well, hey, y'know, it's just how we Christians are. Show us a > reference to godparents, Friars, Saints names, the phrase 'BC', or > a place like a 'dark and overgrown graveyard; the black outline of a > small church was visible' (GoF p. 552 UK hardback) My point was really attempting to deal with the idea of sacrilege. I do not deny that there are Christian symbols written all over my British culture and heritage - nor do I deny that there are many Christians in British society. Christianity is the legally established religion in Britain and when I was born it would have been an usual family that did not bring up its children in a broadly Christian way. The fact that Christianity is no longer as popular as say, 100 years ago means that there are a lot of very old Christian symbols around the place that now have only historical significance. What I was trying to say is that a 'dark and overgrown graveyard; the black outline of a small church was visible.' does not *necessarily* represent consecrated ground and, therefore, the activities in it are not necessarily *sacriligeous*. If they were, then there would be a few people who spend their Saturday nights at a local entertainment centre who must be well on the road to hell in terms of Christian theology. (Well perhaps they would be anyway.) There is a snooker club with bar, dance floor, shops, all in a former church. The building and grounds are no longer consecrated but very clearly and very obviously a church. What happens in the remains of its churchyard I really don't like to think about - it's almost certainly immoral, sometimes illegal and almost always showing no respect for the original purpose of the building and its grounds. Is that sacrilegious? Does the fish and chip shop named "The Friary Fryery" have a religious connotation apart from its being close to the ruins of an abbey? I do not expect JKR to write 'the black outline of a small building, its shape showing that it was originally a church but the notices on the door and gates indicating that --District Council had granted planning consent for a change of use etc. etc. etc. ' Whether you like it or not, there are a lot of former church buildings around Britain that are no longer churches, some are private houses (giving the owners an interesting time digging the potato patch), some are entertainment centres, some are deconsecrated and left to rot and their grounds are, at best, wonderful wildlife refuges, and at worst, playgrounds for activities of questionable legality and taste. A dark outline of a church and a graveyard is, as someone else said, very, very *spooky*. It is not *necessarily* religious! Cheers for now Pam From Pam at barkingdog.demon.co.uk Mon Jul 1 08:11:04 2002 From: Pam at barkingdog.demon.co.uk (pamscotland) Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 08:11:04 -0000 Subject: sacrilege / Animagic again / magical education system / entertainment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40628 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "catlady_de_los_angeles" wrote: > The grave markers were still in that graveyard: Harry was tied to > one, hid from curses behind another. I thought that the graves and > markers were always removed when they deconsecrate a graveyard? Not always in Britain, I'm afraid. Now it is more likely that this will happen when the ground is deconsecrated, but there are churches that fell into disuse or were damaged during the 1939-45 War that were never renovated and nothing much was done with the grounds. The further out into the wilds of the countryside, the more likely it was to happen. Now it tends to be the deep countryside churches where people take the greatest care to look after them. I seem to remember one graveyard that was deconsecrated but they could do very little with the ground because it contained anthrax victims and it was considered too dangerous to move anything! Btw, > according to a nitpicker I met, the difference between 'graveyard' > and 'cemetary' is that a 'graveyard' must be attached to a church. I > think he got it confused with 'churchyard'. I believe that most burials - Catholic, Protestant etc. etc. - in Britain are now in unconsecrated ground. The public municipal cemeteries are NOT generally consecrated grounds and are owned by the local council (administered usually by the Parks Department). Modern churches are not usually built with adjoining burial grounds and the grounds of old churches are mostly fairly full - so unless you already have a family plot in one you have only a small chance of being buried in one. > << It assumes that Voldemort had the Christian sacraments somewher > e in his head - there's no evidence for that. >> > > Hmm. I thought it only assumes that JKR had the Christian sacraments > somewhere in *her* head. Which she surely does have - but she may well have lots of other things in her head also - cannibal feasts, black pudding, Roman rituals, Greek rituals - she's seems to be a very well educated and widely read lady. > > Even tho' JKR's depiction of Hogwarts is based on expensive private > schools, we don't know that Hogwarts IS an expensive private school. There is absolutely no mention of fees at all - the only costs mentioned are those involved in getting kitted out for school > So it is possible that Hogwarts is a public school in the USA sense, > funded and commanded by the government, with the Board of Governors > as an elected or appointed School Board. It is also possible that > Hogwarts is NOT funded by the government, but charges no tuition, not > even room & board, because it has such a large endowment that has had > 1000 years to grow since the Founders. I'm pretty sure that Hogwarts is funded by a trust fund growing and growing from the original endowment with subsequent gifts in money or kind from grateful former pupils and their parents. I would imagine the MoM might well oversee the appointment of the head teacher and it certainly seems to listen to the protests of the parents. I don't think there can be a Board of Governors or a School Board - they would surely have made themselves prominent to everyone with all the goings-on if they existed. (As a former member of a School Board I know that we are the first people after the head teacher to whom reporters turn when Something Happens.) It is interesting to remember that some of Britain's most famous private schools (the ones we call Public Schools - just to confuse everyone else) were set up primarily as FREE schools for paupers or for the children of 'impoverished gentlefolk'. Pam From Pam at barkingdog.demon.co.uk Mon Jul 1 08:40:01 2002 From: Pam at barkingdog.demon.co.uk (pamscotland) Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 08:40:01 -0000 Subject: Diversity in Literature & Media (WAS book differences) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40629 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > Cindy (who must be getting really confused, because she genuinely > assumed that "most of Scotland" *is* white because she was unaware > that whites are a minority race in Scotland, but who hopes someone > will set her straight if this is the case) No, whites are not a minority in Scotland - but the population of Scotland, particularly the central belt, represents a great diversity of races, colours and creeds. Glasgow, for example, has a very large recently-built mosque as well as an international Buddhist Centre. Edinburgh is a magnet for people from all over the world during its Festival Season and many of the foreign performers stay on to try their luck earning a living. Nearly every Saturday in the Edinburgh and Glasgow shopping centres, throughout the year, there may be buskers (street musicians) from South America, South Africa, West Indies as well as more indigenous entertainers. Glasgow has its own Chinatown and there are several areas catering for the various Asian cultures. Makes shopping (which I hate) almost enjoyable. Cheers for now Pam From TaliaDawn3 at aol.com Mon Jul 1 01:06:58 2002 From: TaliaDawn3 at aol.com (talia_dawn_3) Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 01:06:58 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Death (?) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40631 I now have a theory which can be supported with canon. (After my Death Eater groupie theory was shot down, I've been working on another one.) I think that Dumbledore *will* die ... and Hagrid will kill him. Now before all the Hagrid fans kill me, let me explain. *Hagrid* is the one that keeps going on and on about how he's not afraid as long as Dumbledore is there. To me, the fact that people keep saying that means that he is going to die. That could just be me over-infering, of course. I think that Hagrid, whether by accident or on *gasp* purpose will be the downfall of Albus Dumbledore. Why? I suppose it will most likely be indirectly. As we have seen (especially in PS/SS) Hagrid has a tendency to tell people things that he shouldn't have. He tells The Trio so much about the Philosopher/Sorcerer's Stone. He told Voldemort!Quirrel how to get past Fluffy. He told the Trio how to get past Fluffy (I think....or do I have a case of movie poisoning again?). I think that in one of the next books, Hagrid will tell someone something and it will lead to the death of Dumbledore. Let's say that there is a plan to trap Voldemort. Hagrid accidentally lets it slip where/when it will take place. The Death Eater/evil person he told it to tells Voldemort. Voldemort is therefore ready and kills Dumbledore when he trys. Hence Hagrid killed Dumbledore. ~*~*~* Talia Dawn *~*~*~ From minga at idx.com.au Mon Jul 1 03:25:03 2002 From: minga at idx.com.au (mingarooni) Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 03:25:03 -0000 Subject: French Names WAS French Derivatives & Translation Issues In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40632 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lupinesque" wrote: > I think the translators are right to work with the names for exactly > the reason that they do contain puns or allusions that are > important. It is never possible to translate all such levels of > meaning, playing on English words as they do, but Patmol is an > example of the translator giving it a shot. It's been a month or so since I finished reading the books in French, but some interesting things which I do remember: Tom Marvolo Riddle is Tom Elvis Jedusor in French (because, of course, the acronym has to be 'Je suislord Voldemort'). This relates to Amy's post because there are a couple of things which have added meaning in the French translation: Voldemort being a Jedusor means that the Riddle house is known as 'la maison' (=house) 'jeux du sorts' (sounds like Jedusor in French), meaning games of chance or fate (or jeter un sort is to cast a magic spell). Also the Sorting Hat becomes Le Choixpeau Magique. Choixpeau sounds like chapeau (hat) and choix means choice, I thought this was a particularly clever play on words. So yes, despite leaving some things out that they should have put in, and being unable to translate all the wordplays, the translators do do a very good job sometimes. (Plus, and I'll probably get lynched for this :), but I didn't notice Diagon Alley being a play on the word 'diagonally' until I read the French translation!) and Nicole said: >This makes me wonder if the company that translated the book from >English into French used American or British translators. Jean-Fran?ois M?nard is probably fairly French I think :) and for those of you who are interested, as I said in OT: All the French covers and back covers (and a couple of other goodies) are now here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Graphics/Book-related%20G= raphics/frenchhp/ (complete with Lockhart and Malfoy with black hair)(!!!) and how cute is the French Harry? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Graphics/Book-related%20G= raphics/frenchhp/frenchhp.jpg enjoy! Belinda From jkusalavagemd at yahoo.com Mon Jul 1 03:48:34 2002 From: jkusalavagemd at yahoo.com (jkusalavagemd) Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 03:48:34 -0000 Subject: The Secret Job of Arthur Weasley In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40633 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "hermione_ew" wrote: > While waiting for OoP, I have been re-reading all of the old books, > and one thing caught my attention: Arthur Weasley. It seems that he > is more than just a low ministry official working in the "Misuse of > Muggle Artifacts" office. > > > My guess is that Arthur is an Auror working with Dumbledore to > protect Harry, and fight against Voldemort. I think that he is part > of a small department in the ministry, which is second only to the > minister himself. The fascination that Arthur seems to have with > muggles is an act. I wouldn't be surprised if in the next three > books, Arthur weasley is a key player for Dumbledore. > > Hannah (Hermione's Muggle Twin) Brava, Hannah! I, too, have long suspected that Arthur Weasley was himself an Unspeakable working secretly for the Department of Mysteries, and that his mentioning the Department in GoF was the first step in recruiting Harry to become an Unspeakable. I never did realize, however, thet the raids mentioned in CoS are completely inconsistent with his stated job in the Department of Misuse of Muggle Artifacts. JKR just slipped it right by me, as she is wont to do with her clever foreshadowings. Thank you so much for pointing it out. You have confirmed me in my opinion, my dear. I also think that Fred & George either are or will become Unspeakables also, and that "Weasleys' Wizzard Wheezes" will be the cover for their secret duties. Haggridd From ezzie_mora at yahoo.com Mon Jul 1 03:54:13 2002 From: ezzie_mora at yahoo.com (ezzie_mora) Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 03:54:13 -0000 Subject: Mars is Bright Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40634 I've been contemplating this for quite some time, and didn't see it in the archives anywhere. If it's already been discussed in great detail, feel free to flame me, roast me and feed me to hungry Horntails. I know I'm not the only person that has wondered what those 'ruddy stargazers' meant by "Mars is bright tonight" so I came up with some possible theories. Hear me out, I'm not crazy and I tried to do a little homework. Ronan and Bane both gaze at the sky and say that "Mars is bright" and "unusually bright" Could this be a literal translation of what the Centaurs saw, or is it a figurtive one about the relationship of the planets in the sky that night? The Astronomical View -------------------------------- "Mars is bright" can refer to an astronomical phenomenon known as opposition, where a planet is exactly opposite of the Sun in relation to Earth. It causes the planet to reflect large amounts of light and appears brightly in the sky. The opposition of Mars occurs approximately every 26 months. Assuming that the events of the Forbidden Forest detention happened on May 26, 1992 (the date marked on the Harry Potter Lexicon calendar) then Mars was nowhere near an opposition point in the sky. Opposition of Mars, in relation to Earth, happened on November 27, 1990 and then on January 7, 1993. Neither of these dates work. Here is a link to a timetable of Oppositions of Mars http://www.uapress.arizona.edu/online.bks/mars/appends.htm Additionally, Mars was not in a position where it could be seen easily with the naked eye that evening. After calculating the position of Mars in the sky between 11pm-midnight May 26, 1992 as it would have been seen in northern England (a guess since we dont know where Hogwarts is exactly), we find that Mars was a mere 15 degrees from the last quarter moon in the nighttime sky. It would have been virtually impossible to discern it from other stars and the bright quarter moon as they passed by the Aries constellation. The Astrological View Astrologically speaking, just what was Mars up to that evening? Quite a bit actually. If we assume that Harry met the Centaurs around 11pm, the planets were aligned as follows: 1) Sextile Aspect with Saturn (about 60 degrees apart) 2) Square Aspect with Uranus (about 90 degrees apart) 3) Square Aspect with Neptune (about 90 degrees apart) 4) In the Aries constellation It is important to note that Mars was exactly in the middle of Aries at this time. Astrologically speaking, when in Aries, Mars is "at its strongest" in terms of expression of energy. Can we conclude then that this is analogous to saying "Mars is bright?" Perhaps. Without considering the star charts of Harry, Hermione, Ron or Voldemort we can probably conclude that Bane and Ronan were sensing a large amount of energy as Mars passed directly through Aries. It was unusually bright because it was nearly in the center of the constellation. Here are some links used to gather the planetary locations: http://www.astrology-zodiac.com/menu.htm http://www.astro.com/cgi-bin/atlw3/chart.cgi Here is an explanation on some of the Astrology terms used: http://www.astrology-numerology.com/astrology.html As for an interpretation to what exactly this all would mean - I'm not the one to ask. I'm no astrologer. And if I'm not mistaken the actual interpretation of the sky would be based on your own birth date. Since there are numerous possible 'targets' of their warnings - Voldemort, Harry, etc.. it's practically impossible to tell just what they were getting at. But I think this is a pretty good argument to at least explain what they meant by "Mars is bright" -ezzie From awillia2 at gladstone.uoregon.edu Mon Jul 1 06:22:18 2002 From: awillia2 at gladstone.uoregon.edu (Aesha Williams) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 23:22:18 -0700 Subject: The secret job of Arthur Weasley References: <1025479201.1801.17110.m1@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <000501c220c7$a7ae6480$d4d1df80@hppav> No: HPFGUIDX 40635 > If Arthur was only looking for bewitched Muggle items, why would Lucius > be worried? I doubt that the Malfoys would waste their time > bewitching muggle stuff if they don't want any contact with muggles > at all. Hi Hannah! I love your theory. I do wonder, though, why an Auror would make so little money- I mean, I would think that this would be one of the most important jobs in the ministry; also, after the fall of Voldemort (even if it was due to the Potters), all the work and help the Aurors provided during that time (and after, catching leftover DE's), he would warrant a raise in pay! But hey, maybe that's just a pitfall of having a 9 member family. Regarding the fact that Lucius was worried the Ministry might find some of his things... perhaps, if Arthur really is in the M of MA office, it would be found that the Malfoys make a hobby of "muggle-baiting". Who knows. :) > There is also the fact that Arthur knows when Harry recieved the letter about not using >Magic. That sort of thing wouldn't be in his department, and He probably wouldn't know a >thing about it. I said I love your theory and I mean it, however I'm playing a little devil's advocate: for one, although the Ministry is a large organization, there probably is some lunchroom or water-cooler chat. I would think the fact that the most famous child in the wizarding world got in trouble with the Ministry would make the rounds. And also, Harry received the letter when Dobby enchanted the pudding, correct? Well, the bowl (and the pudding, for that matter) *is* a muggle object, and therefore the MOMA office could very well have been in on the whole thing. It is also apparent that he knows the entire story about Sirius as the Potter's secret keeper, when it is a story that is not widely known. If he only worked with Muggles, then he > probably wouldn't be working on these types of things. I was going to say that I didn't think Arthur had spoken personally with Fudge, but I read the passage and it does say that he's "tried to tell Fudge". However, I can't seem to find any evidence that he know's about Sirius being the Potter's secret keeper... I always though that part with him talking to Harry, making Harry swear that "whatever he might hear" he wouldn't go looking for Black, was just because it was common knowledge (or at least, after the fact) that Sirius was Harry's godfather... that not many people even knew the Fidelus charm had even been used. But, perhaps I am misinterpreting those passages. On another note: When Arthur and Molly are talking in the Leaky Cauldron, he says how the guards told Fudge that Sirius had been saying "He's at Hogwarts..." I was always under the impression that Dementors couldn't talk. Maybe they just don't, generally speaking. > At one point he gives the names of two 'unspeakables' from the department of mysteries. If > Boad and Croaker really were unspeakables... I would really like to know more about the Unspeakables. Besides the Aurors, that sounds like the coolest job in the ministry! > My guess is that Arthur is an Auror working with Dumbledore to > protect Harry, and fight against Voldemort. I think that he is part > of a small department in the ministry, which is second only to the > minister himself. The fascination that Arthur seems to have with > muggles is an act. I wouldn't be surprised if in the next three > books, Arthur weasley is a key player for Dumbledore. Arthur being an Auror would explain why he thinks so highly of Moody and rushes out to help him so quickly... though he's helping as a member of the MOMA office. Perhaps the only people who know who are in this special department (and are actually the only ones aware that it exists) are the Minister and the members of the department, and therefore Amos Diggory wouldn't know that he was talking to the wrong person. However, I don't think Arthur's fascination with Muggle artifacts is an act at all... while I could buy that he doesn't work in the MOMA office (and in turn doesn't know the correct names for some muggle objects), I think he does have a fondness for muggles and is geniunely intrigued by their property. Why else would he spend money his family doesn't have on a car that it's unneccesary for them to drive? And why boast to Uncle Vernon that he collects plugs, if it's not true (and his family must have seen them). Perhaps part of the reason he became an Auror was to help protect muggles as well as his fellows from the Dark wizards about. On another note (I don't think I've ever really thought about it before), how does everyone get to King's Cross? I mean, the Weasley's go by car. But the Malfoys, who despise all things Muggle? The other students? Hmmm. Hermione, Dean, Justin and the Creeveys I can see driving, since they're Muggles (and Harry, I suppose, since he was raised a Muggle). Thanks for giving me something to think about (and contribute to), Hannah! :) Aesha > Hannah From mrflynn6 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 1 12:03:58 2002 From: mrflynn6 at yahoo.com (mrflynn6) Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 12:03:58 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Death (?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40636 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "talia_dawn_3" wrote: > I now have a theory which can be supported with canon. (After > my Death Eater groupie theory was shot down, I've been working on > another one.) I think that Dumbledore *will* die ... and Hagrid will > kill him. > Now before all the Hagrid fans kill me, let me explain. > *Hagrid* is the one that keeps going on and on about how he's not > afraid as long as Dumbledore is there. To me, the fact that people > keep saying that means that he is going to die. That could just be > me over-infering, of course. I think that Hagrid, whether by > accident or on *gasp* purpose will be the downfall of Albus > Dumbledore. Why? I suppose it will most likely be indirectly. > As we have seen (especially in PS/SS) Hagrid has a tendency to > tell people things that he shouldn't have. He tells The Trio so much > about the Philosopher/Sorcerer's Stone. He told Voldemort!Quirrel > how to get past Fluffy. He told the Trio how to get past Fluffy (I > think....or do I have a case of movie poisoning again?). > I think that in one of the next books, Hagrid will tell someone > something and it will lead to the death of Dumbledore. Let's say > that there is a plan to trap Voldemort. Hagrid accidentally lets it > slip where/when it will take place. The Death Eater/evil person he > told it to tells Voldemort. Voldemort is therefore ready and kills > Dumbledore when he trys. > Hence Hagrid killed Dumbledore. > > ~*~*~* Talia Dawn *~*~*~ I have also wondered about this. How many times has Dumbledore said "I would trust Hagrid with my life." My other theory relating to this subject is that the pink umbrella will surface to SAVE Dumbledore's life. Not being a fully qualified wizard, it would be a surprise to everyone if Hagrid were to save Dumbledore with "advanced" magic, perhaps leading to him being able to practice magic? Gretchen From crana at ntlworld.com Mon Jul 1 12:31:17 2002 From: crana at ntlworld.com (rosie) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 13:31:17 +0100 Subject: No subject Message-ID: <006f01c220fb$33754a00$983568d5@xxx> No: HPFGUIDX 40637 Pam wrote: "I don't think there can be a Board of Governors or a School Board - they would surely have made themselves prominent to everyone with all the goings-on if they existed." Have I misinterpreted you? I thought there was a board of governors - the ones that kicked Dumbledore out in CoS - with Lucius Malfoy as one of the governmors? ----- Pip wrote: "I'm in the East End of London. It would probably depend here on whether someone was (to paraphrase the old joke) a Christian agnostic or a Jewish agnostic, a Muslim agnostic, a Hindu agnostic...I've certainly noticed people I know here who are not very involved in their (non-Christian) religious backgrounds not liking 'BC'." Ah ok, maybe it's a regional/age difference. I'm near Nottingham, and most of the people I know well who practise different religions are in their teens. Having said that, most of the people I know who do profess that they are of a religion other than Christianity do practise that religion in quite an involved way. Um, I'm not making sense. -------------- Cindy wrote: "As for whether the students come from London or not, the only thing I knew was that the school was *not* in London. So that meant rural areas. Rural areas that I (incorrectly) thought to be racially homogenous." Um.. what about Harry, coming from Surrey? Was it just him, and the others had to go all the way to Kings Cross in order take a 4-hour train journey to the school that was right next door to their houses? Cindy said: "As far as the areas you mentioned, I do have to smile. I have *no idea* about the racial composition of West Ham, Kings Cross etc. Again, sad but true." Um. I meant Kings Cross Station... and West Ham is a football team. All I meant by mentioning them was that, well, if London has so many places like Diagon/Knockturn Alley, Leaky Cauldron, Platform 9 3/4, one of the students supports a London football team, and Hogwarts is the only secondary school for Wizards/Witches in the UK....then it follows that London probably has a fairly large (relatively) magical population, and therefore young witches/wizards from London would go to Hogwarts. We also know that Harry came from Surrey, supporting the idea that they come from all over the UK. Cindy: "Seriously, it really isn't a scandal that I didn't know this information. I mean, do Brits know the racial composition of Ward 3 in Washington, D.C.? How about the Richmond District in San Francisco? I know the answers because I am intimately familiar with these areas. I wouldn't expect someone who had only been a tourist in the U.S. for a few days to have any idea, and if their assumptions were wrong, I wouldn't hold it against them." Yeh, but I wasn't talking about detailed knowledge of the equivalents of Hyson Green in Nottingham or the Moss Side in Manchester. I don't expect people who don't live here to know the "racial composition" of all the different areas of my home town. What I am talking about is the equivalent of thinking that all black people in America live in Harlem, and the rest of America is totally populated by white people wearing cowboy boots. Besides which, if I read a book set in this Ward 3, I'd probably go to a bit of effort to find out about the setting, like I do with the other books I read. "As far as Pavarti and Cho, I figured Cho was likely Asian. Pavarti is a name I didn't recognize. I didn't believe either was necessarily black, however." So diversity is just having black people? Hogwarts would be monocultural if it had Irish, Asian/Chinese and Asian/Indian students, but not monocultural if it just had one black person in a sea of pale faces? "Besides, you're not supposed to be *annoyed.* You're supposed to smirk and roll your eyes at the so-called educated and reasonably well-traveled Americans who don't know *squat* about the world. ;-)" Damn, I thought that was just a stereotype... "But your remarks clarifying the racial diversity in Scotland really don't undermine the central point that I was trying to make, which is this: many, many Americans in the target audience for this book have *no clue* about the racial diversity of boarding schools in the U.K., and they might not pick up on it from reading the book if the book isn't explicit about it." Would it cost that much to get up and find something out? Rosie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Mon Jul 1 13:54:21 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 13:54:21 -0000 Subject: Christian symbols and symbolism WAS Religion in the Potterverse Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40638 Pam of Scotland writes: > Whether you like it or not, there are a lot of former church > buildings around Britain that are no longer churches, some are > private houses (giving the owners an interesting time digging the > potato patch), some are entertainment centres, some are > deconsecrated and left to rot and their grounds are, at best, > wonderful wildlife refuges, and at worst, playgrounds for > activities of questionable legality and taste. It's pretty much the same argument as the baptism/christening. You assume that the graveyard setting has only a historical/social significance, I assume that it may have a Christian symbolism. You assume that the church ( in GoF p. 552 UK hardback) is closed and the graveyard unconsecrated until you find a board saying 'All Souls Little Hangleton, Services Sunday 11.00am', I assume that it is open until I reach the sign saying 'Little Hangleton Leisure Centre'. Whether you like it or not [and yes, I am deliberately using your own choice of phrase] there are a lot of church buildings around Britain that are still very much in use as churches, including some in small villages like Little Hangleton. If you want to see the church in GoF as closed then that is your privilege as a reader; it is mine to see it as open. Pam writes: > the activities in it [the churchyard] are not necessarily > *sacriligeous*. Nuts, frankly. There's a big difference between the 'sex, drugs and rock and roll' that also goes on in the [consecrated] graveyard of my local church and digging up bones from a grave to use in some kind of ceremony (during which you also invert confession and communion as Eileen has pointed out in [#40549] ). Catlady has also pointed out that 'sacrilege' includes symbols or rituals [#40621] -it doesn't even *have* to take place on consecrated ground. JKR had choices for that scene (GoF Chapters 32 to 34). If she'd simply wanted 'spooky' she could have had Harry appear in an ancient British stone circle and be tied to one of the standing stones. She could have had him appear in a dark and forbidding forest grove and be tied to an oak tree - both of those have a cultural and historical significance which used to be religious, and they still have enough connotations to be picked up as 'spooky' by most Brits. She could have had the bones of Tom Riddle Sr in a complete skeleton lying on the ground (pretty spooky) rather than showing them being sacriligeously taken from their grave (GoF p.556 UK hardback). She could have completely avoided the combination of blood, flesh and bone which suggests a sacriligeous inversion of 'body and blood' to a Christian belonging to a denomination which receives communion. She could certainly have avoided combining all this with the number of references she makes to the DE's being Voldemort's 'servants', which brings to mind a number of Christian Gospel admonitions along the lines of "the Son of Man did not come to be served; he came to serve..." (Mark Chapter 10, verse 45). Any author who selects 'holly and phoenix feather' for Harry's wand, and 'yew and phoenix feather' for Voldemort's (PS/SS p. 65 UK paperback) probably knows more about using Christian symbolism than I do; and obviously isn't afraid to use symbols that many of her audience are unlikely to recognise. The fact that a reader may not spot symbolism doesn't mean the author hasn't put it there. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Catlady writes: > Can a Catholic answer if Catholics are bured in consecrated ground? > Can an Anglican (Little Hangleton has been decided to be in England > not Scotland) answer if Anglicans are buried in consecrated > ground? I'll reply to this in OT chatter. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Pip From Pam at barkingdog.demon.co.uk Mon Jul 1 14:02:27 2002 From: Pam at barkingdog.demon.co.uk (pamscotland) Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 14:02:27 -0000 Subject: I'm a Nidiot In-Reply-To: <006f01c220fb$33754a00$983568d5@xxx> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40639 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "rosie" wrote: > Pam wrote: > "I don't think there can be a Board of Governors or a School Board - they > would surely have made themselves prominent to everyone with all the > goings-on if they existed." > > Have I misinterpreted you? I thought there was a board of governors - the ones that kicked Dumbledore out in CoS - with Lucius Malfoy as one of the governmors? up and find something out? > OH big sigh! I should stop posting till I re-read the books! I think I've had my memory adjusted! Fortunately I'll be away from my machine for a day or two and won't get a chance to make any more stupid posts! Cheers for now Pam From cindysphynx at comcast.net Mon Jul 1 14:03:32 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 14:03:32 -0000 Subject: Diversity in Media and Literature (WAS No Subject) In-Reply-To: <006f01c220fb$33754a00$983568d5@xxx> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40640 Rosie: > Um.. what about Harry, coming from Surrey? Was it just him, and >the others had to go all the way to Kings Cross in order take a 4- >hour train journey to the school that was right next door to their >houses? Surrey? Before I read HP, I had never *heard* of Surrey. Sorry. I must admit to some surprise at your ire that U.S. readers might have some unfamiliarity with locales in the U.K. Why all the impatience about this? One of the things I have observed about tourists who come to the U.S. from Europe is that they sometimes have no idea about the tremendous distance involved in getting from place to place as they travel around our country. So when they say they'd like to see Yellowstone, San Francisco, LA and San Diego in 4 days, I smile and politely set them straight. I usually try not to attack them for failing to have the knowledge of my home country that I do. Rosie: >>>>>>>>> Um. I meant Kings Cross Station... and West Ham is a football team. All I meant by mentioning them was that, well, if London has so many places like Diagon/Knockturn Alley, Leaky Cauldron, Platform 9 3/4, one of the students supports a London football team, and Hogwarts is the only secondary school for Wizards/Witches in the UK....then it follows that London probably has a fairly large (relatively) magical population, and therefore young witches/wizards from London would go to Hogwarts. We also know that Harry came from Surrey, supporting the idea that they come from all over the UK.<<<<<<<<<<< Sheez, I have to do all those mental gymnastics to work out that Hogwarts is *probably* diverse? I'm supposed to know that West Ham is a London football team? Wouldn't things be a bit more clear if the book simply said so? Besides, I'm not sure your logic holds if we examine the canon basis for it. We spend lots of time debating the size of the magical world and until Book 4, we didn't know one way or the other whether Hogwarts was the only school for wizards, IIRC. I mean, if there is another competing magical school in London or a school abroad that students of color attend for some reason, those facts would destroy your whole analysis. So how on earth am I supposed to connect the dots as you outline above and work out the probable racial diversity of Hogwarts? Rosie: >>>>>>>>> Yeh, but I wasn't talking about detailed knowledge of the equivalents of Hyson Green in Nottingham or the Moss Side in Manchester. I don't expect people who don't live here to know the "racial composition" of all the different areas of my home town. What I am talking about is the equivalent of thinking that all black people in America live in Harlem, and the rest of America is totally populated by white people wearing cowboy boots. >>>>>>>>>> Well, actually, if you expect me to know that West Ham is a London football team, you really are expecting a level of knowledge that a person who does not know the UK well and doesn't know football at all is not likely to have. As for your example that someone from outside the US might think that all African Americans live in Harlem or that white people wear cowboy boots, well, as silly as this sounds, I wouldn't be completely surprised by it. And I certainly wouldn't be offended by it. I would imagine someone with very limited exposure to American media who had never been here might make such a mistake. Personally, I would be more than happy to clarify things for them without hostility, however. Rosie: > Besides which, if I read a book set in this Ward 3, I'd probably >go to a bit of effort to find out about the setting, like I do with >the other books I read. Really? It seems to me that if the author is doing his or her job, I shouldn't have to research the setting like that. And the funny thing here is that we are not talking about the *actual* racial composition of Scotland or other parts of the UK. We're talking about a *fictional* school about *wizards!* So even if I carefully and independently researched the demographics of the UK in conjunction with reading this piece of *children's fiction* while sitting on an *airplane,* I still couldn't rule out the possibility that no black students attend Hogwarts. I could only guess, right? Unless the book tells me so, of course. Rosie (about Pavarti and Cho): >>>>>> So diversity is just having black people? Hogwarts would be monocultural if it had Irish, Asian/Chinese and Asian/Indian students, but not monocultural if it just had one black person in a sea of pale faces?<<<<<<<<<< Well, to be fair, I said nothing of the sort, and I think it is a gross distortion of what I said to suggest such a thing. For the record, I said: >"As far as Pavarti and Cho, I figured Cho was likely Asian. Pavarti >is a name I didn't recognize. I didn't believe either was >necessarily black, however." To recap, the discussion here is whether Dean Thomas' race should have been specified in the U.S. edition of PS/SS. One tangent of our discussion is whether U.S. readers would pick up on clues that Lee Jordan is black or clues that there are likely black students at Hogwarts. Then you asked about Cho and Pavarti. I tried to explain that I didn't see any reason to think that either was black, and I still don't. But to be crystal clear so that there is absolutely no misunderstanding, Hogwarts has at least the following minority students: Angelina, Cho, the Pavarti twins, Lee Jordan, Dean Thomas. At least three are black. Is that is sufficient to demonstrate that Hogwarts is diverse? I think so. So what is the problem again? Because you really lost me there. Rosie: > Would it cost that much to get up and find something out? Let me assure you. If I thought a trip to the local library for some research would have given me a definitive answer on whether the non-existent and fictional Hogwarts School for Witchcraft and Wizardry does or does not have black students, I would have considered it. JKR didn't put me to that effort because she and her publishers thoughtfully clarified the matter in PS/SS in the U.S. edition. Thank goodness for that. I suspect that those wizarding world demographic statistics might have been rather hard to track down. ;-) Cindy (off to go consult the Lexicon about the precise location of Surrey) From Edblanning at aol.com Mon Jul 1 14:05:28 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 10:05:28 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Diversity in Literature & Media (WAS book differences) Message-ID: <32.29302ae8.2a51bba8@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40641 I've only just caught up with this thread. I'm going to make a confession. Apart from Cho and the Patil girls (because of their names), Angelina who is stated to be black and Lee with his dreadlocks, I had never really imagined any of the other Hogwarts students not to be white. I'm sorry, but there it is. It reflects *my* school experience. I haven't seen the CTMNBN for some time. How ethnically mixed did it portray Hogwarts to be? Yes, Britain is a multi-racial society, but it is not uniformly multi-racial. Cindy's quite right in her assumption that by and large (not exclusively) by far the largest proportion of the black poulation is concentrated in towns, for many reasons: historical, cultural, economic. If my maths is correct, at the time of the '91 census, almost half the non-white population of Britain resided in London. There is a different pattern here from in the US as so many West Indian and Asian people came into the UK over a relatively short period in response to deliberate government policy and the need to find workers from the 1940's onwards. The jobs that they came over to do were not rural. In addition, there is a general population shift out of rural areas towards towns, anyway. I went to a private school in Scotland. At that time there were no black pupils there. Following that, I attended another private (semi-, it was Direct Grant, for Brits old enough to remember) school in Chester. Again, we had no black students whilst I was there. At my children's school, here in Kent, I reckon that the number of non-white children out of a roll of about 300 must be in single figures. I live in a small town where it is highly unusual to see a black face. And we are near London. Completely different from the health authority for which I worked in London, where there were over 40 different mother tongues spoken. Now what about boarding schools? Well, this is where irony strikes. You are actually quite likely to find non-whites in our boarding schools as for some time they have been dependent on a supply of overseas pupils to keep going. (This situation is changing a bit). But Hogwarts isn't just any old boarding school, is it? Its students are there because of their magical talent, which, I presume, is not race-specific. I don't think it's location in Scotland has any relevance, either. In other words, the proportion of non-white students there ought to reflect the make up of the British population as a whole. The following information comes from the 1991 census and therefore correlates with the time of PS/COS. (Whether the wizarding population is included or not is a moot point!) (http://www.irr.org.uk/resources/general.htm) >There are just over 3 million black people in Britain (i.e. people who did not classify >themselves as white), making up about 5.5% of the population of 55 million. >Black people make up 6.2% of the population of England, 1.5% of Wales and 1.3% >of the population of Scotland. >In London, black people are one-fifth of the population. >Almost a half of all the black people here have been born in the UK. Only 1 in 8 of >all black children under 16 were born abroad. Now there isn't a breakdown by age here, but using that 5.5%, as that's all I have, if Hogwarts *does* have 1000 pupils, then there should be about 55 students from other racial groups. Is this what we see? I reckon that out of the (?) 75 students of whom we know (I counted up the ones who appear in the Lexicon), we know or can imply that 7 are black or Asian. Quite a high proportion. More than 10%, in fact. So JKR didn't *need* to change anything to make Hogwarts probably more than adequately reflect the racial make-up of the UK, at least amongst the students to whom she draws our attention.. Which to me is intriguing in itself, as we are not just a multi-racial society, but a multi-cultural one. The type of magic taught at Hogwarts seems to be firmly European in tradition, doesn't it? Why should black wizards be expected to give up their own wizarding culture just because they live in the UK? Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Pam at barkingdog.demon.co.uk Mon Jul 1 14:21:29 2002 From: Pam at barkingdog.demon.co.uk (pamscotland) Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 14:21:29 -0000 Subject: Christian symbols and symbolism WAS Religion in the Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40642 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bluesqueak" wrote: > Pam of Scotland writes: > > Whether you like it or not, there are a lot of former church > > buildings around Britain that are no longer churches, some are > > private houses (giving the owners an interesting time digging the > > potato patch), some are entertainment centres, some are > > deconsecrated and left to rot and their grounds are, at best, > > wonderful wildlife refuges, and at worst, playgrounds for > > activities of questionable legality and taste. > > It's pretty much the same argument as the baptism/christening. You > assume that the graveyard setting has only a historical/social > significance, I assume that it may have a Christian symbolism. You > assume that the church ( in GoF p. 552 UK hardback) is closed and the > graveyard unconsecrated until you find a board saying 'All Souls > Little Hangleton, Services Sunday 11.00am', I assume that it is open > until I reach the sign saying 'Little Hangleton Leisure Centre'. I actually don't assume anything! I'm trying to point out that sometimes people interpret symbols in a way that may not have been intended and may actually be incorrect. I don't assume a church building is a leisure centre, neither do I assume it is a church in use - I observe that it looks like a building originally constructed for religious purposes. Until I actually examine it I have not the remotest idea whether or not it is still a church in use. However if I were writing a story, I would describe such a building as a church (an architectural description) and if it were necessary to include some reference to Christianity then I would make it explicit. To me a Voldemort scene at Stonehenge, for example, just wouldn't be anything like so scary as a Voldemort scene in a graveyard - particularly when one thinks of all the Dracula movies and Living Dead movies etc. Unfortunately I've just been watching the Porky's movie with a graveyard scene - I'm going to have to read some scary stuff to stop me laughing at a headstone scene now. Pam From Pam at barkingdog.demon.co.uk Mon Jul 1 14:35:20 2002 From: Pam at barkingdog.demon.co.uk (pamscotland) Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 14:35:20 -0000 Subject: Mars is Bright In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40643 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ezzie_mora" wrote: > I've been contemplating this for quite some time, and didn't see it > in the archives anywhere. If it's already been discussed in great > detail, feel free to flame me, roast me and feed me to hungry > Horntails. > > I know I'm not the only person that has wondered what those > 'ruddy stargazers' meant by "Mars is bright tonight" so I came up > with some possible theories. Hear me out, I'm not crazy and I > tried to do a little homework. > You've done a lot of homework! I suppose it's back to my simplistic view of things. When I first read that chapter I related the "Mars is bright" comments to the sort of weather small-talk for which the Brits are famed. When conversation lags, or gets onto a topic which is uncomfortable the traditional gambit is to say something about the weather, "It's a chill breeze today." It may not actually be a chill breeze, it just changes the subject and gives the other person something with which to agree or disagree. Impressed by the research though. Cheers for now Pam From heidit at netbox.com Mon Jul 1 14:55:50 2002 From: heidit at netbox.com (heidit at netbox.com) Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 14:55:50 -0000 Subject: Diversity in Media & Literature (JKR quotes and serial books) Message-ID: <20020701145550.1778.qmail@uwdvg001.cms.usa.net> No: HPFGUIDX 40644 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "datalaur" wrote: But I mind some publisher unilaterally deciding > they're going to modify the author's work. (I'm under the impression > this was not a change by JKR, and that she did not bless it.) I am sorry to jump in on this so late in the day, but I felt compelled to clear a few things up. First, Datalaur, why are you so convinced that JKR didn't either make the change, or at least bless it? An American Library Association interview with her says the following (I've cut it down to the essentials, but the original is here: http://www.ala.org/BookLinks/jkrowling.html) JOM: Were many changes made by your editor in America before the first book was released here? Rowling: My American editor, Arthur Levine?who I think is brilliant?and I agreed on this point. We set down ground rules that we would make changes only in cases in which we both thought that what I had written would create an erroneous picture in an American child?s mind. Initially, I did think, ?I don?t want them to change a word.? But then, I realized that attitude was akin to expecting French children to all learn English perfectly before they can read my book. We translate this and other books for people who speak other languages and think nothing of it... So, I don?t really feel that I?m selling out my art if I change that word. ... We really changed very little, but every change was for just that reason: I felt and Arthur felt that without such changes we would be tripping readers up unnecessarily. And in a chat in 2000 on eToys, she said, "The title change was Arthur's idea initially, because he felt that the British title gave a misleading idea of the subject matter. In England, we discussed several alternative titles and "Sorcerer's Stone" was my idea." ****** Now, I cannot find the post from the person who said (and it may've been on OT-Chatter) that the presence Cho Chang, and the statement in Book 4 that Angelina is black should be sufficient indicators of diversity in the Hogwarts school population - and that's just *great* for anyone picking up all 4 books now. But in Book 1, there is no Cho (she shows up in Book 3) and the mention of Angelina's race doesn't exist until Book 4. Personally, I first read Book 1 in the US version, but read CoS and PoA in the British versions, as I read each before they were released in the US (and I first read Book 1 4 years ago come September, so it's been a long time for me, and it's admittedly hard to have perfect memorecall of what I thought back then). Thus, IMHO, the use of the capital letter in the word "black" struck me as awkward, but I've seen it done that way in some older British books, and, most recently, I think, in a book printed in the 90s in the UK by Kingsley Amis so I just passed it off as a British convention. So in sum, IMHO, it was written somewhat awkwardly, but I think not done out of malice, or even out of pandering - and over the next day, I am going to reread CoS to see if there's a mention in there of Dean's race. As many of you know, CoS was released in the UK before Book 1 was released in the US - in fact, IIRC, CoS was *written* before Book 1 was even contracted in the US (although not completely done with the editing process). Would those of you who are dismayed by the inclusion of mention of Dean's race in Book 1 in the US be *less* dismayed if it was merely bringing a mention of something into Book 1 which had already been incorporated into Book 2? heidi ____________________________________________________________________ This message was sent from my Palm wireless email account. From nplyon at yahoo.com Mon Jul 1 14:43:54 2002 From: nplyon at yahoo.com (nplyon) Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 14:43:54 -0000 Subject: Diversity in Literature & Media (WAS book differences) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40645 > Apparently, the existence of black people. That's what this boils > down to. > > Do you want to know if a black kid attends Hogwarts? > > If you "knew" already, great, more power to you. > > But if you're so enlightened as to know already, then why would it > bother you to have it acknowledged? > > > Darrin I've been hesitant to jump in here because this is becoming a pretty heated thread. However, I think it only fair to defend those who are being attacked. In the United States, there exists an uneasy feeling that everything must be "PC." This is probably hard for someone who does not live in the U.S. to understand. As you all already know, the U.S. is very culturally diverse but, as some of you may not know, not as well integrated as it should be. Many white people feel a bit apprehensive as to how exactly they should address people of different ethnic backgrounds. The terms are forever changing and some people are offended by certain terms while others are not. For instance, "black" is a term that some people dislike and that is why you usually hear the term "African American" applied. The major problem with what happened in the novels is *not* that there are characters of different ethnic backgrounds and I *firmly* believe that everyone who has posted on this thread thus far does not have a problem with it. I think the problem with the insertion of the word "black" into the U.S. edition of the novels is that to some Americans it seems to scream, "Look, this novel really is diverse!" The problem is not with the existence of black characters, it is with the perceived need on the part of the publisher to blantantly point out that Hogwarts is not just full of white kids. As many people have pointed out, this is not done with characters like Cho and the Patil twins. So why with Angelina and Dean? There is some definite merit to the argument that their names are not in and of themselves indicative to a U.S. audience that they are not white. As many other Americans have said, I too missed the clues given by the fact that Dean is a West Ham fan. All I am attempting to do is to point out that the issue of race is a very tense one in the U.S. I think this thread has run its course and I don't want to see it erupt into a flame war because I am not sure that anyone who has never lived in the U.S. can understand it, just as I do not understand the significance of being a West Ham fan because I have never lived in England. What it boils down to is that many of the others who have posted are bothered by the fact that the publisher saw fit to alter the author's work. That is all. ~Nicole, who would also like to point out that two of the most popular television shows in the U.S., ER and Law & Order, both feature a very culturally diverse cast. From fawkes at wizardingwireless.net Mon Jul 1 04:43:38 2002 From: fawkes at wizardingwireless.net (Dave Haber) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 21:43:38 -0700 Subject: Humor Message-ID: <004901c220b9$e139dee0$6401a8c0@gryffindor> No: HPFGUIDX 40646 One of my favorites is in PS/SS when Harry and Hagrid are racing down through the caverns of Gringotts, and Harry says, "I never know, what's the difference between a stalagmite and a stalactite?" and Hagrid says, "Stalagmite's got an 'm' in it." :-) -Dave ------------------------------------------------------------------------ fawkes at wizardingwireless.net - Dave Haber ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wizarding Wireless Online - www.wizardingwireless.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From divaclv at aol.com Mon Jul 1 15:33:51 2002 From: divaclv at aol.com (c_voth312) Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 15:33:51 -0000 Subject: Mars is Bright In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40647 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ezzie_mora" wrote: > As for an interpretation to what exactly this all would mean - I'm > not the one to ask. I'm no astrologer. And if I'm not mistaken the > actual interpretation of the sky would be based on your own birth > date. Since there are numerous possible 'targets' of their > warnings - Voldemort, Harry, etc.. it's practically impossible to tell > just what they were getting at. But I think this is a pretty good > argument to at least explain what they meant by "Mars is bright" > > -ezzie I'm not exactly the most well-versed person in astrology either, but I seem to recall that Mars is the planet associated with conflict, agression, war, etc. (well, Mars the god was anyway). I've always taken the centaur's commentary on Mars to indicate that they sensed there was some "big, bad mojo" brewing out there. Good call on the centaur's part. ~Christi From ntg85 at prodigy.net Mon Jul 1 15:46:23 2002 From: ntg85 at prodigy.net (The Random Monkey) Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 10:46:23 -0500 Subject: FILK: Stoney People Message-ID: <3D20794F.88BD3309@prodigy.net> No: HPFGUIDX 40648 Stoney People By the Random Monkey, to the tune of the Beatles' "Eleanor Rigby" Oh, look at all the stoney people! Oh, look at all the stoney people! Caretaker Argus Cleans up the blood in the hall where a predator's been; We heard him scream. Look out the window, All of the spiders are walking in line out the door; Whatever for? All the stoney people, Where did they all come from? All the stoney people, Disaster won't be long. Justin Fitch-Fletchley, Found petrified with Sir Nick by an onslaught most queer; Granger's in gear. Look at her working, Checking the halls with a mirror; Is there anyone there? She sees a stare... All the stoney people, Where did they all come from? All the stoney people They're under Riddle's thumb. Oh, look at all the stoney people! Oh, look at all the stoney people! Gilderoy Lockhart, got his desserts with a memory charm to the head; Nobody cared. Potter and Weasley Wiping the dirt from their hands; they've again stopped the knave; Everyone's saved. All the stoney people Are thanking Har and Ron. No more stoney people; The basilisk is gone. From dicentra at xmission.com Mon Jul 1 16:18:47 2002 From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63) Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 16:18:47 -0000 Subject: Diversity in Literature & Media (WAS book differences) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40649 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > > But if we want to speculate, the most compelling clue we have is > that JKR has the *power* and *influence* to object to this change > and she hasn't. That ought to be the beginning and end of the > question of whether the change reflects her vision of Hogwarts. It > obviously does. > Er, Cindy? At the time Book 1 was published, JKR was not a powerful person. She was the timid author having her first book published, and therefore was willing to be very accommodating to her publishers, whom she perceived to be more powerful than she. If this were not so, we wouldn't have a "Sorcerer's Stone." Having said that, I don't mean to imply that Dean's race was imposed on her or that she agreed to it against her better judgment. We don't know that. And I strongly suspect she didn't object then nor does she now. Later editions, after all, still say he's black. If we're going to get upset about Scholastic making changes to Book 1, the title should offend us far more than Dean's race, because we KNOW they changed the title to "dumb it down" for American readers. Specifying that Dean has dark skin isn't a dumbing down, as far as we can tell--it's a clarification. And it doesn't "ruin" the book at all; "Sorcerer's Stone," however, does. You can't find "sorcerer's stone" in the encyclopedia, but "Philosopher's Stone" is historical, and therefore you can research it to get more insight into the meaning of the series. But let's say that we *know* that the editors at Scholastic are actually closet racists but they change Dean's race to appear to be inclusive to their publisher friends (who are also closet racists who don't want to appear unfashionable either). Now what? We roll our eyes at how shallow they are and move on. If, however, we feel that the mention of Dean's skin color is *offensive* because of the publisher's shallow motives, that adds another dimension. It implies that changing the skin color of a character is itself problematic. Is it? Why? Because the editors' motives were shallow? That goes back to the editors, not to the skin color. I'm not going to accuse those who are outraged by the change as racist; I have no way of knowing what's in your heart. I do wonder, though, if you identify yourselves as conservative, and because being politically correct is perceived as an activity of the "liberal left" (at this point in history, anyway) you might have a hard time accepting it. I myself am conservative, but I refuse to let treating people as people, regardless of skin tone, be an exclusively liberal cause. Anyway, I think it's cool that Dean has dark skin. I'm glad they pointed it out. --Dicentra, who really needs to get back to work From ntg85 at prodigy.net Mon Jul 1 16:24:26 2002 From: ntg85 at prodigy.net (random_monkey0_0) Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 16:24:26 -0000 Subject: Mars is Bright In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40650 Ezzie: > I know I'm not the only person that has wondered what those > 'ruddy stargazers' meant by "Mars is bright tonight" so I came up > with some possible theories. Hear me out, I'm not crazy and I > tried to do a little homework. > > Ronan and Bane both gaze at the sky and say that "Mars is > bright" and "unusually bright" Could this be a literal translation of > what the Centaurs saw, or is it a figurtive one about the > relationship of the planets in the sky that night? Okay... (takes deep breath) time to P.O. people... JKR is an excellent author, and a great storyteller, but c'mon, would she really have gotten out the star charts and checked if Mars really was bright on May 26, 1991? I'm thinking she said it for the symbolism Mars has. As has been mentioned, Mars is the planet of war. Mars signifies conflict and strife. Mars means somthin' bad is goin' down, if you'll excuse the grammar. Jo probably wasn't counting on a group of 4000 or so nitpickers tearing apart her works like lions on a fresh antelope... She should've known better. ;-) So why do I bother to write this? 'Cause I don't see the point in getting all scientific about it. If you want to find ways that the books could work in real life, that's one thing. If you want to guess what the author meant, be a little more realistic. The Random Monkey, who really needs to chill. From huntleyl at mssm.org Mon Jul 1 16:07:11 2002 From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Ingalls Huntley) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 12:07:11 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sexuality in HP/Freud/Sexist!Voldemort References: Message-ID: <02d101c2211b$acb56d80$32c3edd1@Huntley> No: HPFGUIDX 40651 Just got back from a vacation in London :) So, I'm kinda playing catch-up here...I guess most of this stuff is ancient history..but, oh well. Buttercup said: >It's interesting that the Freudian aspect has come up, because I've >noticed a lot of psychoanalytical symbolism in PoA too. Ok, maybe >I've been studying psychology too long, but here goes. A theory: >Assuming that he was mistreated by the Dursleys from day one, Harry >would not have experienced his Oedipal complex (which according to >Freud should happen around the age of five) at all (it's pretty >obvious that he doesn't identify with Uncle Vernon). At the beginning >of PoA, whenever Harry encounters a dementor, he hears his mother >screaming and feels the need to protect her. He also feels hatred for >Sirius (not his actual father, I know, but a substitute in a sense). Okay, first off, I guess it's only fair to admit right here that I have absolutely *zero* respect for Freud. He's just a Fraud, IMO. ^_~ In fact, his theories tend to fill me a strange, pervasive feeling of hatred and anger. Go figure. ^_^ Bearing this in mind, one would not be totally out-of-line in suggesting that my opinions on this subject are highly colored by my own feelings for his theories. However, even when I (try to) take a objective look at your assertion here..it still seems to be a little..grasping. Harry has very specific reasons for hating Sirius, and it doesn't seem to have much to do with some kind of Freudian father-son dynamic. When these reasons are disproved, the hatred is erased as well. Harry's initial feelings for Sirius were not based on emotional complexes or the like -- rather, on the fact that he thought Sirius had had a horrible hand in his parent's death. Buttercup: >When he begins Lupin's anti-dementor lessons and tried to produce a >patronus, he is only able to produce small spurts of white stuff from >the end of his wand (ahem). At the end of the book, when he >encounters Sirius and identifies with him, he also identifies with >his real father and is able to produce a proper, full-on patronus, a >stag, which "erupts" from the end of his wand. This is not entirely true. He produced a proper patronus at the Quidditch match, don't you remember? ^_^ It's one of my favorite parts in PoA -- after all is revealed and Lupin comments on the "unusual" form Harry's patronus had taken. Imagine Lupin seeing it at the Quidditch match...it was probably like seeing James again. Very touching...in fact, it made my mother cry (we were listening to PoA on CD last night). Darrin said: >The notion of Harry being most afraid of losing Ron is, as has been >said, easily ignored. But, to point out something else: Hermione and >Cho had already been taken. And Cedric and Krum are at least three >years older, certainly at the age where the most important person in >their lives would be girls they were dating. Actually, Hermione and Cho as the things that Viktor and Cedric were most afraid to lose (respectively) struck a little hollow to me. Ron as Harry's sacrifice made sense to me -- Ron is like Harry's brother, the first friend he ever had, practically his *family*, one of the first people to show kindness and comradeship towards him, *the* first peer to do so. Fleur's sister also made perfect sense to me. But Cho and Hermione? In my experience, relationships between kids that age are not that serious. They may *feel* serious to the people involved -- but in reality, the romantic bonds you make at 17 or so are flimsy at best. It would have made much more sense to me if, say, Cedric's sacrifice had been his mother or a close, lifelong friend or something. *Not* his girlfriend (if, indeed, their relationship was even that). As for Hermione and Viktor... Darrin said: >Hermione is Krum's most important person after one date? Certainly, >we're talking about a Quidditch God here, who probably went through >groupies like Ron goes through Every Flavor Beans. The rules >obviously dictated a person be the object the contestants had to >rescue -- how else can you insert the fear of drowning -- else Krum >might have had his broomstick down there. I think that Hermione is more than a groupie-flavored bean to Krum. IMO, he seems frankly obsessed with the girl. Also, I think we are supposed to assume that Krum *doesn't* "go through" groupies...that he finds them annoying and avoids them if at all possible. However, I still find the fact that she was his hostage a little "off". Hasn't he got a family member or a good friend or someone who takes precedent over a girl that he, while enamored of, barely knows? My guess is that the hostages were *not* what the Champions would necessarily most miss -- as in, there was no magic preformed to divine who *exactly* was most loved by each contestant (a la Mirror of Erised). I think D and Co. just picked people to put down in the lake based on their observations and what was most convenient. Notice that three of the hostages were students at Hogwarts. All easily accessible and trusting of D. and Co. Probably the only reason they had to use Fleur's sister is because it was obvious that she *didn't* care much for anyone at Hogwarts at the time. Darrin: >But I find myself remembering Jerry Falwell's rants about a >Teletubbie being a gay pride symbol. Disney has long had to deal with >accusations of subliminal messages in their cartoons and I've seen a >doctoral thesis on Bugs Bunny's alleged homosexuality. *twisted smile* well, the accusations leveled at Disney are not *entirely* unfounded, as you may or may not know. For instance, take a good look at the scenes in The Little Mermaid where the sea witch (in disguise) is marrying Prince Eric (I used to watch this movie three times a day when I was little -- we didn't have TV) ... the priest has a humongous..erm, erection. (I can say that, right?) Elkins said: >I do think that Voldemort cares about the >sex of his victims, not because of any normal preference for men as >romantic objects, but rather because of his contempt for women. >Neither as the teenaged Riddle nor as the reincorporated Voldemort >does he seem to recognize women as valuable, powerful, or even as >particularly interesting. He is profoundly dismissive of them. They >barely seem to register on his radar. Hmmm...I wonder how this could be used against him? Underestimating/ignoring females such as Hermione in the midst of a battle seems particularly dangerous to me. *has visions of Hermione surprising the socks (does he wear socks?) off a ready-to-blast-Harry Voldemort* Actually, it's already been used against him, hasn't it? He totally underestimated the strength of Lily's sacrifice, didn't he? laura (who has jet lag and is having trouble stringing her sentences together in an understandable fashion) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cindysphynx at comcast.net Mon Jul 1 16:49:10 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 16:49:10 -0000 Subject: Diversity in Literature & Media (WAS book differences) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40652 Dicentra wrote: > Er, Cindy? At the time Book 1 was published, JKR was not a >powerful person. She was the timid author having her first book >published, and therefore was willing to be very accommodating to >her publishers, whom she perceived to be more powerful than she. If >this were not so, we wouldn't have a "Sorcerer's Stone." Let's read what I wrote one more quick time: > > But if we want to speculate, the most compelling clue we have is > > that JKR has the *power* and *influence* to object to this > >change and she hasn't. That ought to be the beginning and end of > >the question of whether the change reflects her vision of > >Hogwarts. It obviously does. Notice the deliberate usage of the present tense there. JKR *has* the power and influence to object to this change and she *hasn't* and the change therefore *reflects* her vision. That was no accident. I'm not saying JKR had the power to resist this change when the book was first published. I don't know that, and no one else knows that, either. Heidi's citations to JKR's interview, however, do seem to take us a very long way to concluding that JKR may well have had some control over the change of Dean Thomas' race, as her approval of the changes was solicited to some extent. No, the big whomping clue that she doesn't mind the change is that she is powerful enough to get this changed *right now* and has not. Although. . . That could well be the delay in OoP. JKR is sitting in her big mansion pouting and stomping her foot, telling her publicist that they can't have the completed manuscript for OoP unless they change Dean Thomas' race in the U.S. edition of PS/SS *right now!* ;-) Cindy (who finds this idea much more entertaining than the idea that JKR is just being slow and careful and deliberate with OoP) From huntleyl at mssm.org Mon Jul 1 16:50:12 2002 From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Ingalls Huntley) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 12:50:12 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The female founders and Latin References: Message-ID: <030a01c2211f$5f0a2b80$32c3edd1@Huntley> No: HPFGUIDX 40653 There was some discussion awhile ago about Latin and spells and the like that hit upon something that has been bothering me for some time: I don't understand what it is about a few utterances that creates a magic effect -- or how those utterance should form words of a specific language that relate to the magic effect itself. How?! When was Latin (in a recognizable form) "created"? Surely there were wizards before then? What did they use then? And it's not like it's only the *intent* behind the words that matters, as in PS we find Hermione correcting Ron's pronunciation. The only thing I can think of is that wizards *made* Latin, before it was ever a working language. They somehow discovered that the sound "lumos" made their wands glow...and therefore, when Latin became a language, they took lumos to mean light (or whatever it is that lumos means in Latin -- I haven't actually studied the language) and Latin evolved from the spell-sounds into a recognizable language...which would show even greater connections between wizards and the early Christian church. Pretty far-fetched, isn't it? But I can't think of any other way to make it work.. laura [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bard7696 at aol.com Mon Jul 1 17:09:56 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 17:09:56 -0000 Subject: Diversity in Literature & Media (WAS book differences) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40654 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "nplyon" wrote: > > Apparently, the existence of black people. That's what this boils > > down to. > > > > Do you want to know if a black kid attends Hogwarts? > > > > If you "knew" already, great, more power to you. > > > > But if you're so enlightened as to know already, then why would it > > bother you to have it acknowledged? > > > > > > Darrin > Nplypon said: > I've been hesitant to jump in here because this is becoming a pretty > heated thread. However, I think it only fair to defend those who are > being attacked. > > In the United States, there exists an uneasy feeling that everything > must be "PC." This is probably hard for someone who does not live in > the U.S. to understand. As you all already know, the U.S. is very > culturally diverse but, as some of you may not know, not as well > integrated as it should be. Many white people feel a bit > apprehensive as to how exactly they should address people of > different ethnic backgrounds. The terms are forever changing and > some people are offended by certain terms while others are not. For > instance, "black" is a term that some people dislike and that is why > you usually hear the term "African American" applied. > I write: I don't know if it came off like I do not live in America, but I have lived in the U.S. most of my life, excepting four years on an Air Force Base on Japan. I've never even been to England and I didn't have the first clue what West Ham meant. And let's be honest here. Say the book was written by an American and was set in some scenic part of the U.S. (My vote would be the New Mexico desert) What other locations besides Harlem and South Central Los Angeles, and maybe southeastern D.C. are going to be dead giveaways to a fellow American, let alone a foreign reader, that the kid is probably black? Locations are hardly the most reliable clues to a person's race. So, to assume that we should have known from the West Ham reference is a bit too much to ask. Non-American members: If an American character in a novel is described as being from Cicero, Illinois, would you know that this character is most likely descended from an old Italian family or is black? And if you didn't know, and the book didn't tell you, would you look it up? Now, to the rest of the post: > The major problem with what happened in the novels is *not* that > there are characters of different ethnic backgrounds and I *firmly* > believe that everyone who has posted on this thread thus far does not > have a problem with it. I think the problem with the insertion of > the word "black" into the U.S. edition of the novels is that to some > Americans it seems to scream, "Look, this novel really is diverse!" > The problem is not with the existence of black characters, it is with > the perceived need on the part of the publisher to blantantly point > out that Hogwarts is not just full of white kids. As many people > have pointed out, this is not done with characters like Cho and the > Patil twins. So why with Angelina and Dean? There is some definite > merit to the argument that their names are not in and of themselves > indicative to a U.S. audience that they are not white. As many other > Americans have said, I too missed the clues given by the fact that > Dean is a West Ham fan. I stand by my assertion that if Dean Thomas had been named DeRon or given some other "black-sounding" name than the anti-P.C. crowd would have been screaming just as loud. Cho was not introduced in the first novel. And I have read that England, or at least London, has a significant Pakistani and Indian population, so that makes sense. And so the novel screams "Hogwarts is diverse." What exactly is WRONG with that? Again, we're talking about just the existence of a black kid at Hogwarts. He's not doing anything politically correct at all. No one treats him any better or worse. He gets into arguments about sports with white kids, but he's not a stereotypical great athlete. Dean is just there. So, his very existence is a problem. Darrin From Pam at barkingdog.demon.co.uk Mon Jul 1 17:13:28 2002 From: Pam at barkingdog.demon.co.uk (pamscotland) Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 17:13:28 -0000 Subject: JKR's power WAS Re: Diversity in Literature & Media (WAS book differences) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40655 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > That could well be the delay in OoP. JKR is sitting in her big > mansion pouting and stomping her foot, telling her publicist that > they can't have the completed manuscript for OoP unless they change > Dean Thomas' race in the U.S. edition of PS/SS *right now!* ;-) > > Cindy (who finds this idea much more entertaining than the idea that > JKR is just being slow and careful and deliberate with OoP) A very entertaining idea! JKR's 'power' with the publisher was fairly limited even as late as Goblet of Fire. She has said that she had terrible problems with GoF, the famous plot hole, the chapter that was too difficult to write, etc. etc. But she was tied into a deadline and it caused her a great deal of anguish meeting that deadline. When I went to one of her readings, a few months after GoF was published, she shuddered as she told us that getting GoF to print was horrible. She was absolutely adamant that she would never, ever let that happen again and that the next book would be published when she had it ready and she was not going to be rushed about it. She told us then that it would be longer than PoA but not as long as GoF. There were a lot of sighs of disappointment at that - she was amazed that the audience (about two-thirds children) actually wanted longer books and would be happy with something even longer than GoF. She told us to write and tell the publishers because they wouldn't believe it! So I did. Pam From huntleyl at mssm.org Mon Jul 1 17:09:45 2002 From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Ingalls Huntley) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 13:09:45 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Religion in the Potterverse References: Message-ID: <031401c22122$1a7d0200$32c3edd1@Huntley> No: HPFGUIDX 40656 Dave writes: > Fact is, it's in any case a mistranslation -- The original word is > "poisoner", not witch/wizard/sorceress or whatever. Pip Squeak replied: >Sorry Dave, this is a very popular myth, based on the Greek >Septuagint translation using a word that can mean either >'witch' or 'poisoner'. The original Hebrew uses a word which >means 'user of magic' ONLY. >See >http://www.witchvox.com/words/words_1999/e_sufferawitch.html >for a non-Christian discussion of the original language. The discussion which you refer to contains this passage: "A collection of Torah and Haftorah readings, circa the late 40's-early 50's, with translation and commentary by the then Chief Rabbi of Great Britain, renders makesofha as "witch, " as does my copy of Ben Yehudah (the principle dictionary of modern Hebrew). The commentary in the British work goes on to note that a gentler interpretation of the passage calls for giving no credence to claims to witchcraft, since such claims are delusional. It distances the Torah exegesis from the use of the passage to justify the witch craze trials, noting how infrequently the death penalty is actually exacted under Jewish law. This is, ironically, the position of Catholic doctrine up until the beginning of the witch crazes, around the 12-13th century (viz. Tuchman, A Distant Mirror, for one account of the historical context of this sea change)." I *think* what is being said here is that the "gentler interpretation" is that the bible basically says that witches aren't real and you shouldn't give claims of them any credit. And that (here's where I may have misinterpreted what the writer is trying to say) the Catholic church itself took this view until they decided to use it to attack witchcraft (there *is* a long and rather unfortunate history of certain people of the Christian faith bending scripture to mean what they want it to mean)... So, I guess you could argue that the passage in question was a bit of misdirection put in by wizards (in the Potterverse) that eventually backfired on them? I'm trying to tread lightly here as I know phenomenally little about most of this, but that does seem like a logical conclusion, doesn't it? Assuming that I didn't misread the section from Pip Squeak's reference. laura [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Pam at barkingdog.demon.co.uk Mon Jul 1 17:24:52 2002 From: Pam at barkingdog.demon.co.uk (pamscotland) Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 17:24:52 -0000 Subject: Diversity in Literature & Media (WAS book differences) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40657 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "darrin_burnett" wrote: > And let's be honest here. Say the book was written by an American and > was set in some scenic part of the U.S. (My vote would be the New > Mexico desert) What other locations besides Harlem and South Central > Los Angeles, and maybe southeastern D.C. are going to be dead > giveaways to a fellow American, let alone a foreign reader, that the > kid is probably black? > I wouldn't have a clue. If there were a picture on the dust jacket then I suppose I would think that that would be a good indication (though why I should think that I don't know - an awful lot of books are published with dust-jackets bearing only a passing resemblance to what is inside). However - I'm not sure whether there would be any alterations for publication this side of the pond that would give us a clue. We may not find out until we joined in the appropriate Yahoo group to discuss it! Pam From huntleyl at mssm.org Mon Jul 1 17:25:50 2002 From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Ingalls Huntley) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 13:25:50 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups]Hooch-wholesome Quidditch referee or liquor-selling prostitute? References: Message-ID: <031b01c22124$592c2600$32c3edd1@Huntley> No: HPFGUIDX 40658 AV: >Yes, it is definitely a literal translation. Hooch is the kind of booze you >drink out of a paper bag. I'd never heard of the alky-pop thing, but it >sounds like an ironic name. Hmm...drunken flying anyone? I wonder if you can get a ticket for flying while intoxicated? Anyway..I'm only familiar with the brand-name Hooch as far as the alcohol connotations go. For the curious among you, it tastes JUST LIKE Orangina (honestly, you can hardly tell it's alcoholic) and (I think) has about the same alcohol content as a beer. But the other meaning for hooch is, unless I'm crazily off-course here -- a prostitute or the like right? Maybe just a slutty individual rather than a professional, I'm not sure. Either way (whore, slut, or alcoholic beverage), I can't imagine what JKR was trying to tell us about Hooch's character by naming her that. I mean, unless it's to explain what she does when she's not refereeing Quidditch matches or teaching first-years to fly. Although I have a hard time believing that she spends her spare time running a liquor store/whorehouse. It would explain where Hagrid gets his ale and the single malt whiskey though, wouldn't it? And why the Hogwarts teachers seem to have no problem staying away from their theoretical spouses for so long. *is warming to this theory* laura [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From catherine at cator-manor.demon.co.uk Mon Jul 1 18:13:37 2002 From: catherine at cator-manor.demon.co.uk (Catherine Coleman) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 19:13:37 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dean Thomas - nitpicks on West Ham In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40659 In message , darrin_burnett writes >Locations are hardly the most reliable clues to a person's race. So, >to assume that we should have known from the West Ham reference is a >bit too much to ask. I'm not going to address any of the many points floating around about the rights and wrongs of the change to the US edition - it really doesn't bother me either way. The decision was made somewhere along the line that Dean Thomas is black, and if JKR made that decision, it's fine by me. However, I am interested in the fact that when I initially read PS (English edition) I didn't automatically think that Dean Thomas was black, purely because of his support for West Ham, and I've yet to understand why others assumed this, and why they seem to think that others should as well. I certainly wouldn't ever try to guess someone's ethnicity based on which football team they support. I fail to understand why this is an indication. West Ham in particular for the London teams is very diverse in terms of both ethnicity of fans, and geographical location of the same. I live in South East London - most of my step daughter's in laws, who live dotted around South London and Kent, are West Ham supporters - have been for generations - they are basically white suburbanites. There is even a West Ham store in Bluewater, Kent, (a large shopping mall) which is very popular. That area is predominantly white, and it is quite rare to see non-white people in there. As Darrin says, location is an unreliable clue as to a person's race. I'd go further and say that we have never been given any indication that Dean Thomas does live in West Ham, as support of the team isn't conclusive on this point. Therefore, until the American edition stated unequivocally that he was black, I would have thought that the only thing we could safely assume about Dean Thomas is that he is (probably!) Muggle born. For me, that is as much as you can glean. I am therefore interested in why people assumed this. Or was it a case of knowing Dean's ethnicity from either the American edition or the film and working backwards? Catherine, who by the way uses the word bloody as a mild expletive quite regularly, and doesn't consider herself to be either a Sloane or old-fashioned. From JPA30 at cam.ac.uk Mon Jul 1 18:16:35 2002 From: JPA30 at cam.ac.uk (archeaologee) Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 18:16:35 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups]Hooch-wholesome Quidditch referee or liquor-selling prostitute? In-Reply-To: <031b01c22124$592c2600$32c3edd1@Huntley> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40660 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Laura Ingalls Huntley" wrote: > Either way (whore, slut, or alcoholic beverage), I can't imagine what JKR was trying to tell us about Hooch's character by naming her that. I checked the OED (Oxford English Dictionary, THE last word in matters of English word etimology, first use, authors to use it......) online and Hooch is more commonly seen as a Scottish explanation by them. I.e. "hooch man!", there was also something else about Scottishness and the word (dancing perhaps?)- but I did this a good while ago in response to the names in HP website and sent the research to them. I thought JKR was trying to portray a sort of Scottish matriarch when I first read the name, hooch isn't as strongly linked to alcohol in my neck of the woods (although I do remember when the alcopops came out and Hooch was pretty much the first one, along with Two Dogs). I'm not sure if it was even around when JKR was planning names for her characters. (although it was about ten years ago so could go either way) Pretty sure she was in Scotland though (or on a train there ;-)) > It would explain where Hagrid gets his ale and the single malt whiskey though, wouldn't it? And why the Hogwarts teachers seem to have no problem staying away from their theoretical spouses for so long. *is warming to this theory* Me also like the idea of drink pussing teachers *wonders if Fred and George know yet, or will they have to wait untill they are eighteen*, although the two broomsticks ain't too far away. But in my experience alcohol is more likely to increase shall we say 'romantic' encounters rather than make people content to do without ;-) James (who has no idea if his research on Hoochyness or other names has been put online as he lost the website when he accidentaly deleted his favorites and cannot re-check as he has now left University and its accompanying subscription to the OED site, grr, also lost cheap beer) From alina at distantplace.net Mon Jul 1 18:19:41 2002 From: alina at distantplace.net (Arealin) Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 18:19:41 -0000 Subject: To clarify what I said earlier - race (quite long) In-Reply-To: <002f01c22027$a3e36f80$24b268d5@xxx> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40661 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "rosie" wrote: > > It would be interesting to know what is said about the Sorting in foreign-language editions . Alexander, can you help? > > > Rosie I can tell you that the Canadian edition of the book does not mention Dean during the sorting at all and the Russian translation I have mentions that Dean is taller than Ron but omits the fact that he is black. Alina of Distant Place http://www.distantplace.net/ From pennylin at swbell.net Mon Jul 1 18:34:30 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (plinsenmayer) Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 18:34:30 -0000 Subject: It's descendent, not ancestor; Omniscience In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40662 Hi -- I realize I'm a little late on this one but I do have a point -- --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "judyserenity" wrote: > On the topic of whether Voldemort is Slytherin's descendent or > ancestor, David (davewitley) very kindly emailed me the following > quote from an interview with JK Rowling: > > ************************** > Q: Is Voldemort the last remaining ancestor of Slytherin, or the last > remaining descendent of Slytherin? > > JKR 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!) > *********************** > > The interview can be found at: > www.scholastic.com/harrypotter/author/transcript2 > > So, this clears it up; it should read "descendent". This means Harry > *can not* be descended from Voldemort (or Slytherin) unless Dumbledore was wrong when he said in CoS that Voldemort is the last surviving descendent of Slytherin. > I agree with the interpretation of her interview statement as reading that the text *should* read descendant (and not ancestor). I've always thought that was the intent since the phrase "last remaining" doesn't sound at all right for "ancestor" after all. "Last remaining" pretty clearly means descendant. What I find confusing, however, is that once the "error" was discovered, it has not been uniformly corrected. I have seen several later printings of hardback CoS where the wording was changed to "descendant," but yet my first printing paperback version of CoS (published *after* these corrected hardback printings) contains the old "ancestor" phrase. I fail to understand why they can't get this right! As for the theory that Voldemort is Harry's grandfather, I think we have 2 pieces of evidence that he is *not* related to Harry. First, you have Dumbledore's statement that Voldemort has no descendants (if he's the last surviving descendent, then he has *no* surviving children or grandchildren). Second, you have the JKR interview statement that Voldemort being related to Harry would be a "bit Star Wars." I suppose it's possible to read her response as a "side-step," but my interpretation is that she's being pretty clear on that one. :--) Penny From crana at ntlworld.com Mon Jul 1 18:42:41 2002 From: crana at ntlworld.com (rosie) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 19:42:41 +0100 Subject: This & That Message-ID: <001601c2212f$162ca7c0$cf3668d5@xxx> No: HPFGUIDX 40663 I'm not going to carry on replying to these messages, it's wandering way too far off topic, and I don't want to have half this list hating me, ok? No offence if I didn't reply to some of the very good points made... there is just one thing I'd like to clear up Catherine said: "However, I am interested in the fact that when I initially read PS (English edition) I didn't automatically think that Dean Thomas was black, purely because of his support for West Ham, and I've yet to understand why others assumed this, and why they seem to think that others should as well." No! I didn't mean, he supports West Ham, therefore is black! I didn't assume this, and I don't think anyone else should either. I mentioned West Ham as support for the idea that people came to Hogwarts from all over, including from London. It was someone else's idea (I can't remember who, I'm sorry) that if he was black and supported West Ham there might be an orphanage connection... but that was not my theory, ok? Rosie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From JPA30 at cam.ac.uk Mon Jul 1 18:46:51 2002 From: JPA30 at cam.ac.uk (archeaologee) Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 18:46:51 -0000 Subject: Diversity in Media and Literature (WAS No Subject) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40664 As a Londoner\Surrey resident (Surry address, London Phone No., London Transport...) in an area with the highest concentration of Koreans outside Korea, as well as attending an international College (75% overseas) and being an avid football fan I *inhales deeply, and regrets lack of previous punctuation* never assumed Dean, or Angelina, or Lee was black. Or white. Or anything other than a wizard and young. There is a wonderful episode of Southpark where they try and change the town flag. This originally depicts a bunch of Klansmen (or whichever hate group they choose) lynching a black man. The children fail to see it's racist as they only see a bunch of people hanging another one. I did assume the name Patel was asian, and thought that Cho was probably Chinese, but as far as all the others went I carried no opinion whatsoever unless given specific descriptions (Ron's red hair and freckles did give him away I must admit). I don't think that children reading them would have an opinion either. In fact I believe that there would be those that even visualise a black Harry (analogies with the African depictions of Jesus - an ethinc Jew\Middle Eastern resident - are not inapropriate) if the books did not have Harry as white on the covers [ok I just re-read that and remembered his "pale complection" and "green eyes" but I think the analogy still holds]. I am a bit annoyed that the US editon put that in [Dean's colour] (I really didn't see the need, and it implies Harry is concerned with these things in a way the UK editions don't) but then political correctness is seen as very important and people assume odd things and get VERY upset about these issues (as mine and previous posts have shown). Dean's colour in the unmentionable cinema title surprised me, but only as I had never thought about it, and I had no problem with it after that. James From carmenharms at yahoo.com Mon Jul 1 14:53:49 2002 From: carmenharms at yahoo.com (snazzzybird) Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 14:53:49 -0000 Subject: The secret job of Arthur Weasley In-Reply-To: <000501c220c7$a7ae6480$d4d1df80@hppav> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40665 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Aesha Williams" wrote: > > At one point he [Arthur Weasley] gives the names of two 'unspeakables' from the department > of mysteries. If > > Boad and Croaker really were unspeakables... > > I would really like to know more about the Unspeakables. Besides the > Aurors, that sounds like the coolest job in the ministry! > > Aesha I have wondered about the Unspeakables too. When I read Arthur Weasley's remark, I assumed the Department of Mysteries was analogous to the US's CIA, and that Unspeakables were like CIA agents. In that capacity they would infiltrate the enemy and spy on them, perhaps disseminating disinformation as well. I'll bet they also get up to some Black Ops, both at home and in other countries. (I wrote a fanfic which incorporates this assumption, by the way. That's how I came to get into it so deeply.) I'd be interested to hear what others think... -- Snazzzy Bird, who wasn't surprised at all to hear the the CIA and the Mafia were in cahoots, because they're so much alike. From cureluv88 at hotmail.com Mon Jul 1 17:16:15 2002 From: cureluv88 at hotmail.com (lizbot1981) Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 17:16:15 -0000 Subject: Mars is Bright In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40666 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ezzie_mora" wrote: > I've been contemplating this for quite some time, and didn't see it > in the archives anywhere. If it's already been discussed in great > detail, feel free to flame me, roast me and feed me to hungry > Horntails. > > I know I'm not the only person that has wondered what those > 'ruddy stargazers' meant by "Mars is bright tonight" so I came up > with some possible theories. Hear me out, I'm not crazy and I > tried to do a little homework. > > Ronan and Bane both gaze at the sky and say that "Mars is > bright" and "unusually bright" Could this be a literal translation of > what the Centaurs saw, or is it a figurtive one about the > relationship of the planets in the sky that night? > Okay, I was looking in an astrology book the other day, looking at the sign "Leo". Then I remembered that Harry was a Leo. The description of a Leo's personality fit Harry's perfectly, with words like 'brave', 'trustworthy', etc. So, then I looked up Hermione and Ron, and found that their signs also described them. I then looked up Aries for the fun of it, and found that the planet for Aries is Mars. That got me thinking about what the centaurs had said the night in the Forbidden Forest. I thought about this for a while. What characters that are Aries could have been 'bright' that night? Which led me to think of Voldemort. It accord to me that we don't know what month and day Voldemort was born on. If he were an Aries, it would make sense. Mars was bright that night, and so was Voldemort in a sense. He had been drinking unicorn blood. I don't know, it's just a theory. He may not be an Aries after all. -Liz From suzchiles at pobox.com Mon Jul 1 19:51:13 2002 From: suzchiles at pobox.com (Suzanne Chiles) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 12:51:13 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups]Hooch-wholesome Quidditch referee or liquor-selling prostitute? In-Reply-To: <031b01c22124$592c2600$32c3edd1@Huntley> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40667 Laura pondered: > > But the other meaning for hooch is, unless I'm crazily off-course > here -- a prostitute or the like right? Maybe just a slutty > individual rather than a professional, I'm not sure. > > Either way (whore, slut, or alcoholic beverage), I can't imagine > what JKR was trying to tell us about Hooch's character by naming > her that. I mean, unless it's to explain > what she does when she's not refereeing Quidditch matches or > teaching first-years to fly. Although I have a hard time > believing that she spends her spare time running a liquor > store/whorehouse. > > It would explain where Hagrid gets his ale and the single malt > whiskey though, wouldn't it? And why the Hogwarts teachers seem > to have no problem staying away from their theoretical spouses > for so long. *is warming to this theory* I looked up "hooch" in the OED and have discovered that use of the word hooch in relation to alcoholic beverages is strictly an American invention. Hooch originated in Alaska in the 19th century as a cheap, home-made, highly intoxicating drink made from wheat and sugar. As for the prostitute slur, it is also of American derivation. Originally it was the name of a Black minstrel performer named Hootchy-Kootchy Rice. Over time, "hootchy-kootchy" came to mean an erotic dance, which is probably how some may have interpreted over time to be connected to prostitution. In addition, another meaning for hooch is temporary housing, such as used by the military. More likely, however, is the association with the British meaning of word, a very old meaning which is " An exclamation of excitement; the cry of a dancer of the Highland fling. Hence heuch v. intr., to utter this cry." I think it's important for American readers, and I am an American reader, not to assume that the meaning of all things must coincide with our rather narrow points of view, especially when reading a work by Scottish author. Zo From ra_1013 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 1 20:03:16 2002 From: ra_1013 at yahoo.com (Andrea) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 13:03:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Missing Weasley Children In-Reply-To: <002101c21fba$f44c1480$d33068d5@xxx> Message-ID: <20020701200316.26713.qmail@web10903.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40668 --- rosie wrote: > I like the Seventh Son theory, although I do think the whole name thing > is a little stretched. Yes, Bill might be Bilious... but that's such a > terrible name, and most of the other names are fairly normal... so that > leaves us with William, Charles, Percy, Frederick, George, Ronald, and > (not sure for Ginny, although to me Virginia sounds more *likely* than > Iphegenia!). Even if Bill is Bilious, and Percy has some other name that > he uses as his first name, I'm not sure. If you did an alphabetical > naming thing, it would at least make sense to start with A, wouldn't it? > Not much point in starting at B. So if the missing son was A, then we > still have a gap at D and E... Why does Bill have to have a "real name"? Or Charlie, Fred, and Ginny, for that matter? I know that generally speaking those names *are* nicknames, but it's not always the case. For example, my three uncles are named (legally, on their birth certificates) Jimmy, Terry, and Greg. Ordinarily you'd assume that they're James, Terrance, and Gregory, but my grandmother was of the opinion that if you were going to call someone by that name, you might as well just *name* him that. Ron's the only one that we have evidence of a longer full name. So we might just have Bill, Charlie, Percy, Fred, George, Ronald, and Ginny Weasley. Let me add very quickly that I LOVE the Seventh Son theory, so don't let this be seen as detracting from it! :) Andrea ===== "Reality is for people who lack imagination." __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com From crana at ntlworld.com Mon Jul 1 20:08:19 2002 From: crana at ntlworld.com (rosie) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 21:08:19 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Missing Weasley Children - Names References: <20020701200316.26713.qmail@web10903.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000f01c2213b$0c0a8bc0$813468d5@xxx> No: HPFGUIDX 40669 Andrea said: "Why does Bill have to have a "real name"? Or Charlie, Fred, and Ginny, for that matter? I know that generally speaking those names *are* nicknames, but it's not always the case. For example, my three uncles are named (legally, on their birth certificates) Jimmy, Terry, and Greg. Ordinarily you'd assume that they're James, Terrance, and Gregory, but my grandmother was of the opinion that if you were going to call someone by that name, you might as well just *name* him that. Ron's the only one that we have evidence of a longer full name. So we might just have Bill, Charlie, Percy, Fred, George, Ronald, and Ginny Weasley." Ok, you're absolutely right. I was just going on the basis of Ronald > Ron and that the Weasleys seemed (to me) to be a family who would give their children standard (if you see what I mean) names but use affectionate diminutives on a day-to-day basis - you're right though, this was just my own subjective perception :) Even so, if we assume that the names used are all the characters' actual names... there isn't much of an alphabetical name thing going on really. B, C, P, F, G (and it could well be G, F), R, G... I like the theory but I'm not sure that the alphabetical naming thing is strongly supportive of it. The other evidence is, imo, much more compelling (eg Mr Weasley's explanation of how scary the Dark Mark is) Rosie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From m.bockermann at t-online.de Mon Jul 1 19:58:45 2002 From: m.bockermann at t-online.de (m.bockermann at t-online.de) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 21:58:45 +0200 Subject: Mars is Bright and Christian symbols (was: sacrilege) References: <1025543415.3873.21885.m8@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <00a601c22144$dbee1060$680b9d3e@i7p8l9> No: HPFGUIDX 40670 Hi there! ezzie wrote: As for an interpretation to what exactly this all would mean - I'm not the one to ask. I'm no astrologer. And if I'm not mistaken the actual interpretation of the sky would be based on your own birth date. Since there are numerous possible 'targets' of their warnings - Voldemort, Harry, etc.. it's practically impossible to tell just what they were getting at. Mars was the Roman god of war. I can't tell you what that means, but I'm sure that it means something. Ethanol From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Mon Jul 1 21:36:06 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 21:36:06 -0000 Subject: Missing Weasley Children (short) In-Reply-To: <002101c21fba$f44c1480$d33068d5@xxx> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40671 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "rosie" wrote: > not sure for Ginny, although to me Virginia sounds more *likely* > than Iphegenia! I always assumed Ginny was short for Guinevere ( Muggles tend to spell it Jennifer these days). It fits with the 'Arthur' theme and would place Percy, Ron and Ginny in their own little Trio. Pip From ksnidget at aol.com Mon Jul 1 20:26:00 2002 From: ksnidget at aol.com (ksnidget at aol.com) Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 16:26:00 -0400 Subject: Re Potterverse: Social Psychology - Wizarding Genetics--Revisiting Genetics Message-ID: <14D4806A.0559530C.007B4FA9@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40672 Alexander Lomski hypothesized, some time ago.. >Genetic Theory >We make an initial assumption that magical talent is >controlled by some gene or set of genes. In other words, we >assume that wizards do have no differences from muggles but >in their genetic code. >So far, so good. What genes, then? I concur, but your analysis seems to be based predominately on Mendelian Genetic theory and does not take into account some of the more recent advances in the understanding of the molecular basis on the gene and research into certain genes that causes disease. While we always start with the obvious genes (why is he the one that got sick) most mechanisms seen in genes that cause disease-causing mutations occur throughout the genome. Having spent *way* too much time studying genetics as I squandered my youth as a perpetual student I have some ideas to add to the mix. >First of all, we can reasonably assume that Wizarding Gene >(called WG in the text) is the dominant. This conclusion >springs immediately from the statistics of wizard-muggle >marriages: so far no wizard born from a muggle and a wizard >has reported to have non-magical brothers and sisters. Here I agree, but am changing nomenclature just a bit. W is someone with the dominant wizarding allele w is someone with the recessive non-wizarding allele (allele is one of a number of types that any gene can be found in) which matches genetic nomenclature better. Esp. since genes are more likely to be named for what the "mutant" expression rather than the wild-type. I propose that one main gene controls magical Vs non-magical. Other genes may influence an individual's magical talent (are they better at charms, etc) but I think my theory may shed some light on how a single gene could cause the variety of magical talent we see in the Wizarding World. >Second, magical talent is controlled not by a single pair >of chromosomes (like gender), but by a set of them. This >conclusion we draw from the facts that: a) wizards sometimes >appear in completely non-magical families, and b) single >dominant gene would manifest itself in one of the parents at >least. >Also we must remember about Creavey Case. In a non-magical >family both children were born with magical talent. We can >reasonably assume that both Creavey parents have parts of >the magical genes set heterotyped (doubled). From this we >can also expect most of Creavey children to posess magical >talent. If this conclusion will be supported by long-term >research, this will become a significant proof of the >theory. Ah, but we have examples of new mutations arising in genes that cause dominate diseases (Huntington's for example) there are a number of genetic diseases that arise from a particular mechanism. They share the traits that they arise spontaneously "out of nowhere" in previously unaffected families. Although one tendency that we don't have data on, that occurs in the diseases, but may or may not occur in wizarding folk is that as the generations pass the disease seems to affect the descendants more strongly. The underlying mechanism for these "new mutants" has to do with the fact that many genes in the human genome have long stretches of repeated DNA. Now these long stretches of repeated DNA are variable sometimes even from generation to generation. My proposal is that some repeated stretch... (hmmm lets see we got A's and C's and T's and G's to make repeats out of...CATCATCAT would be almost too much to hope for, but I am sure some other strangely appropriate repeat will be found to be the basis of the repeat...I suspect someone with more wit than I possess will be able to conjure up a much more wildly appropriate repeat.) ...of DNA lies in the w allele and when it becomes long enough a W allele is produced. This could account for the reports of Muggle-Born Wizards. Every so often in somemuggle's gametes while being copied the gene gets longer, probably considerably longer. This child now carries, and passes on the longer repeat and magical ability. It could also be that once we genotype enough wizards we may find that one hypothesis of mine is true. That the # of repeats has some bearing on the general level of talent someone has, even if it is not the case that each generation gets stronger, as we see in diseases. And there should be some upper limit to the # of repeats with something that is way too long being non-viable. >Another conclusion is that if some muggle family has a >wizarding child, we can expect them to have partial magical >parentage themselves, if often lost in the ages. Which is not necessary with my theory. >About rarity of squibs. >So far we know that Wizarding World experiences a large >amount of muggle-blood injections. This probably has some >connection with the fact that magican genetic patterns have >certain influence on either reproduction abilities or >behavioral patterns (more probably former). Hence we can >assume a relatively large percent of muggle genes in the >Wizarding World genetic pool. Even with dominant magical >genes we should expect a relatively large percent of squibs. >But this doesn't seem to be the case. >This can only happen if whole genetic pattern is not >required for a child to be magically talented. That is, even >a part of magical genes is enough. Whether this means that >the child is less talented or powerful or it's not the case >should be researched further. In most cases where these repeated stretches of DNA cause mutations we find that it is quite rare for a gene once it is elongated past a certain threshold to become significantly shorter in the descendants. So it could be that once w becomes W then there is little ability for it to revert on it's own. Reversion could happen on occasion and cause the rare squib to show up. However, given the number of heterozygous wizards running around (half-bloods) it seems odd that squibs rarely occur as there should be a significant number of w genes hidden in the wizarding population. This leads us to need research in just how the W gene effects other things. One suspicion is that it can either out-compete gametes carrying the w gene (since wizards have unusual resiliency maybe this is seen on the cellular level) or that the eggs of wizard woman because of cytoplasmic differences almost only accept W carrying sperm. Another thing seen in the genetic world is that for some genes (not that well known in humans, but widespread) if the Mother has one version of the gene she almost never carries an offspring of the other genotype. But I suspect some sort of Non-Mendalian explanation will be found to explain why the recessive w allele doesn't show up more frequently than it does given the extent of cross-breeding reported. And it may be that the W allele in and of itself has magical ability and it directly alters any w allele it finds itself with. Taking the selfish gene theory to the ultimate limit. Ksnidget--don't even get me started on palindromic mutational theory..... From mi_shell16 at hotmail.com Mon Jul 1 21:13:36 2002 From: mi_shell16 at hotmail.com (theresnothingtoit) Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 21:13:36 -0000 Subject: Similar names, Hallowe'en and Trevor the Toad Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40673 When re-reading the books some things jumped out at me so I thought I would just group them all down in one go. Similar Names: I have noticed that JKR has used similar sounding names in certain characters whose personality or background is alike. Remus (Lupin) sounds remarkably like Rubeus (Hagrid). Both these characters are half-breeds, one a werewolf the other a half-giant, both which are feared by the wizarding community in general but both are great friend with Harry and were with his father. Severus (Snape) and Sirius (Black) also sound similar. Both characters try their best to protect Harry even though at first they both seem to want to kill him. Both men had very strong feelings towards James Potter, one of love one of hate, and even the characters descriptions are similar: take away Snapes big nose and you have a pale faced man with black hair, almost exactly like Black. It is widely thought by the wizarding community that Black is a double-crosser, and we also know that Snape has double crossed Voldemort "at great personal risk". So this is where the similarities end but if these characters are similar why not make their loyalties so. Which leads us to three different conclusions: 1. Sirius will remain on the side of good but Severus (who turns out never double-crossed the Dark Side) turns out to be a bad guy after all, Dumbledore has been mistaken in the past remember. 2. Severus has double-crossed the side of darkness and remains on the side of good but Sirius is double-crossing the side of good and is really Ever So Evil. 3. They both remain on the side of good but are connected in a way JKR has yet to reveal. Perhaps they are brothers or have been swapped at birth (Severus Black and Sirius Snape have a nice ring to them). Then again it could be an even more intriguing reason. Hallowe'en: This is a little theory that has been banging about in my head for a while now. Was Harry Potter conceived on October 31st, Hallowe'en? The nine months tally in very nicely and although this may be pushing it could this date also have been the wedding night of James and Lily? While I am on the subject one thing that has always slightly annoyed me was the fact that we know Harry's parents bodies were rescued from the house but why has Harry never been shown their graves? Perhaps JKR is saving this emotional treat for a future book. Trevor the Toad: Just a small rant but why oh why does Neville take Trevor down to potions with him in his pocket. Surely it would be allot safer to leave him in the boys dorm. Perhaps he has been asked specifically to carry his toad at all times and that is why he notices when Trevor disappears. Defiantly significant in the upcoming stories me thinks. Rant over; feel free to flame me if all this has already been mentioned. Theresnothingtoit (There really isn't) From swimminwoman86 at aol.com Mon Jul 1 21:31:59 2002 From: swimminwoman86 at aol.com (hpistheman4me) Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 21:31:59 -0000 Subject: Checking brooms for curses Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40674 Hello! My name is Cindy and I am new to HPforGrownups. I was wondering if anyone has any explanation for why in SS when Harry's broom starts acting strangely no one thinks to test it for curses. Hagrid even says, "Can't nothing interfere with a broomstick except powerful Dark magic(SS,ch.11,p.190)." Yet when Harry receives a broomstick from an anonymous source Professor McGonagall is quick to check it for every curse in the book. Of course, a escaped murderer is not supposed to be after Harry in SS, but obviously Professor Dumbledore thought there was some chance that Voldemort would come back for Harry or else he would not have had special things protecting him at the Dursley's. If this subject has already been discussed, forgive me. Like I said, I'm new to the community! ~Cindy~ From porphyria at mindspring.com Mon Jul 1 22:51:05 2002 From: porphyria at mindspring.com (porphyria_ash) Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 22:51:05 -0000 Subject: Checking brooms for curses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40675 ~Cindy~ wrote: > Hello! My name is Cindy and I am new to HPforGrownups. Welcome, Cindy. Now we have two of you. ;-) > I was > wondering if anyone has any explanation for why in SS when Harry's > broom starts acting strangely no one thinks to test it for curses. > Hagrid even says, "Can't nothing interfere with a broomstick except > powerful Dark magic(SS,ch.11,p.190)." Yet when Harry receives a > broomstick from an anonymous source Professor McGonagall is quick to > check it for every curse in the book. Well, McGonagall bought Harry his first broom, so presumably she got it from a reputable vendor and/or she and Flitwick tested it for curses before she had it sent to him. Now when it started acting up at the first Quidditch match, Snape at least had no doubts about exactly what was causing the problem: the broom wasn't intrinsically cursed, but someone was casting a spell upon it "live." Perhaps he said something to McGonagall about it afterwards, or perhaps experienced wizards could tell by looking at the 'broom bucking' jinx that it wasn't something physically embedded in the broom. His broom hadn't acted up before or afterwards, so maybe that convinced everyone it was a temporary problem. But I would like to know more about the process of checking an object for curses. I admit it seems up come up a little out of the blue. ~Porphyria, nervously typing on her format-gremlin-nightmare computer From jfaulkne at sas.upenn.edu Tue Jul 2 00:01:30 2002 From: jfaulkne at sas.upenn.edu (Jen Faulkner) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 20:01:30 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The female founders and Latin In-Reply-To: <030a01c2211f$5f0a2b80$32c3edd1@Huntley> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40676 On Mon, 1 Jul 2002, Laura Ingalls Huntley wrote: > The only thing I can think of is that wizards *made* Latin, before it > was ever a working language. They somehow discovered that the sound > "lumos" made their wands glow...and therefore, when Latin became a > language, they took lumos to mean light (or whatever it is that lumos > means in Latin -- I haven't actually studied the language) and Latin > evolved from the spell-sounds into a recognizable language... Well, that's a kind of fun theory, and sure beats my high school Latin teacher's -- that she convinced an entire (gullible) Latin I class of -- that Latin was invented by monks in the Middle Ages, who were bored and wanted a secret language. *g* Historically, of course, it's nonsense. Although Latin's regularities are so beautiful as to make one suspect intervention in its development from Proto-Indo-European (divine, human, who knows? *g*), it is certainly not an invented language. And that Latin developed from Proto-Italic, a Western branch of PIE, there is no doubt. Nonetheless, well, I kind of like this theory. It actually could maybe be twisted around a little to explain why, in fact, as I've gone about at length before, though not recently, many of the spells are not (correct/recognizable/meaningful) Latin, but merely Latinate. One of these non-Latin spells is of course 'lumos', which looks to be related to Latin 'lumen' ('light'), but has an incorrect ending. Say there were a 'magical language', *not* Latin, but closely related (more closely than Faliscan), so closely that perhaps it would have to be regarded as a dialect of Latin rather than a separate language, or perhaps even some type of creole, mixing Latin with something else (the native wizarding tongue?). That would explain why the spells are identical with Latin, in many cases, or simply recognizably like Latin, but not. Borrowings could bring in Latin words later, as well, like 'patronus', in its mediaeval sense. Perhaps before this language grew common, wizards either used different forms of the words (pre-Proto-Italic) or did not speak an Indo-European language at all. I strongly suspect they'd have used the language around them (be it Latin, Greek, Sanskrit, Old Church Slavonic, Etruscan -- and no, I'm not going to posit that Etruscan was the magical language, nor yet Lydian *g* -- or what have you) in regular conversation, but this magical language could've been reserved for 'sacred' speech, the working of magic, or perhaps simply formed a common tongue for wizards to use, when they spoke different languages or needed a secret form of communication (during persecutions). It must've fallen out of favor, since we do not see any of the kids learning it at Hogwarts, and indeed, new spells seem to be perhaps composed in a different manner ("alohomora," "waddiwasi," which are not (entirely) Latinate). And I'm sure it was never the only magical language, but merely, like Latin, the lingua franca of certain European wizards. But still, it's an interesting idea. :) > which would show even greater connections between wizards and the > early Christian church. I'm not sure I'm following you here, Laura. Latin was around long before the early Christian Church (even being generous and suggesting 753 BCE, the founding date, traditionally, of Rome as the terminus ante quem). Nor would I associate the origins of Christianity with the Latin language, though clearly Christianity did establish itself at Rome, but rather with the eastern, Greek-speaking half of the Empire. --jen, who is a Classicist, but would rather play one on tv. :) * * * * * * Jen's HP fics: http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~jfaulkne/fan/hp.html (URL change!!) Snapeslash listmom: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/snapeslash Yes, I *am* the Deictrix. From fionastewpeas at yahoo.com Mon Jul 1 19:36:55 2002 From: fionastewpeas at yahoo.com (fionastewpeas) Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 19:36:55 -0000 Subject: If Hogwarts were an American Boarding School.. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40677 I've been wondering about that. How would the academic structure be different? I have no idea what a boarding school is like in America, having never attended one here (I did board at a school in Jamaica but since Jamaica is a former British possession, the system is relatively similar to Hogwarts, including houses etc.) I have no idea what the similarities and/or differences would be like. Any input? One thing I've noticed in the Harry Potter series is just how innocent the kids seem to be. Is that indicative of the Wizarding world as separate from the Muggle? Or is it a British thing? Now granted, we don't exactly see how the older kids act among themselves, since everything is pretty much from Harry's POV and things _have_ matured as Harry, Ron, Hermione do. But supposing Hogwarts were in America, it's pretty fair to assume that the kids would be having all kinds of hanky panky going on (and I do mean in a "naughty-naughty" kind of way), regardless of their ages. In the books, most wizard kids wear Muggle clothes, but they pretty much don't know very much about the muggle world (take Ron's fascination with the coin that the Dursleys sent Harry one Christmas). I wonder if it would be any different if Hogwarts were in America. Would the wizard kids be obsessed with NSync and Britney Spears or whatever the groups were at that time? Would they return to school after summer holidays sporting tongue piercings and green hair? For that matter, I wonder if a non-British student (say, an American exchange kid) will set foot at Hogwarts. Should make for an interesting twist, methinks :) --Fiona From rolshan2000 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 1 22:17:15 2002 From: rolshan2000 at yahoo.com (rolshan2000) Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 22:17:15 -0000 Subject: questions for oldtimers Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40678 As a regular lurker but non-poster, I am dying of curiousity about the following historical questions relating to release of GOF (I suppose because now is a similar time of us waiting for OOP): 1. Were there any predictions made on this list that proved to be accurate? (Serius' return, inter-wizard school competition, V's rebirth, Cedric's death, Dobby turning up at Hogwarts, Ron's crush on Hermione, etc. etc.) 2. The FAQ says that some of JRR's "confirmed" predictions for GOF turned out to be incorrect. Does anyone remember any of these? Here's hoping moderator gods let this one through...if there is an online source for any of this info, I would appreciate hearing about it. RIO From huntleyl at mssm.org Tue Jul 2 00:29:04 2002 From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Ingalls Huntley) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 20:29:04 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The female founders and Latin References: Message-ID: <001e01c2215f$791934e0$1eccedd1@Huntley> No: HPFGUIDX 40679 Me: > which would show even greater connections between wizards and the > early Christian church. Jen replied: >I'm not sure I'm following you here, Laura. Latin was around long >before the early Christian Church (even being generous and suggesting >753 BCE, the founding date, traditionally, of Rome as the terminus ante >quem). Nor would I associate the origins of Christianity with the Latin >language, though clearly Christianity did establish itself at Rome, but >rather with the eastern, Greek-speaking half of the Empire. ^_~ I was not trying to say that the Christian church created/predates/etc. Latin. Heavens, no. In light of the fact that some listies were trying out theories that a number of witches may have been nuns.(They had excellent backup for these theories, BTW..I just can't manage to think of any) my proposed connections sort of went as follows: - Latin is (partially) derived from the sacred spell-speaking of the wizards - when the church (with heavy wizard participation) wanted to claim a language for their very own, they chose Latin because of the connections it had with the sacred spell-speak. *shrugs* that's it. Nothing fancy. I'm not even sure it works out that well in terms of history... Anyway..that was sort of a side note to begin with. My *real* problem (the one I was trying to answer with this theory) is that What About These Sounds Makes Magic Happen? Not only that...but how did these particular sounds just *happen* to make words in a specific language...words that were directly related to the outcome of the magic. Again, it isn't just the idea behind the word in the wizards' mind is it? Because pronunciation matters. My only idea of how this could work out is if the spell-words predate and contributed to Latin. laura [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Tue Jul 2 02:42:03 2002 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 2 Jul 2002 02:42:03 -0000 Subject: File - VFAQ.html Message-ID: <1025577723.70023274.5475.m12@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40680 An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lmccabe at sonic.net Tue Jul 2 04:36:48 2002 From: lmccabe at sonic.net (Linda C. McCabe) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 21:36:48 -0700 Subject: Missing Weasley Children - Names Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40681 Rosie wrote: Even so, if we assume that the names used are all the characters' actual names... there isn't much of an alphabetical name thing going on really. B, C, P, F, G (and it could well be G, F), R, G... Athena: Sorry, but everyone seems to forget that the naming scheme starts with A for Arthur. Arthur Bill Charlie (gap filled with hypothetical dead son David) (Edward) Percy Fred George ----Death of David--- Arthur and Molly rethinking naming scheme as bad luck followed by birth of Ronald Ginny Thus allowing for Ron to be a Seventh Son and there being veiled clues. Yes, I know that there is no canon that explicitly says Percy's first name is anything other than Percival or Percy. However, it could be. And I'm sticking to my theory. Why? Because the lure of a seventh son legend is strong and it only takes a little tweaking to make it happen. Let's not debate what Ginny is short for. That happened months ago when I first proposed this theory and we had various possibilities including Virginia, Ipheginia, Guenivere, Jennifer and I forget the rest. It doesn't really matter. We think Ron's first name is Ronald. It might be, it might not be. The strength to me is the large gap between Charlie and Percy and that the others go: A B C F G Making me think that there might just be a D and E to be inserted in there. That's why I'm sticking with Percy as being a middle name. Just like my cousin whose real first name is Carol but she's always been called Yvonne or Vonnie. Why did my aunt and uncle name her one thing and call her another? Beats me, but I know it happens all the time. So, take this theory for what it's worth: another example of a fan desperate to see patterns and to try and predict what JKR has up her sleeve while we're are all impatiently waiting for OoP to come out. Athena From chetah27 at hotmail.com Tue Jul 2 04:56:06 2002 From: chetah27 at hotmail.com (aldrea279) Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 04:56:06 -0000 Subject: Diversity in Media and Literature (WAS No Subject) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40682 Eloise: >>I'm going to make a confession. Apart from Cho and the Patil girls (because of their names), Angelina who is stated to be black and Lee with his dreadlocks, I had never really imagined any of the other Hogwarts students not to be white. I'm sorry, but there it is. It reflects *my* school experience.>> I have to make the same confession as Eloise. I always pictured white students unless told otherwise, and I didn't even pick up on the Patil girls...I did think they were strange names, but then again, alot of names in HP are strange(and I love that). I didn't even realize Lee Jordan was black until watching the movie. I had only read the books once before that, and then when re-reading them and picking up on the drealock thing, I thought to myself about how the movie *had* payed attention to details, as the Lee Jordan in the movie had dreadlocks. And it probably reflects on the experience I have had in school, also. I live in the south US, Arkansas to be precise. I have yet to attend school with a black person. Infact, I have never had a conversation with an African-American, face to face. I can vaguely recall my 7th grade Arkansas History teacher telling our class about how the last African-American students to attend our school had had to leave because they had been harrassed so much. And I can recall just this year, as I was riding home from school, we passed by an African-American man walking along the streets. My mom and brother and sister all stared, and wondered what he was doing here. I have to admit I was slightly annoyed at them for staring at him just because he was a black man, but I can't really blame them. I also wondered myself what he was doing there, but mainly because I saw he had a backpack on and he was carrying a large sack over his back. But I don't find the fact that Dean's race being inserted into the American edition offensive. Hasn't JKR always said she writes the books for herself? A character's appearances can be very important (like Harry having his mother's eyes), and so perhaps JKR stuck it in there herself. Or maybe an editor DID go up to JKR and say "Ms. Rowling, we need a little diversity at Hogwarts, so could you give us a character from Hogwarts that's black so we can make mention of it?" And it wasn't like it was a huge change- Philosopher's to Sorcerer's was a change. Was Dean Thomas mentioned as being some pasty white boy with blonde hair and blue eyes before some editor decided he needed to be black? I don't think so...it was just inserted into the American edition(allbeit badly) what Dean's skin color is. James: >>I am a bit annoyed that the US editon put that in [Dean's colour] (I really didn't see the need, and it implies Harry is concerned with these things in a way the UK editions don't) but then political correctness is seen as very important and people assume odd things and get VERY upset about these issues (as mine and previous posts have shown).>> Really? So, basically, if Harry notices someone's skin color, he's concerned with race? I never thought of it like that. I mean, usually when you first meet someone you take in their physical appearances, right? So to me, it's just Harry taking in their physical descriptions. It could go alot more detailed, really, as in describing everyone's hair color and stuff when we first meet them (including all minor characters- what color is Neville's or Sean's or Lavender's hair, anyways?), instead of randomly saying "oh yeah, Ron has flaming red hair." But, I think JKR really focuses on the main characters, which is a good thing- I like hearing about the Trio. ~Aldrea, who really must get some sleep. From adatole at yahoo.com Mon Jul 1 22:57:33 2002 From: adatole at yahoo.com (Leon Adato) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 00:57:33 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Religion in the Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001c01c22152$afd60970$6464a8c0@leonhome> No: HPFGUIDX 40683 Bluesqueak said: ************* Ooh, gosh, religion in the Potterverse; now there's a thorny subject. Especially when you drag in Exodus 22:18. ************* Maybe I missed a few things here, but according to "Navigating the Bible" (Davka Corp, viewable online at http://www.bible.ort.org), Exodus 22:18 is summarized as "Whoever lies with an animal must be put to death". I'm not sure this is the line we really want to discuss in relation to Harry Potter. Although I'm sure someone could link it to "Evil!Hagrid" if they gave it a little thought. http://bible.ort.org/books/pentd2.asp?action=displayanchor&pentid=P2129#P212 9 Exodus 22:17 is the "witch" line in this case. It's also important to note that it falls in between two different bans on sexual behavior (22:16 being a punishment for lying with a virgin if you didn't marry her and 22:18 being the aforementioned livestock issue.). This is important only because they key foci seem to be divination (also appearing in this section) and sexual temptation. Not levitation, unlocking doors, etc. While I am not, in any way, trying to invalidate the text of the Torah (bible, old testiment, pentateuch, etc), even as it relates to HP; nor am I trying to shoehorn a RL religious text into the context of the Potterverse: still I wanted to clarify that JKR has not to overstepped the boundaries of even that sacred ban. Future discoveries about Hagrid notwithstanding. Bluesqueak continues ************** There's also Sirius, who is Harry's *godfather* (PoA and GoF) (In the UK, this is a title given to someone who's made certain promises at a child's Christian baptism) ************** Actually, the Jewish religion supports this tradition as well, in two forms: First, many parents select a close friend or relative as godparent, usually someone who will oversee the child's religious upbringing in some way. In practice this is anything from a titular honor only to naming the person who will tutor the child in their b'nai mitzvah. The second form, practiced more routinely, is that of "sandek". This Greek word literally means "godfather" and is the person who holds the male child while the circumcision is performed. Obviously this is a task of great honor, importance, and trust. When Paul introduced the change from circumcision of the flesh to that of the spirit (Philipians 3:3) the tradition changed accordingly. Bluesqueak returns to the subject of witchcraft ************** That sounds more like a gift from God than a pact with the Devil. **************** The problem here, in terms of comparing the biblical definitions to HP, is that there is no devil (per se) in Jewish tradition. So pacts with the devil are extremely difficult. The really sticky wicket is Divination, of which the Bible (torah, tanakh, scriptures, etc) are very clear. On the other hand, what's the difference between divination and prophesy (which seems to be OK in the Bible as long as you're not a fraud). And is Prof. Trelawny bad if she performs fake divination but true prophesy? Leon Adato ----------------------------------- If you wish to make an apple pie truly from scratch, you must first invent the universe. -Carl Sagan, astronomer and writer (1934-1996) From chetah27 at hotmail.com Tue Jul 2 05:18:31 2002 From: chetah27 at hotmail.com (aldrea279) Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 05:18:31 -0000 Subject: Missing Weasley Children - Names In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40684 Athena: We think Ron's first name is Ronald. It might be, it might > not be. Hmm...don't we KNOW it's his first name, though? On Harry's first trip to the burrow, and when he first saw Ron's room, did it not say "Ronald's Room" on his door? I think it did. *will look this up tomorrow* >The strength to me is the large gap between Charlie and Percy and > that the others go: > > A > B > C > > > F > G > > Making me think that there might just be a D and E to be inserted in there. > That's why I'm sticking with Percy as being a middle name. I have to agree that the Seventh Son theory is intriguing, and that the Weasley kids following a slight naming patern is interesting, but Percy being the only one of six children that uses his middle instead of his fist name?...kinda strange. I don't think the names are that big of a support for the theory. I find it just as believable without messing with Percy's name. ~Aldrea, signing off for the night. From Edblanning at aol.com Tue Jul 2 10:52:58 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 06:52:58 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Diversity in Literature & Media (WAS book differences) Message-ID: <36.29cb39e4.2a52e00a@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40685 Darrin: > I stand by my assertion that if Dean Thomas had been named DeRon or > given some other "black-sounding" name than the anti-P.C. crowd would > I don't think this is true. I dislike what I regard as crass statements of political correctness, or tokenism, but I do believe in treating people first and foremost as people, whatever their colour. I don't really have a problem with this example, but I can understand those who do. To me, there is a difference between Dean obviously being black in the original UK edition (this being flagged by his having an obviously "black-sounding" name, or a mention of his skin colour, or hair, or characteristic speech pattern) and his suddenly being revealed as black in this rather ham-fisted manner. > > Cho was not introduced in the first novel. And I have read that > England, or at least London, has a significant Pakistani and Indian > Sorry, don't get that point. > > The thing that's odd to me, is that it didn't. Yet when I worked it out, there are more children from ethnic minorities there than statistically there should be. Subjective impression and reality conflicted. I think the change has been made because of someone else's subjective impresssion. > > What exactly is WRONG with that? Again, we're talking about just the > existence of a black kid at Hogwarts. He's not doing anything > politically correct at all. No one treats him any better or worse. He > gets into arguments about sports with white kids, but he's not a > stereotypical great athlete. > > Dean is just there. > > No, it's not. That's *not* the point. It's not his existence as a black kid, it's the fact that either he suddenly changed race, or his skin colour took on a significance that it didn't have when the book was originally published. If he's just there as a black kid and race is not an issue (for Scholastic, I presume) then why was the book changed to emphasise it? There is no plot-driven reason for it. It tells us nothing about his character or background. Why do we need to know? It smacks to me (from a British perspective) of being a change made specifically for political, rather than literary reasons. But widening my perspective as a result of this discussion, leads me to guess that this is because Brits, on the whole, would realise that the Patil twins are black, whereas Americans wouldn't necessarily and so there is a need a clearly flagged black student of probably Afro-Caribbean origin for Hogwarts to be obviously racially inclusive. So in a way there is a literary goal, if it is part of JKR's intention that Hogwarts is perceived as multi-racial, as it seems clear that she does. If she was informed by her American publisher that her multiracial vision of Hogwarts just didn't come across, I can easily believe that she either sanctioned or initiated that particular change. Eloise. > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ra_1013 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 2 12:45:16 2002 From: ra_1013 at yahoo.com (Andrea) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 05:45:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Missing Weasley Children - Names In-Reply-To: <000f01c2213b$0c0a8bc0$813468d5@xxx> Message-ID: <20020702124516.51853.qmail@web10902.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40686 --- rosie wrote: > Ok, you're absolutely right. I was just going on the basis of Ronald > > Ron and that the Weasleys seemed (to me) to be a family who would give > their children standard (if you see what I mean) names but use > affectionate diminutives on a day-to-day basis - you're right though, > this was just my own subjective perception :) Further evidence that I just found that the names we have for the Weasley kids may be their "real names" after all: Dumbledore tends to be more formal and calls the students by their full name, such as "Mr. Ronald Weasley" whenever he's referring to Ron. BUT when Harry's in the hospital wing at the end of PS/SS, Dumbledore refers to the toilet seat that "Misters *Fred* and George Weasley" attempted to send. So Fred, at least, is not a Frederick. No reason Bill can't just be Bill. :) Andrea ===== "Reality is for people who lack imagination." __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free http://sbc.yahoo.com From editor at texas.net Tue Jul 2 12:52:33 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 07:52:33 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Diversity in Literature & Media (WAS book differences) References: <36.29cb39e4.2a52e00a@aol.com> Message-ID: <004e01c221c7$56d67920$ab7763d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 40687 Eloise commented > But widening my perspective as a result of this discussion, leads me to guess > that this is because Brits, on the whole, would realise that the Patil twins > are black, whereas Americans wouldn't necessarily and so there is a need a > clearly flagged black student of probably Afro-Caribbean origin for Hogwarts > to be obviously racially inclusive. Me now --> The Patil twins are black? Just based on their names and the description of Parvati's hair, I sort of figured they were Indian (India, not American). Is there canon for them being black? I was always rather pleased at the way diversity was noticed in these books--sort of the way I'd notice it, as little characteristics in passing (names, yes, Parvati's hair, dreadlocks [although I know these are not limited to black people who get all the *good hair* rrgh, the very fact that anyone would have dreadlocks is cool, it's kind of exotic where I live], that sort of thing). One of the things I do notice in passing is skin color, so the insertion itself doesn't bother me. But I can see Eloise's point on being irritated by the reason. It *is* irritating. For me, what bothers me more is that "Black" is capitalized; I'd rather it be a simple descriptive noun. "Hispanic," "Mexican," and "Latino" are all capitalized by virtue of their derivation from proper nouns, but "black" is not so derived, and capitalizing it changes it somehow. For some reason "black" reads like a description for me, and "Black" as a label. It puts distance in; I don't like it. --Amanda From Edblanning at aol.com Tue Jul 2 12:56:30 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 08:56:30 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: TBAY: Peter Doesn't Get The Girl. Or does he? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40688 Captain Cindy had been having a tough week. Attacked on all sides, her ca(n)nons having run loose all over the deck, in the process squashing flat a couple of very promising young theories, she had retreated to the relative safety of her cabin, where she thought she was alone. 'Demented,' she thought, 'demented. They all think I'm demented.' Lying on her hammock, staring at the ceiling she thought she saw something. The ceiling was *smiling* at her. Cindy blinked. Perhaps she *was* demented. The smile widened. A face began to appear, followed by a body. 'Hello, Eloise.' 'Hello, Cindy,' said Eloise, for it was she. (Attentive readers will remember that Eloise hails from Cheshire, where this variation of apparition is common.) 'Are you sure you want to be here? You're *British*, aren't you?' said the captain, deftly deflecting with her Big Paddle an arrow marked 'Made in Britain' which had come whizzing through the open port hole. Eloise grinned sheepishly. 'I guess my compatriots *have* been giving you a bit of a tough time, haven't they?' 'And you haven't come to give me any more of those, have you?' She indicated a scrunched up ball of parchment. Inside was a golf-ball-sized pill, stamped 'British Culture'. The instructions on the parchment read, 'To be swallowed whole.' Eloise laughed. 'Of course not. Far too much to swallow in one go. Try one of these instead. Each one is different.' She handed Cindy a packet marked, 'Brittabs. Curious Pills for Curious People. All you never knew you wanted to know about Britain and British culture in pleasant tasting, melt in the mouth tablet form. Take one as required.' 'I invented them myself. Five Sickles a packet.' Cindy popped one in her mouth. 'Is it working?' 'I don't know; let me try', said Cindy. 'By George, I think it is! Surrey, a county in south-east England..... county town Guildford.....famous landmarks include Runnymede, where King John signed the Magna Carta...... ''Good, good,' interrupted Eloise, ' Nice accent, by the way. I didn't know about that particular side effect. What's that? No, of course you're not the first person I've tried them out on......But that's not why I'm here.' 'It's not? So why *are* you back in the Bay after all this time? Long time, no see.' 'I know, I know. Well, I've not really recovered from that spell in St Mungo's. The stuff they give you there! The potions, the charms! How did you resist it, Cindy? How did you get out of that place with your insanity intact? Is it really just a case of your will being stronger than mine?' 'Well, undoutedly it is, but then of course, I've only been there as an outpatient,' said Cindy.'You know, to see that nice Dr George.' 'Him!' snorted Eloise, 'You tell your innermost, darkest, most intimate secrets to *him*? You do realise they'll be all over the Bay before you can say Mackled Malaclaw, don't you? 'In fact, I happened upon this, when I was in his office. In a folder marked, "For Immediate Publication". This is what I came to see you about.' Eloise threw a sheaf of notes onto the hammock. Being in doctors' handwriting, they were hard to decipher, but the contents soon became clear. They were the notes he had taken during his last session with the captain. 'You haven't read them, have you?' asked Cindy, 'only I wanted to keep this theory quiet. I don't *need* any more controversy just now. I just want to *rest*.' 'Well, my eye couldn't help straying (that writing *is difficult, isn't it? Took me ages to work out what it said) but of course I wouldn't *dream* of telling anyone else about it. 'You have another interpretation of what was going on behind the greenhouse, don't you? Or rather, of what *wasn't* going on.' 'Yeah, that's right,' says Cindy, warming to her subject and reverting to her normal accent, > "A while back, some of us were > playing around with Florence theories. And I came up with this idea > that it was really *Peter* kissing *Florence* behind the greenhouses > and Peter hexed Bertha. That makes Bertha Jorkins' appearance in > the Pensieve scene of _GoF_ a rich and powerful message from > Dumbledore's subconscious mind. I wrote it all up in Message 35,398." > 'Yep. Dr George liked that one, alright. Makes a lot of sense.' > "I know, I know. Well, now Elkins has *hijacked* it! The whole > thing ? she made off with the *whole darn thing!* She says she > doesn't see *why* Peter would have hexed nosy Bertha Jorkins for > teasing him about kissing a girl. She says a chubby little bottom- > feeder like Peter would kind of *like* it for everyone to know that > he'd actually managed to kiss a real live girl. Elkins says that > Peter was in love with Lily, and that's why Peter was so very angry > that Bertha tattled about his snogging with Florence." > <> > "But it's not *right!*" <> "if Peter loved Lily in their Hogwarts days, > then there's a > very good reason why Peter was so angry with Bertha ? angry enough > to hex her. See, we've struggled to figure out who was kissing > Florence behind the greenhouses. We've said it was Snape. Or > Sirius. Or Peter. Or even Lupin. But we've ignored the *obvious* > 'Which is?' > <> > > "*No one* was kissing Florence!" the Captain cried. "It *Never Even > Happened!* Bertha told Peter she had seen him kissing Florence, and > it was a *flat-out lie.* She was *teasing* him ? she says so in the > Pensieve. And Big Mouth Bertha had to go and tease Peter about > something that never even happened *right in front of Peter's first > true love* ? Lily Potter. This *ruined* Peter's chances of ever > having Lily, drove Lily into the waiting arms of James, and made > Peter mad enough to hex stupid Bertha on the spot for telling > tales. And mad enough to follow up and help kidnap Bertha many > years later and torture her half to death." 'Yes, Cindy. I like this idea. I like it quite a lot. I mean it's bad enough to be teased about something that really happened, but to be teased about something that *didn't* and, moreover that is so ludicrous that it would make you a complete laughing stock can be much, much worse. How *could* Lily take pity on him after that?' At that moment the conversation was interrupted by a knock on the door. It was the cabin elf, struggling with a ca(n)non, which, though small, was nearly as big as himself. 'Excusing me, Ma'am, Miss,' he said, 'only this is just appearing and I is not knowing what I is to do with it.' 'Bring it in,' said Cindy, wearily, watching the little creature as it struggled to push the ca(n)non through the door. 'Another ca(n)non. Just what I need. What does it say?' Eloise peered at the inscription. "'Curiosity is not a sin', he said. 'But we should exercise caution with our curiosity ... yes, indeed ...'................... "........'But why, Bertha,' said Dumbledore sadly, looking up at the now silently revolving girl, 'why did you have to follow him in the first place?'" 'Oh, dear, Cindy. Doesn't this imply that Bertha really *did* follow whoever was kissing Florence? That she really *did* see the incident? She followed Peter then out of curiosity and it was her curiosity which led her to her follow him to her death. Isn't this part of the subconscious point that Dumbledore is getting? Perhaps Peter *did* get the girl, after, all. Or rather she got him, if we assume that Flo really *is* the future Mrs Lestrange. Apparently an effective method of recruitment, no? Maybe *that*'s why he was so angry - Bertha witnessed his conversion (and perhaps he wasn't the only one converted behind the greenhouses). Look, this is a small ca(n)non and that's a big porthole. What say we just throw it overboard? I won't say anything if you don't.' A few minutes later, the cabin elf reappeared at the door. 'I is hearing a big splash, Ma'am. Is everything being all right? The two women exchanged conspiratorial glances. 'Oh, yes,' they assured him. 'Everything's just fine.' Eloise. ............................... For an explanation of the acronyms and theories in this post, visit Hypothetic Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin% 20Files/hypotheticalley.htm and Inish Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database? method=reportRows&tbl=13 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lav at tut.by Tue Jul 2 12:55:18 2002 From: lav at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 15:55:18 +0300 Subject: Quirrell & Voldemort - McGonagall & Divination - Mastermind Theory Message-ID: <16822126209.20020702155518@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 40689 Greetings! --- QUIRRELL & VOLDEMORT ----------------------------------- Has anybody wondered, how does it happen that Quirrell calls You-Know-Who by his true name in the end of SS/PS? All wizards are damn afraid of You-Know-Whose name, and those most afraid of it are followers of You-Know-Who (AKA Death Eaters). But Quirrell calls his name without a flinch. Is there a reason for this? Or maybe those whose body is inhabited by You-Know-Who have more intimate relations with the Dark Lord? (Oh, I better stop this now before I make it too juicy... ;). --- MCGONAGALL & DIVINATION -------------------------------- Hmm, has anybody thought that McGonagall might have a talent in Divination? (grin) I mean, just re-read PS1... "But Dumbledore, the boy will be famous, there will be no child in the world who wouldn't know his name, he will have books written about him...". I mean, all of this has actually happened, right? The only thing that McGonagall has predicted but that hasn't yet happened, is that October 31 will be named the "Day of Harry Potter"... Something for us to do, I think! ;) --- MASTERMIND THEORY -------------------------------------- For all those who were involved in the "Spying Games" thread (and yes, for me as well), I propose this new Mastermind Theory: True Mastermind of the books is the Sorting Hat. Yeah, and I have a lot of reasons to prove this theory. Rowling herself has said, that one of the characters we are going to learn lot about, is the Sorting Hat. Sorting Hat is a very powerful artifact. Able to break into anybody's brains, to learn person's wishes, desires and potential abilities, capable of performing a full-scale psychological analysis of the person in question. What influence can Sorting Hat have on the story? A great one! After all, it's the Sorting Hat who does the sorting, right? Don't even tell me that if Harry would be sorted into, say, Ravenclaw (or Slytherin) the history would go the same way. And what would happen if Riddle would be sorted into Gryffindor? Would he become Voldemort, or more positive surroundings would make him a better person? Who knows? Sorting Hat does. It's a damn old artifact. After all, it's around 1000 years old by now. In 1000 years, one can learn to predict the results of the sorting. Of 40 new students to sort every year, a great number of possibilities is available to choose from. Of course, this number is limited by student's wishes - it's hard to imagine Draco being sorted into Gryffindor against his will. Also the Sorting Hat seems to have some form of communication, IF NOT CONTROL, with Fawkes (maybe with some other wizard familiars as well). Was it really Fawkes who came to Harry's resque in CS? Wasn't it the Sorting Hat instead? I wonder... Now about the reasons. I can propose two general theories, with second including the first. First theory assumes that the Hat has a single personality, combined from all four founders. This is actually the worst possibility, as in this case the Hat has only a single reason to act: self-preservation. That is, the Hat is interested in maintaining the situation when Hat's services are required. As such, Sorting Hat is directly responsible for the stagnation of Wizarding World on medieval level. Indeed, has anybody though why Wizarding World is *medieval*? Not antique, not paleolyte, not Reinassance... But Hat was created in medieval times. Another thing Sorting Hat is directly responsible is the routine appearance of more and more Dark Wizards. Indeed, when energy of the society is directed first on the extermination of yet another Dark Lord, and then on repairing the damage done by the war, there is only a little social energy left for really important things, like breaking this eternal circle, or searching for the reason of it... And it's real easy to make yet another Dark Lord. Just sort a right boy into right House with right friends... Guess what would happen to Harry is he would be sorted into Slytherin, but Ron and Hermione into Gryffindor. No friends (Draco would never become Harry's friend, even if they were in the same House), those friends he has just got have turned away from him... He would make a perfect new Dark Lord to replace Voldemort in this position. So, if we assume this theory is true, then Sorting Hat is the U.E.F.A. (Ultimate Evil Fantasy Artifact), and we might expect to see Harry and Voldemort allying against this damn thing when they realise what is REALLY happening... Second possibility is that the Sorting Hat has FOUR distinct personalities inside it. This variant allows for more freedom of actions of main characters, though it still includes the above Theory. Self-preservation is still the most imperative thing for the Hat, but there are other interests as well. I would suppose that what Sorting Hat does is play the game. A great, never-ending game of chess, with wizards acting as pieces in this game of millenia. Four players - four personalities of the Sorting Hat, are choosing their pieces, and allocate them on the board. Pieces act on their own will, but that's not important - that just adds more interest to the game. This possibility is more humiliating to the Wizarding World, but allows for more freedom of action. For one thing, an additional possibility appears: to try to play the Four against one another. Though hard it is, this is theoretically possible. And last. Many have wondered why Harry is going to be happy for saving Wormtail's life. I reply: because Wormtail is going to destroy the Sorting Hat! Yep, without even understanding of what he does, and for purely selfish reasons, as somebody has suggested, he will destroy the U.E.F.A. of the Millenia and break the cursed Circle (I would even dare to call this Circle a Ring... ;) into which the Wizarding World has gotten into! Hope somebody will make an acronym for this. -- Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed, always happy to throw weird ideas into community. Tuesday, July 2, 2002, 15:55 local time (GMT+2:00) Spell "Mobiliskeeter". Will move Rita Skeeter out of your way. (Standard Book of Spells, Chapter 26) From Edblanning at aol.com Tue Jul 2 13:30:47 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 09:30:47 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Diversity in Literature & Media (WAS book differences) Message-ID: <16d.fe97cfa.2a530507@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40690 Amanda: > Me now --> The Patil twins are black? Just based on their names and the > description of Parvati's hair, I sort of figured they were Indian (India, > not American). Is there canon for them being black? Yes, I'm sure they come from the subcontinent, although whether India itself or not, I wouldn't know. I find this whole nomenclature thing a nightmare, frankly and really hope I am not treading on toes, but I have certainly heard British Indians refer to themselves as black. I'm really, really sorry if I've got that wrong. What I was saying is that it is obvious to Brits that they are not white, but evidently not to some Americans. If you noticed that thing I pasted in from the Institute of Race Relations yesterday, you will see that in giving the '91 census findings, 'black' was used to indicate all those who did not regard themselves as white. In the 2001 census, the category headings were; white; mixed; Asian or Asian British; Black or Black British; Chinese or other ethnic group. Of course what is printed on a census form does not necessarily tally with how people think of themselves. Eloise Tiptoeing away from the minefield as quietly as she can.. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jbryson at richmond.infi.net Tue Jul 2 14:12:35 2002 From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236) Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 14:12:35 -0000 Subject: Re Potterverse: Social Psychology - Wizarding Genetics--Revisiting Genetics In-Reply-To: <14D4806A.0559530C.007B4FA9@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40691 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., ksnidget at a... wrote: > Alexander Lomski hypothesized, some time ago.. > > >Genetic Theory > > >We make an initial assumption that magical talent is > >controlled by some gene or set of genes. In other words, we > >assume that wizards do have no differences from muggles but > >in their genetic code. > > >So far, so good. What genes, then? > Could it be that magic is due to more than a single gene? I'm thinking of something like IQ than seems to involve a whole bunch of inherited talents, but seem to ride together? In fact, I wonder if W might be associated with what we call IQ, although Goyle and Crabe seem to offer counter-examples. Tex, also wondering how much W is a product of nurture. From swimminwoman86 at aol.com Tue Jul 2 05:10:00 2002 From: swimminwoman86 at aol.com (hpistheman4me) Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 05:10:00 -0000 Subject: Checking brooms for curses Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40692 Yes, I can see how all that makes sense. If like Porphyrra says, "perhaps experienced wizards could tell by looking at the 'broom bucking' jinx that it wasn't something physically embedded in the broom", how come Professor Snape is the only wizard who tries to do a counter-curse? I have also been wondering why if Professor Snape seemed to know who was performing the curse why he didn't go to Professor Dumbledore? Anyway, I am only 16 years old and I don't want to ask questions that will seem stupid in the long run. Well thanks for answering my question! ~Cindy~ From tmarends at yahoo.com Tue Jul 2 07:09:11 2002 From: tmarends at yahoo.com (tmarends) Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 07:09:11 -0000 Subject: If Hogwarts were an American Boarding School.. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40693 Fiona wrote: >How would the academic structure be different? I have no idea what a >boarding school is like in America, having never attended one here. >I have no idea what the similarities and/or differences would be >like. Any input? My thoughts: Having been to several American boarding schools, the structure is considerably different. The ones I know about are High Schools, which would be years 4-7 in Harry's world. The dorms are pretty much set up boys and girls, not in "houses". Classes are pretty much similar as a regular High School. > Would the wizard kids be obsessed with NSync and Britney Spears or > whatever the groups were at that time? Would they return to school > after summer holidays sporting tongue piercings and green hair? I think that really depends on the kid involved. Certainly Harry, Hermione, and the Creevey's live completely in the Muggle world away from school and would have access to the modern pop and fads. But do *NSync and Brittney Spears really matter in the magical realm? And Bill Weasley does have long hair and an earring in GoF. I see no reason why magical American kids wouldn't do the same type of thing to fit into the Muggle world when they were away from school. The big question to me is, would the American school(s) be just High School or a combined Junior/Senior High School? Tim A. From tmarends at yahoo.com Tue Jul 2 07:18:03 2002 From: tmarends at yahoo.com (tmarends) Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 07:18:03 -0000 Subject: Missing Weasley Children - Names In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40694 Aldrea wrote: >On Harry's first trip to the burrow, and when he first saw Ron's >room, did it not say "Ronald's Room" on his door? It did say "Ronald's Room" I'm re-reading CoS now. > Percy being the only one of six children that uses his middle instead > of his fist name?...kinda strange. Why can't Ron be using his middle name? His first name could be Herbert or something... or Harry Potter's best friend could be Harry Weasley! Tim A. From nplyon at yahoo.com Tue Jul 2 14:13:14 2002 From: nplyon at yahoo.com (nplyon) Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 14:13:14 -0000 Subject: Quirrell & Voldemort - McGonagall & Divination - Mastermind Theory In-Reply-To: <16822126209.20020702155518@tut.by> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40695 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Alexander wrote: > Greetings! [Big Snip} > > So, if we assume this theory is true, then Sorting Hat is > the U.E.F.A. (Ultimate Evil Fantasy Artifact), and we might > expect to see Harry and Voldemort allying against this damn > thing when they realise what is REALLY happening... > Oooh, I LOVE it! The Sorting Hat is Ever So Evil! I think this theory is a lot of fun and it goes a long way toward answering my question as to why it is Sorting Hat that appears in the Chamber of Secrets. I think, though, that the hat has four personalities, not the combination into one. This is why it deliberates over where to put Harry--it's actually Gryffindor and Slytherin at war over where to place him. That would also explain to me why Sorting Hat has Gryffindor's sword--it is the spirit of Gryffindor himself helping Harry to defeat Riddle. Still, however hard Gryffindor tries, Harry is not yet convinced that Sorting Hat placed him in Gryffindor because he actually belongs there. Perhaps Harry will wear the hat yet again and this time it will be Salazar Slytherin whispering in his ear?? ~Nicole, who returned from the grocery store on Sunday the proud owner of a box of Bertie Bott's Every Flavor Beans featuring such favorites as earwax, grass, booger (bogie [sp?], for you Brits), and vomit. From suzchiles at pobox.com Tue Jul 2 15:14:34 2002 From: suzchiles at pobox.com (Suzanne Chiles) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 08:14:34 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Quirrell & Voldemort - McGonagall & Divination - Mastermind Theory In-Reply-To: <16822126209.20020702155518@tut.by> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40696 Alexander said: > Hmm, has anybody thought that McGonagall might have a > talent in Divination? (grin) I mean, just re-read PS1... > "But Dumbledore, the boy will be famous, there will be no > child in the world who wouldn't know his name, he will have > books written about him...". I mean, all of this has > actually happened, right? Divination? More like common sense, in my opinion. To me, it can be compared to someone saying that American will never forget the events of September 11, 2001. Well, of course we won't forget that; it doesn't require a divination master to tell us that. Same thing for the boy who lived. Zoe From ntg85 at prodigy.net Tue Jul 2 15:46:39 2002 From: ntg85 at prodigy.net (random_monkey0_0) Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 15:46:39 -0000 Subject: Mars is Bright In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40697 Random Monkey: > I don't see the point in > getting all scientific about it. If you want to find ways that the > books could work in real life, that's one thing. If you want to guess > what the author meant, be a little more realistic. > > The Random Monkey, who really needs to chill. I'd like to apologise for this. I need to relax here. I mean, this is a game, and why play a game if you're too caught up in being realistic? The main page says this board is for "thought-provoking and fun" discussions, and I need to keep that in mind. Sorry! The Random Monkey From ajl at hanson.net Tue Jul 2 05:41:07 2002 From: ajl at hanson.net (dembeldei) Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 05:41:07 -0000 Subject: If Hogwarts were an American Boarding School.. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40698 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "fionastewpeas" wrote: > I've been wondering about that. How would the academic structure be > different? I have no idea what a boarding school is like in America But supposing Hogwarts were in America, > it's pretty fair to assume that the kids would be having all kinds of > hanky panky going on > Would the wizard kids be obsessed with NSync and Britney Spears or > whatever the groups were at that time? Would they return to school > after summer holidays sporting tongue piercings and green hair? Um. Boy, am I embarrassed to read that as an American, because I can assure you that a great deal of American private (not public) day and boarding schools are a lot more like Hogwarts than what you describe above. I went to one of these, and except for the menu (how do those kids at Hogwarts survive on that diet? ugh) it was uncannily like Hogwarts. I was shocked to find out what many U.S. public schools were like, from my friends. So, a scenario as you describe would probably only happen at the more progressive U.S. boarding schools, and I can't really imagine it at any school that stresses academics and skepticism of popular culture. However, to attempt to give you some answers, I can imagine the kids saying 'smart' instead of 'clever,' 'grades' instead of 'marks,' and even having some sort of wizard football or basketball or hockey besides Quidditch (we don't have as much rugby or soccer, though soccer's become bigger lately). They might wear jeans and baseball caps on the weekends, too. A.J. From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com Tue Jul 2 16:13:44 2002 From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze) Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 11:13:44 -0500 Subject: H/H SHIPpers beware... Message-ID: <3D21D138.7070202@kingwoodcable.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40699 On another HP board that I frequent, someone pointed out an interview where someone asks about Harry and Hermione. The question: Do Harry and Hermione have a date? The answer: No. They are very platonic friends. But I won't answer for anyone else - nudge, nudge, wink, wink. Go to http://www.sugarquill.net/floo.html to find the interview (look for "Interview with J.K. Rowling". It's a real aduio file, and it's the very last question that she answers - at the very end of the file. Now - this interview was right before GoF, so perhaps the question was pertaining only to GoF? I don't know.... -Katze From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Tue Jul 2 16:31:51 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 16:31:51 -0000 Subject: Diversity in Literature & Media (WAS book differences) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40700 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > Aw, come on. There's no reason to be annoyed. I am simply > uninformed about the racial diversity of Scotland, and am willing to > admit my ignorance so that Rosie and others will understand the > foundation of some of the things I've discussed. Cindy, would it make you feel better if I joined you in admitting that I had no idea Scotland was a racially diverse place? I mean... I understand the irate Scots on the list. I sometimes have much the same feeling when someone assumes my home city is racially homogenous b/c it's in Canada and they haven't visited it, but it's not a moral failing of them not to know. They're not saying, "Oh cool! Canada is all white! Boy, I wish I lived there!" but entertaining a false impression of immigration patterns. :-) > Besides, this thread and others like it have helped educate me. So > my prior erroneous belief that boarding schools in the UK and > Scotland are racially homogenous can be removed from the tottering > heap of Things Cindy Doesn't Know. One down, thousands to go. ;-) Amen! > But your remarks clarifying the racial diversity in Scotland really > don't undermine the central point that I was trying to make, which > is this: many, many Americans in the target audience for this book > have *no clue* about the racial diversity of boarding schools in the > U.K., and they might not pick up on it from reading the book if the > book isn't explicit about it. For myself, I saw Hogwarts as ethnically diverse, but with the ethnic diversity I was brought up with. I went to a posh private school in the British tradition at one point and the kids tended to be Chinese, Korean, Indian, or Middle Eastern in their ethnic background, with a large splattering of ex-pat Brits and Irish, and us white Canadians very much in the minority. But, it's a fact that there aren't many black people in my part of the world, and so I thoughtlessly didn't imagine them when I imagined Hogwarts. Angelina Johnson was a revelation to me (as a Canadian, I didn't read about Dean Thomas's race), and it made me realize that I had been assuming something about Britain that I even knew to be factually incorrect. As Cindy pointed out, Angelina tells you a lot about race in the wizarding world. So unless someone can come up with evidence that JKR was imagining something very different, I do think it's making a mountain out of a molehill. Eileen From ntg85 at prodigy.net Tue Jul 2 16:34:53 2002 From: ntg85 at prodigy.net (random_monkey0_0) Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 16:34:53 -0000 Subject: The female founders and Latin In-Reply-To: <030a01c2211f$5f0a2b80$32c3edd1@Huntley> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40701 Laura wrote: > There was some discussion awhile ago about Latin and spells and the like that hit upon something that has been bothering me for some time: > > I don't understand what it is about a few utterances that creates a magic effect -- or how those utterance should form words of a specific language that relate to the magic effect itself. > And it's not like it's only the *intent* behind the words >that matters, as in PS we find Hermione correcting Ron's >pronunciation. Ugh! Yahoo screwed up, and I have to write my post all over again! I was reading Fantastic Beasts last night, when something of this ilk jumped out at me. Page 26, U.S., under "Leithfold": "The thing attempted to smother me, sliding inexorably up my face, over my mouth and nostrils, ... _incapable_of_drawing_breath_ [emphasis mine], I concentrated upon the Stupefying Charm and then... upon the Impediment Curse... "I knew I was about to lose consciousness completely as I suffocated. Desperately, I mustered up my last reserve of energy... I performed the Patronus Charm." See that?! He never said anything! He couldn't breathe! Also, in GoF, Mrs. Weasleysimply points her wand at the twins and says "Accio!" and makes the toffees fly to her. This also would indicate that spells don't neessarily need to be said, or at least not completely said, to work. Perhaps young wizards are taught to use words to focus their thoughts. If they associate saying the word "Lumos!" with thinking a certain way, they might learn better, or remember better. Older wizards would be advanced enough to just "think" the spell, although they might still use the words out of habit. I don't know why Hermione was correcting pronounciation. Perhaps it's just because she's a perfectionist. The Random Monkey, who bets JKR is lurking around here, reading our theories, so she can use them to explain away flints when someone brings them up... From ntg85 at prodigy.net Tue Jul 2 17:27:29 2002 From: ntg85 at prodigy.net (random_monkey0_0) Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 17:27:29 -0000 Subject: Weasley names- WW biology In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40702 Tim A.: > Why can't Ron be using his middle name? His first name could be > Herbert or something... or Harry Potter's best friend could be Harry > Weasley! I seriously doubt Ron's first name is Harry. Certainly we would have seen something like this in PS: "You're Harry Potter!" gasped Ron. "Crikey, but my parents named me after you!" "But I thought you said your name was Ron?" said Harry. "Yes, but a year and three months after I was born, when you beat You-Know-Who, my parents legally changed my first name to Harry. I go by Ron, though, because that's what everyone always called me." Okay, so scrap that theory! Anyway, on to other questions: According to biological definition, a species is a group of individuals so closely related that they can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. That's fertile offspring; horses and donkeys, while they can breed together, produce sterile offspring. Actually there are several pre-zygotic barriers. Let's see if I can remember them all: Temporal isolation- the two organisms aren't in mating season at the same time. Not a problem for humans, who are always in heat. Behavioral isolation- one organism doesn't recognize the mating behaviors of another. Again, not usually a problem for humans. Gametic isolation- The gametes don't recognize each other and won't fuse. Not there if offspring can be produced. Mechanical isolation- Oh, how to put this tactfully... Tab B doesn't fit into Slot A. Sorry for any unplesant pictures you're getting... Geographic isolation- Hard to mate when you're not together. Usually not a problem for humans. There are also post-zygotic barriers: Spontaneous abortion- The embryo can't develpo because the genes don't work together. Reduced hybrid viability- the offspring is weak because of its messed-up genes. Reduced hybrid fertility- The offpring is sterile. So, if a veela and a human can have a baby, and the baby can have a baby, than they must be the same species. So either Fleur Delacour is sterile, or veela and humans are the same species. The same goes for giants and humans, but with an additional twist; mechanical isolation. Yeah... Um... Me and my squeamish american stomach don't like to think about that. So does anyone else have any thoughts? Maybe the fine people on the Wizarding Genes thread? The Random Monkey, who had a little too much fun taking Gen Bio... From pennylin at swbell.net Tue Jul 2 17:58:23 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny Linsenmayer) Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 12:58:23 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] H/H SHIPpers beware... References: <3D21D138.7070202@kingwoodcable.com> Message-ID: <037801c221f2$0f3acff0$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> No: HPFGUIDX 40703 Hi -- Well anything that is titled "H/H Shippers Beware" will certainly get my attention. :--) This interview is definitely nothing new though, and it's been roundly debated on FictionAlley Park (and probably here too). My own interpretation is that it was very GoF-specific. The entire interview related to GoF after all, and the phrasing of the question "Do they have a date?" suggests quite strongly that her reply should likely be interpreted as only applying to that specific question (the tense of the question is obviously GoF-specific IMHO). If the questioner had asked if Harry & Hermione "would ever have a romantic relationship or if they would always be just platonic friends," then her reply that they "are" just platonic would mean something different. It could be taken as more indefinite and not book-specific. In another pre-GoF interview, she also effectively ruled out Ginny as a GoF romantic interest for Harry, too. But, she left it open for Harry to pair up with either Hermione or Ginny *later* as she said that he was only 14 & had plenty of time to change his mind. [In that interview from Feb 2000 the original question asked if he would ever fall in love with Hermione or with Ginny, and Rowling's answer was: "In Book IV Harry does decide he likes a girl, but it's not Hermione or Ginny. However, he's only 14, so there's plenty of time for him to change his mind. ;-) " -- JKR included the smiley face too btw]. As far as the rest of her reply and to bring this back around to actually making a canon point (since that's the rule!) -- I suspect the "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" language must surely be referring to Fred & Angelina, who, after all, had a honest-to-goodness real live date. With each other. In GoF. Yep. OR, maybe it meant Neville & Ginny. OR, perhaps Cedric & Cho. OR, Fleur & Roger. OR, Hagrid & Madame Maxime. OR, maybe Percy & Mr. Crouch *did* have a date (okay, I'm really not being serious there). :--) Penny [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ra_1013 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 2 18:57:43 2002 From: ra_1013 at yahoo.com (Andrea) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 11:57:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Diversity in Media and Literature In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020702185743.18945.qmail@web10907.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40704 --- Aldrea, who has a really cool name if she'd just change one letter wrote: > Really? So, basically, if Harry notices someone's skin color, he's > concerned with race? I never thought of it like that. I mean, > usually when you first meet someone you take in their physical > appearances, right? So to me, it's just Harry taking in their > physical descriptions. It could go alot more detailed, really, as in > describing everyone's hair color and stuff when we first meet them > (including all minor characters- what color is Neville's or Sean's or > Lavender's hair, anyways?), instead of randomly saying "oh yeah, Ron > has flaming red hair." But, I think JKR really focuses on the main > characters, which is a good thing- I like hearing about the Trio. Let me add something from my own school experiences to this debate. I'm American, but I spent the last several years of high school in England at a British school, so I feel fairly qualified to speak from both sides. (Let me add in passing that as an American more well-versed in British culture than most, that I would NEVER have connected Dean liking West Ham with any particular racial background, so that's really asking a bit too much of us poor Americans!) I went to what I feel was a fairly typical British school, diversity-wise. It was by no means lily white. There were enough blacks, Asians, and Orientals to not enough think about it. And yet, the majority of the students were white. (This would probably be because whites are still the majority race, in America and England as a whole, at least, AFAIK.) So yes, it would be a fairly good descriptive term of someone to mention that she was black, with no racial motivations behind it whatsoever. It was simply a question of numbers. My view of Hogwarts as a whole is multi-racial. But whenever individual students are first introduced, my default way of thinking of them is white, unless something indicates otherwise. Lee Jordan has dreadlocks, so that made me think black; the Patil twins had Asian-sounding names and long plaits, so probably Indian or Pakistani. But, say, Hannah Abbott, with no real descriptions I can recall, is a slightly chubby white girl with brown hair in braids. I have no idea why my subconscious presents things the way it does. ;) Andrea ===== "Reality is for people who lack imagination." __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free http://sbc.yahoo.com From sparky60 at bigpond.com Tue Jul 2 05:17:49 2002 From: sparky60 at bigpond.com (Peter and Denise Clements) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 15:17:49 +1000 Subject: Hooch-wholesome Quidditch referee or liquor-selling prostitute? Message-ID: <001a01c22187$cfc522e0$0100a8c0@teddi> No: HPFGUIDX 40705 Just a quick note .. in aus "hooch" is a slang term for marijuana ... so maybe hooch >getting high >flying ... what do you think? (said in jest of course) I think I like Zoe's better :) More likely, however, is the association with the British meaning of word, a very old meaning which is " An exclamation of excitement; the cry of a dancer of the Highland fling. Hence heuch v. intr., to utter this cry." AV: >Yes, it is definitely a literal translation. Hooch is the kind of booze you >drink out of a paper bag. I'd never heard of the alky-pop thing, but it >sounds like an ironic name. Hmm...drunken flying anyone? I wonder if you can get a ticket for flying while intoxicated? Anyway..I'm only familiar with the brand-name Hooch as far as the alcohol connotations go. For the curious among you, it tastes JUST LIKE Orangina (honestly, you can hardly tell it's alcoholic) and (I think) has about the same alcohol content as a beer. But the other meaning for hooch is, unless I'm crazily off-course here -- a prostitute or the like right? Maybe just a slutty individual rather than a professional, I'm not sure. Either way (whore, slut, or alcoholic beverage), I can't imagine what JKR was trying to tell us about Hooch's character by naming her that. I mean, unless it's to explain what she does when she's not refereeing Quidditch matches or teaching first-years to fly. Although I have a hard time believing that she spends her spare time running a liquor store/whorehouse. It would explain where Hagrid gets his ale and the single malt whiskey though, wouldn't it? And why the Hogwarts teachers seem to have no problem staying away from their theoretical spouses for so long. *is warming to this theory* laura [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ksnidget at aol.com Tue Jul 2 16:17:08 2002 From: ksnidget at aol.com (ksnidget at aol.com) Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 12:17:08 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Re Potterverse: Social Psychology - Wizarding Genetics-- Message-ID: <54C0B348.5B466F92.007B4FA9@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40706 Tex asked >Could it be that magic is due to more than a single gene? I'm >thinking of something like IQ than seems to involve a whole bunch >of inherited talents, but seem to ride together? In fact, I wonder if >W might be associated with what we call IQ, although Goyle and >Crabe seem to offer counter-examples. Something that seems to work as an on-off switch which spontaneously becomes on in a long line of off's typically, is something that occurs in a single gene. W may be sort of a master switch as it were. Once it is flipped, you are magical. Now it is likely that other genes may influence which areas of magic are easiest, most natural for you. For example, Hermione is likely to have genes that make her good at math and logic, regardless of being magical. Her love of Arithmancy may derive from her genes that make her good at math. Other people's talents seem to lie in other areas, so things that influence which particular brand of intelligence you are good at (i.e. which part of an SAT or IQ test you score well on, verbal, vs math, vs problem solving) or what sort of temperment you have may also influence which branches of magic either come naturally or appeal to any given individual. Potion making seems to favor those who have patience and may even like tedium. So my proposal is a single switch that is (like many single gene things) probably modified by other genes, but appears to be both necessary and sufficient to produce magical talent. (and since genes tend to be seen in many species I suspect that the W gene may be what is involved in magical vs non-magical creatures and things like rats and humans that come in both varieties. But the grant for doing the genetic family tree of W is still languishing on someone's desk somewhere--Current hypothesis is that in magical creatures there will be evolutionary evidence seen in the genes other than W that explain why after W arose from w in that species it came to be the only allele seen. After all the properties that make it switch works across species boundaries) >also wondering how much W is a product of nurture. The inference in SS is that the kids from non-magical families catch up pretty quickly, which may make nuture less a part of the "are you magical or not equation" it may still effect what areas you are most fond of (being exposed to X or Y may make you tend to either pursue or avoid X or Y) or how well you reach your magical potential, but not so much in the are you or are you not a wizard. KSnidget--who is wondering if Yeast spontaneously mutate to the W allele and just what it might do with it. Come to think of it this may be the explaination for the "Harvard Law" Under the most rigorously controlled conditions the organisms will do as they damn well please...in any large culture you get a W and that introduces a whole 'nother level of variability into the mix. Fruit Flies that can Apparate could explain quite a few things.... From MovieDrop1 at aol.com Tue Jul 2 16:47:32 2002 From: MovieDrop1 at aol.com (moviedrop1) Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 16:47:32 -0000 Subject: Diversity in Media and Literature (WAS No Subject) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40707 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "aldrea279" wrote: > Eloise: > >>I'm going to make a confession. Apart from Cho and the Patil girls > (because > of their names), Angelina who is stated to be black and Lee with his > dreadlocks, I had never really imagined any of the other Hogwarts > students > not to be white. I'm sorry, but there it is. It reflects *my* school > experience.>> > > I have to make the same confession as Eloise. I always pictured white > students unless told otherwise, I think the two of you make a good point. If a person is not told what someone's race is they usually think of that person as being White. Even though I am African-American I did the same thing, I just automatically thought that everyone was White. I too did not catch the fact that the Patil sisters were Indian. I also find it sad that everyone is making such a big deal about this. Why is it wrong to say that Dean Thomas is Black but it is okay to say that Ron has red hair. How do we not know that JKR always saw Dean as Black but felt that she had to clarify it for people like me who just assumed that everyone was white unless otherwise told. I think that it was a good idea that they made reference to Dean being black. I think that too often black people don't get to see positive images of themselves, especially in literature. I feel that it is good especially for black children to know wthat they are apart of the world of Harry Potter. For those of you who find it offensive and see it as "tokenism" I think that if you were a person of color and had to too often search to find people that looked like you than maybe you would feel different. Monica From hermione_ew at yahoo.com Tue Jul 2 18:17:52 2002 From: hermione_ew at yahoo.com (hermione_ew) Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 18:17:52 -0000 Subject: Mars is Bright In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40708 > I know I'm not the only person that has wondered what those > 'ruddy stargazers' meant by "Mars is bright tonight" so I came up > with some possible theories. Hear me out, I'm not crazy and I > tried to do a little homework. > > Ronan and Bane both gaze at the sky and say that "Mars is > bright" and "unusually bright" Could this be a literal translation of what the Centaurs saw, or is it a figurtive one about the > relationship of the planets in the sky that night? > -ezzie As already stated, Mars was the Roman god of War. I don't think what the Centaurs were saying had any literal meaning. Hermione said that the centaurs stargazing sounded a bit like divination, and I am inclined to agree on that point. However, I think that the Centaurs brand of divination is more reliable then Trelawney, for example. It is my interpretation that the centaurs could see a very bright mars, perhaps the planet hasn't been as bright for ten years, the last time Voldemort was in power. No matter what the implications or reasons of mars being bright, I have always thought that it meant that War is comming. JK Rowling has become known for all of the mythical allusions in her books. I don't think that this in an exception. Hannah From i_am_erasmas at yahoo.ca Tue Jul 2 18:44:32 2002 From: i_am_erasmas at yahoo.ca (i_am_erasmas) Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 18:44:32 -0000 Subject: Pink Umbrella In-Reply-To: <4f.1f573156.2a4634d2@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40709 Chelsea wrote: > ". . . What puzzles me is that after SS/PS and CoS, Hagir'd umbrella is never mentioned again, even though it's believed to hold Hagrid's wand. In most of the discussions lately, it's been pointed out that JKR rarely mentions something that has no meaning. Anyone have any ideas as to whether or not Hagrid's secret wand will come into play in the future?" Since Hagrid's name was cleared at the end of book 2, I don't think he'd need to hide his wand anymore. I have been waiting for him to show up with a new replacement. I'm pretty sure he'd be allowed to use one; he isn't a Hogwarts graduate obviously but he's a wiz and of age. Home study is part of the WW (Filch), so, busy as Hagrid has been lately, I think he has the option to hit the books and become a fully fledged wizard if he wants to. I think maybe as it stands now he's probably restricted to using a wand in his own home and when there's no witnesses. Probably he has to pass his O.W.L.s at least before using a wand in society. Erasmas From eleri at aracnet.com Tue Jul 2 20:43:11 2002 From: eleri at aracnet.com (CB) Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 13:43:11 -0700 Subject: Diversity In-Reply-To: <1025639482.2738.26518.m4@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20020702133602.00ac4100@mail.aracnet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40710 At 07:51 PM 7/2/02 +0000, Eloise wrote: >If he's just there as a black kid and race is not an issue (for Scholastic, I >presume) then why was the book changed to emphasise it? OK, I've not been following this completely, so jump on me if I've missed stuff, but this jumped out at me. We don't know why the book was changed. Was it some editors position that it needed to be in there? Perhaps the word was ommitted accidently from the British version? Maybe a copy-ed somewhere slipped it in a fit of pique that there were no non-whites in the book. Who knows. Personally, I never even noticed until it was brought up in here. (That seems to happen with a lot of things about the books). I think maybe we're reading more into this than needs to be there. It takes away from the story, I think. Charlene From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Jul 2 20:50:22 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 20:50:22 -0000 Subject: Religion in the Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40711 Religion and the Potterverse Bluesqueak said: >>A lot of people have pointed out that the UK is very secular and that JKR's use of Christmas and Easter holidays does not imply active Christian observance [both true]. << It's important to remember that the division between religious and secular is itself the product of a Christian culture. Since other traditions don't make the distinction between secular and non-secular observance, it can be hard for non-Christians to understand why a Christian would consider a Christmas feast a non-religious occasion. People nowadays use "secular" to mean "devoid of religious associations" but this was not originally the case. "Secular" at the time when Hogwarts was founded simply meant "not administered by the clergy". Towns, guilds, schools, courts, etc. could receive their operating authority from the King rather than from a bishop. This did not make them open or welcoming to non-Christians. Their charters, though not given by a religious authority, would refer to Christian concepts such as the Virgin or the Trinity and participation would require the taking of a Christian oath. For example, the requirement to take a Christian oath in order to be seated in the British Parliament was not modified until 1858--that's within living memory for wizards. If the wizards were so liberal in the year 1000 as to think religious affiliation a purely private matter, that alone would be radical enough to explain their persecution by the Muggles of the time. Leon: >>Exodus 22:17 is the "witch" line in this case. It's also important to note that it falls in between two different bans on sexual behavior (22:16 being a punishment for lying with a virgin if you didn't marry her and 22:18 being the aforementioned livestock issue.). This is important only because they key foci seem to be divination (also appearing in this section) and sexual temptation. Not levitation, unlocking doors, etc. While I am not, in any way, trying to invalidate the text of the Torah (bible, old testiment, pentateuch, etc), even as it relates to HP; nor am Itrying to shoehorn a RL religious text into the context of the Potterverse:still I wanted to clarify that JKR has not to overstepped the boundaries of even that sacred ban. << The interpretation of the biblical prohibition against witchcraft has been fluid in Jewish practice, so it's difficult to say whether Rowling's witches and wizards would violate it or not. The Talmud contains many charms and incantations which were later forbidden because the Rabbis decided the correct way of using them was no longer known. In the Potterverse, presumably, this knowledge has been preserved. On the other hand, experimentation in order to discover the properties of natural substances was once forbidden as witchcraft but is now allowed. It's possible that the Jewish wizarding community has re-interpreted the law as well. The biblical prohibition might be presumed to apply only to dark magic using forbidden ingredients such as the blood of human beings, or to summoning ghosts, which Potterverse wizards never do. However, the fact that Quidditch games at Hogwarts are scheduled on Saturday and never on Sunday leads me to think that the religious observances that British wizards have fallen away from are Christian ones. Pippin information about Judaism and magic is from Trachtenburg's "Jewish Magic and Superstition" From Edblanning at aol.com Tue Jul 2 21:52:28 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 17:52:28 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Diversity in Media and Literature (WAS No Subject) Message-ID: <6f.29e1270b.2a537a9c@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40712 Monica: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "aldrea279" wrote: > > Eloise: > > >>I'm going to make a confession. Apart from Cho and the Patil > girls > > (because > > of their names), Angelina who is stated to be black and Lee with > his > > dreadlocks, I had never really imagined any of the other Hogwarts > > students > > not to be white. I'm sorry, but there it is. It reflects *my* > school > > experience.>> > > > > I have to make the same confession as Eloise. I always pictured > white > > students unless told otherwise, > I think the two of you make a good point. If a person is not told > what someone's race is they usually think of that person as being > White. Even though I am African-American I did the same thing, I just > automatically thought that everyone was White. I too did not catch > the fact that the Patil sisters were Indian. I also find it sad that > everyone is making such a big deal about this. Why is it wrong to say > that Dean Thomas is Black but it is okay to say that Ron has red > hair. How do we not know that JKR always saw Dean as Black but felt > that she had to clarify it for people like me who just assumed that > everyone was white unless otherwise told. I think that it was a good > idea that they made reference to Dean being black. I think that too > often black people don't get to see positive images of themselves, > especially in literature. I feel that it is good especially for black > children to know wthat they are apart of the world of Harry Potter. > For those of you who find it offensive and see it as "tokenism" I > think that if you were a person of color and had to too often search > to find people that looked like you than maybe you would feel > different. > Thank you, Monica. It was good to hear that. As I said in response to Darrin, it is not the fact that Dean is black, but that it was felt necessary to change the text to emphasise it that exercises some. You know, I think we whites get into such a tangle sometimes. We try to be inclusive and then go overboard, so that it gets silly, or just don't get it quite right and worry that we're going to seem racist, when that's not our intention (although, let's face it, all of us have our stereotypes, however good our intentions and whatever our colour or background). There's a bit of the 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' about the whole situation. I think you're perfectly right: the change was a clarification, (and thus, in my view, perfectly acceptable and understandable) so that it was obvious to people like you, or Cindy (for whom the fact that the Patil twins, for example, were persons of colour was not obvious) that Hogwarts was a racially inclusive community. I am still left with a question, however. Perhaps you can answer this, Monica? As an African American, if you were to discover that you were, in fact a witch, would you assume that your magical roots would be within the European/white American tradition of magic, or within the African? I am genuinely interested to know the answer to this. You see, I think that on the one level it is perfectly right and proper that Hogwarts should reflect the racial composition of Britain. As you say, it portrays a positive image for children of colour reading the books. And that is very important - all children should have positive images to which they can relate. On another level, I feel that it is implying an assumption that all races living in Britain should conform to the European magical tradition. (I know that JKR's particular brand of magic is an invention of her own, but she *portrays* it as a European tradition, doesn't she?) We don't assume that all races should follow European traditions of religion, dress, cultural customs, etc. So why magic? That, for me, is where there is just a hint of an uncomfortably false note of political correctness creeping in. I can imagine (and please correct and forgive me if I am wrong) that if I were a witch of African descent living in Britain, I should want to send my child to a school where African witchcraft was taught, rather than to Hogwarts. To make my position clear, though, as I have said before, I am sure that if I were fortunate enough to be in JKR's position, I would have made a similar change myself. I don't expect children (these books *are* read by children, as well as adults ;-) ) to consider the question beyond whether they have someone with whom they can identify. And that is, I think, very important, in terms both of literary success and of the social responsibility of the author. Eloise > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From igenite_olwyn at blueyonder.co.uk Tue Jul 2 21:58:01 2002 From: igenite_olwyn at blueyonder.co.uk (Olwyn) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 22:58:01 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Diversity in Media and Literature (WAS No Subject) References: Message-ID: <002701c22213$89125c00$0200a8c0@blueyonder.co.uk> No: HPFGUIDX 40713 monica wrote >>For those of you who find it offensive...<< I don't think anyone /does/ find it offensive. By my reading the original point was that people were confused as to why it was added for one countrys printing and not for all of them. If it was an omission surely it would have been changed for every country, if not... what is it. I think that was more the issue than anyone saying it shouldn't be there, or he shouldn't be black or whatever. Olly Who could be completely wrong and will shut up now. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From chetah27 at hotmail.com Tue Jul 2 22:29:39 2002 From: chetah27 at hotmail.com (aldrea279) Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 22:29:39 -0000 Subject: Diversity in Media and Literature (WAS No Subject) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40714 Monica: >>I also find it sad that everyone is making such a big deal about this. Why is it wrong to say that Dean Thomas is Black but it is okay to say that Ron has red hair.>> Well, I think the ruffled feathers mainly come from the fact that Dean Thomas's race was added into there just for us PC Americans. But that doesn't bother me that much. Amanda basically summed up the only "wrongness" that I an really see pretty well: >>For me, what bothers me more is that "Black" is capitalized; I'd rather it be a simple descriptive noun. "Hispanic," "Mexican," and "Latino" are all capitalized by virtue of their derivation from proper nouns, but "black" is not so derived, and capitalizing it changes it somehow. For some reason "black" reads like a description for me, and "Black" as a label. It puts distance in; I don't like it.>> *nods* Well said. That's really the only "wrongness" I can see in it, other than the extremely FLINT-y way they stuck it in there. When I first read the book(and that wasn't all -that- long ago, I admit), I wondered why black was capitalized. I just figured it was either a typing boo-boo or maybe a British thing and moved on, though. But that is what made Dean's race stick out in my mind- which could have been why it was capitalized in the first place. Andrea: >>My view of Hogwarts as a whole is multi-racial. But whenever individual students are first introduced, my default way of thinking of them is white, unless something indicates otherwise.>> That's basically the way I see it, also. I know every student there isn't white, but my first thought when one is introduced is that they are- unless they mention in a nice, Capitalized way that they aren't. =P Aldrea, who thinks changing that one letter in her name might result in some confusion. =P From chetah27 at hotmail.com Tue Jul 2 23:09:02 2002 From: chetah27 at hotmail.com (aldrea279) Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 23:09:02 -0000 Subject: Mars is Bright In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40715 Random Monkey: >>JKR is an excellent author, and a great storyteller, but c'mon, would she really have gotten out the star charts and checked if Mars really was bright on May 26, 1991?>> I have to agree with Ranom Monkey here. I doubt JKR(or any author, really) would go so far as to do that. And once more, since this is the magical world we're talking about, I don't see why Mars would be bright in a pattern. That -would- make predicting things by the planets pretty unreliable, eh? You'd get the same stuff over and over again. So since Mars was bright that night, it was bright because of whatever reason it wanted to be bright. That's the way I'm going to think of it. And I like the way the starter of this thread gave a second explanation: Ezzie: >>It is important to note that Mars was exactly in the middle of Aries at this time. Astrologically speaking, when in Aries, Mars is "at its strongest" in terms of expression of energy. Can we conclude then that this is analogous to saying "Mars is bright?" >> That's entirely possible. And we know centaurs are smart, so probably were able to tell, just by looking up at the sky, that Mars was in the middle of the Aries constellation. But out of all the exlanations, I like to think that Mars was actually bright, and that being bright was just a sign of trouble. You ever seen that movie "Practical Magic"? I remember one scene where one of the sisters looks at the sky and says something like "A ring around the moon...trouble is coming." That's the way I think of the centaur's comments: they took the brightness as a sign, a warning (and I find this more believable when Bane[I think] gets mad at Ronan for telling Harry what they had read in the stars). Sign for trouble, and with Mars being the Roman god of war...well, I find that reasonable. ~Aldrea, who happily puts up her telescope and decides that's all the stargazing/theorizing she'd like to do for today. From ronale7 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 2 23:30:08 2002 From: ronale7 at yahoo.com (ronale7) Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 23:30:08 -0000 Subject: humor Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40716 Two of my favorite chuckles occur in Sorcerer' Stone. Each made me laugh because of the thought it provoked. The first is in chapter 5, where we learn the bookstore's name: Flourish and Blotts. Into my mind came a picture of a frenzied author signing copies of his masterpiece, ink-dripping pen in hand. The second is in chapter 16, where we get some details on the practical exam McGonagall is giving. The students are to turn a mouse into a snuffbox. Credit is given for how pretty the box is, but points are taken away if it has whiskers. I heard countless generations of muggle children asking, "Will spelling count?" and wondered how often magical kids asked if whiskers count.... --Ronale7 From miss_dumblydore at yahoo.com Tue Jul 2 22:53:25 2002 From: miss_dumblydore at yahoo.com (Heather Gauen) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 15:53:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Clothes Message-ID: <20020702225325.290.qmail@web20415.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40717 Okay, while rereading the books for the thousandth time, something struck me as a little bit flinty (and forgive me if this has been discussed before, I'm still a bit new)--clothes. I think every adult wizard in the books is described as wearing wizard's robes (except for the QWC), and the students at Hogwarts also wear robes. However, the Weasley kids are described as wearing muggle clothes during the holidays in GoF, which I took to mean things like jeans and t-shirts (or whatever else would be normal clothes for a kid). Do all magic kids wear "muggle" clothes when not in school? If so, why do adults bother to wear robes? More importantly, why don't adults know how to dress properly as muggles? After all, if magical kids know enough how to wear things like jeans and sweaters, how come the adults think kilts, galoshes, and women's dresses (on men) are proper clothing? Also, I'm wondering what constitutes "muggle" and "wizard" clothing. For instance, Mrs. Weasley knits sweaters for the kids, which seems like a muggle item (unless wizards wear sweaters over their robes). And in GoF, Ron wears maroon paisley pajamas (with several inches of bare ankle showing beneath the trousers ;) ), not "sleeping robes" or something like that. But, then again, it could just be because Ron is a kid, and adults really do wear sleeping robes. :) Okay, all of this probably doesn't mean much, but it had been bugging me and I'd love to hear some thoughts on it. *Heather, who just burst into uncontrollable giggles at the thought of old Archie in his flowered nightgown (who likes a healthy breeze 'round his privates, thanks) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free http://sbc.yahoo.com From Grumpermuffin87 at aol.com Tue Jul 2 20:56:20 2002 From: Grumpermuffin87 at aol.com (Grumpermuffin87 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 16:56:20 EDT Subject: Sorting Hat Resposibilities WAS: Quirrell & Voldemort - McGonagall & Divination Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40718 Alexander said: > First theory assumes that the Hat has a single > personality, combined from all four founders. This is > actually the worst possibility, as in this case the Hat has > only a single reason to act: self-preservation. That is, the > Hat is interested in maintaining the situation when Hat's > services are required. As such, Sorting Hat is directly > responsible for the stagnation of Wizarding World on > medieval level. > This theory that you are suggesting seems to be saying that The Sorting Hat decides where people go. I think that its more who the person is, and the Sorting Hat just reads their head that probably already knows where they are going to go. It seems to me that no one is upset or surprised when being sorted(or as far as we've seen) and I expect they'd be thinking "Oh, thats where I wanted to go.." or "That's where I expected to go." In Harry's case, he didn't care where he went as long as it wasn't slytherin. But his personality seems more Gryffindor than Slytherin and I'm not entirely convinced that his personality would change had he been sorted into Slytherin. Going back to my point (hopefully there is one here), I think the sorting hat isn't necessarily a person who decides where one goes, but more a device that reads where one should go. ~Muffin, who is a newcomer and having problems making her point without confusing herself [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From TaliaDawn3 at aol.com Tue Jul 2 20:26:26 2002 From: TaliaDawn3 at aol.com (TaliaDawn3 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 16:26:26 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: If Hogwarts were an American Boarding School.. Message-ID: <124.1320db44.2a536672@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40719 In a message dated 7/2/02 12:04:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ajl at hanson.net writes: > But supposing Hogwarts were in America, > > it's pretty fair to assume that the kids would be having all kinds > of > > hanky panky going on Ouch. You think that just because it's in America there would be all kinds of hanky panky? We know about "stuff like that" going on in Hogwarts because Ginny walks in on Percy making out with his girlfriend. We also saw Snape blast apart the bushes in GoF to get those two kids (sorry, don't have my books with me right now so I don't have their names) out of there. I'm pretty sure they weren't going over their Transfiguration notes. But if it were in America, I'm sure that the kids would use different slang. Also, I think there would be alot more swearing. I personally have quite the gutter mouth on me and was swearing up a storm in 6th grade. ~*~*~Talia Dawn~*~*~ (Who's sincerely hoping that she didn't take that quote out of context - my computer deleted all my old mail and I'm taking that from another post. If I did take it out of context, please accept my apologies!) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ksnidget at aol.com Tue Jul 2 20:06:28 2002 From: ksnidget at aol.com (ksnidget at aol.com) Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 16:06:28 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Weasley names- WW biology Message-ID: <737164A8.705E3572.007B4FA9@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40720 The Random Monkey wrote: >So, if a veela and a human can have a baby, and the baby can have a >baby, than they must be the same species. So either Fleur Delacour is >sterile, or veela and humans are the same species. Ah, but isn't Fleur 1/4 veela (IIRC "my grandmuzzer was a veela." ) So that implies that the F1 was fertile at least when backcrossed against one of the parental types. (F1 first generation, or half blood) But is the F1 fertile with another F1? Is the F1 fertile with either Parental type? And then we have the problem of just what part of the animal/plant kingdom are you looking at. That hybrids of two species do not survive/ reproduce rule works really well when you are talking mammals. Um... how to put this tactfully...but as you go to other parts of animal/plant world some things tend to be a bit more...um...promiscuous. One of my fellow grad students was working on fish hybrids which were not sterile. >The same goes for giants and humans, but with an additional twist; >mechanical isolation. Yeah... Um... Me and my squeamish american >stomach don't like to think about that. >So does anyone else have any thoughts? Maybe the fine people on the >Wizarding Genes thread? Well there is always the "some spell makes it work" idea, which I don't like all that much. Now there are cases where a small enough genetic change can occur that the phenotype is greatly altered although the genetic structure is about the same (The humans are really just neonatal chimpanzees theory. Even worse than we evolved from them, we are just sexually mature baby chimps, which actually might explain a lot come to think of it ) The large change in body form could be enough to, for the most part, isolate the two populations. The you just don't look right kinda thing. Homeotic mutations (like having a leg where your antenna is supposed to be, or having too many segments) are well known to produce big changes in what something looks like, so that could explain how they seem so different, but really are just a sub-species of humans. Or that pesky W allele may be able to play games of it's own which allows hybrids to exist, and reproduce. Which strangely I like better than you just cast a spell and it works. KSnidget From ntg85 at prodigy.net Wed Jul 3 02:07:20 2002 From: ntg85 at prodigy.net (random_monkey0_0) Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2002 02:07:20 -0000 Subject: Weasley names- WW biology In-Reply-To: <737164A8.705E3572.007B4FA9@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40721 ksnidget: > Ah, but isn't Fleur 1/4 veela (IIRC "my grandmuzzer was a veela." ) Er, sorry. I was thinking of Ron exclaiming, "She's part veela!" > And then we have the problem of just what part of the animal/plant > kingdom are you looking at. ?That hybrids of two species do not survive/ > reproduce rule works really well when you are talking mammals. ?Um... > how to put this tactfully...but as you go to other parts of animal/plant world > some things tend to be a bit more...um...promiscuous. ?One of my > fellow grad students was working on fish hybrids which were not > sterile. I didn't know about that, at least not with animals. We did discuss that plants can produce hybrids with all kinds of weird combos, but I don't remember much about it because I didn't do the homework. ;^_^ > Now there are cases where a small enough genetic change can occur > that the phenotype is greatly altered although the genetic structure is > about the same ?The large change in body form could be enough to, for the > most part, isolate the two populations. ?The you just don't look right > kinda thing. ?Homeotic mutations (like having a leg where your antenna > is supposed to be, or having too many segments) are well known to > produce big changes in what something looks like, so that could explain > how they seem so different, but really are just a sub-species of humans. I didn't think of that... Yeah, giants could be very close to humans, or even human, and just be ostracized for their looks. They're a lot closer to humans appearance-wise than veela. But that doesn't explain the veela too well, unless I'm just not understanding what you're saying. wait a tic- I just found my bio notes on speciation, and there's another form of post-zygotic barrier- hybrid breakdown. The hybrid can produce offspring, but the offspring aren't viable or are sterile. Maybe it's something like Star Trek: All the different species started out as one and diverged, and are therefore still identical enough to breed together. That's the lame excuse they used for all those klingon-human hybrids. The Random Monkey, whose bio teacher could have avoided that running "steve's tube member" joke if she had only pronounced the word "sieve" right! From golden_faile at yahoo.com Wed Jul 3 02:29:30 2002 From: golden_faile at yahoo.com (golden faile) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 19:29:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Diversity in Media and Literature (WAS No Subject) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020703022930.27407.qmail@web14609.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40722 > > I have to make the same confession as Eloise. I > always pictured > white > > students unless told otherwise, > I think the two of you make a good point. As do I... it is much the same with me. Unless otherwise told, I assume that everyone is white, I was somewhat shocked to find out otherwise. I feel that I have a rather diverse background. But obviously not as diverse as I thought, because I had no idea that the Patil twins were Indian until someone mentioned it last year. How do we not know that JKR always saw Dean as > Black but felt that she had to clarify it for people like me who just assumed that everyone was white unless otherwise told. I think that it was a good > idea that they made reference to Dean being black. I > think that too often black people don't get to see positive images of themselves, especially in literature. I feel that it is good especially for black children to know wthat they are apart of the world of Harry Potter. For those of you who find it offensive and see it as "tokenism" I think that if you were a person of color and had to too often search > to find people that looked like you than maybe you > would feel different. > Oh thank you!!! I couldn't have said it better myself! I was going to post something similar about the fact that even as an African-American I still saw all of the characters as white(unless told differently) and then there you were with much more eloquence than I could muster. YOU are my new hero. Laila > > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free http://sbc.yahoo.com From heidi at barefootpuppets.com Wed Jul 3 03:30:04 2002 From: heidi at barefootpuppets.com (barefootpuppets) Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2002 03:30:04 -0000 Subject: Missing Weasley Children - Names In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40723 > Sorry, but everyone seems to forget that the naming scheme starts with A for > Arthur. > > Arthur > Bill > Charlie > (gap filled with hypothetical dead son David) > (Edward) Percy > Fred > George > > ----Death of David--- > > Arthur and Molly rethinking naming scheme as bad luck > followed by birth of > > Ronald > Ginny > > Thus allowing for Ron to be a Seventh Son and there being veiled clues...<< I've been following this thread with interest and only want to interject one thought: What if there really wasn't a "David" and the alphabetical thing was just a coincidence? OK. This would make Ginny the 7th child. Now, it's true that she wouldn't be a 7th SON, but JKR does tend to put twists and spins on some traditions. Could it be that Ginny (who is supposed to, according to interviews, play a much larger role in future books), is the seer? Now, jumping back to the Ron being a seer theory...I think this would be mighty hysterical if he and Hermione were to hook up...she is so anti-Divination, after all! Just my two cents. Heidi R. From heidi at barefootpuppets.com Wed Jul 3 03:55:16 2002 From: heidi at barefootpuppets.com (barefootpuppets) Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2002 03:55:16 -0000 Subject: Mars is Bright (and another reference to Mars...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40724 The "Mars is especially bright" tangent is interesting. In looking at GoF HB page 575, Prof. Trelawney has the class look at Mars which is "placed most interestingly at the present time..." In fact, she refers to a "fascinating angle Mars was making to Neptune." While I can't say whether or not JKR has looked at star charts to see where all the heavenly bodies were for major events, I do believe she knows all about the astrological meanings and implications of each of her references. One reference describes Mars in terms of Astrology as: "Mars is the planet of action and the expression of will through activity. A heavily afflicted Mars in a natal chart may give the subject impulsive or violent tendencies. Favorable influences may channel the energy of Mars more positively, into strength, determination and achievement, for example." And if you look up info on Neptune: "Neptune is the planet of transcendence, higher faculties and psychic abilities...the aspects and position of Neptune deal with the subject's ability to access higher consciousness and their grip on reality." I only point this out because Trelawney was mentioning Neptune and Mars AND because this was the scene where Harry passed out in Divination after having the vision of Voldemort/Wormtail during class. Interesting stuff... Heidi R. From yankee00 at earthlink.net Wed Jul 3 04:45:20 2002 From: yankee00 at earthlink.net (Amanda Rush) Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2002 00:45:20 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Voldemort AND Religion WAS Re: Religion in HP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020703003905.009ea0a0@mail.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 40725 Shalom all I spend more time lurking on this list than I do posting, but I think I will put my two cents in here. I can't say for certain whether or not J. K. Rowling used religious imagery in the HP books on purpose, but I will say that it is there: Some Christian, some Jewish, some pagan. The drinking of blood, for example, is a pagan religious custom that managed to carry over into Christianity, at least in its symbolic form. Several of the mystery religions had their initiates symbolically drink the blood of a deity who died for the sins of mankind. Others had them drink the blood in order to ingest some of the power of the deity. Baptism is the same way, except that a form of it also appears in Jewish religious practice. A great many religious traditions have some sort of immersion in water as part of them. However, Christianity is one of the few that uses it as some sort of renewal process, in that supposedly when one is baptized, one is born again or transformed. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From catlady at wicca.net Wed Jul 3 07:09:13 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2002 07:09:13 -0000 Subject: bright Mars / multiculti / religion / Veela species / Muggle clothes Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40726 Ezzie wrote: << It is important to note that Mars was exactly in the middle of Aries at this time. Astrologically speaking, when in Aries, Mars is "at its strongest" in terms of expression of energy. >> I don't think JKR had any idea where Mars was in the astronomical or astrological sky on that night; after all, she puts Full Moons wherever they suit the plot, and is not consistent about the days of the week, and in particular seems to dislike astrology. She has said she doesn't believe in astrology (altho' I can't find the reference) and mocks it via Trelawney. So she was just damn lucky that Mars was in the right place that night, as you generously took the trouble to look up for us. As for what the centaurs meant, I'm like all those other people who know that Mars was the Roman god of war and just assumed that they meant that war, violence, and troubles were on the rise. Eloise wrote: << On another level, I feel that it is implying an assumption that all races living in Britain should conform to the European magical tradition. (I know that JKR's particular brand of magic is an invention of her own, but she *portrays* it as a European tradition, doesn't she?) We don't assume that all races should follow European traditions of religion, dress, cultural customs, etc. So why magic?>> I understand that it's very politically incorrect to speak of 'assimilation' or to suggest that there might be a 'melting pot', but, look, I don't speak a word of Yiddish and Tim doesn't speak a word of Gaelic. We both wear jeans, and eat with knife and fork (sometimes Tim uses chopsticks, so I accuse him of showing off), changing the fork to right hand to put the food in our mouths with it, and we are pretty much obsessed with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (and the Treaty of Guadelupe Hildago, but that's another thing) even tho' none of our ancestors were in USA yet when those were signed... I don't seem to be able to say clearly what I mean in this thread! Pippin wrote: << If the wizards were so liberal in the year 1000 as to think religious affiliation a purely private matter >> They may have *had* to, because they couldn't decide between Druidism and Christianity as the official religion by one side killing off the other, because wizarding folk are too hard to kill. Druidism and Christianity and religio Romano and the Viking gods? The random monkey wrote: << So, if a veela and a human can have a baby, and the baby can have a baby, than they must be the same species. So either Fleur Delacour is sterile, or veela and humans are the same species. >> It seems perfectly possible to me that Veela could be witches who inherit a couple of extra (should I have corrected my original typo "sextra"?) mutations that only work in females. One for automatically casting an Imperius Curse "Desire me!" on all male humans in the vicinity, and another for automatically being a big-vicious-bird Animagus. Or, my preferred explanation: it's magic. Heather wrote: << I think every adult wizard in the books is described as wearing wizard's robes (except for the QWC), and the students at Hogwarts also wear robes. However, the Weasley kids are described as wearing muggle clothes during the holidays in GoF, which I took to mean things like jeans and t-shirts (or whatever else would be normal clothes for a kid). Do all magic kids wear "muggle" clothes when not in school? If so, why do adults bother to wear robes? More importantly, why don't adults know how to dress properly as muggles? >> I personally think it's a matter of fashion. You know how teens and pre-teens have fashion trends that elderly parental-aged people like me don't understand at all? I still don't know where backwards ball caps came from, but I read long ago that the baggy jeans with no belt, that hang low and show the boxer shorts, came from California Youth Authority -- that's the juvenile prison system, where the immates are not allowed to have belts lest they be used as weapons, and the jail uniform jeans issued to them aren't carefully fitted. I suggest that the wizarding folk ignored Muggle clothing for centuries, until the current generation adopted sort-of-current Muggle clothing. One way this could have occurred is if they celebrated the Fall of Voldemort (Nov 1 1981) by having a fad for Muggles; that might be when Ron's MARTIN MIGGS THE MAD MUGGLE comic book was invented, and there might also have been a romantic play like ROMEO AND JULIET, about a beautiful brave young pureblood witch who defied her bigotted parents to marry her beloved brave and talented Muggle-born wizard, and his Muggle family were depicted as kind and brave altho' comically ignorant. And some teens decided to wear the unusual (and parent-annoying) styles that they saw in these depictions of Muggles, and other kids decided to dress like those trend-leading kids, and it turned out to be a fashion that lasted. Perhaps Bill Weasley was one of the kids who originated that trend. Another way this could have happened is if they didn't have a fad of Muggles, but they did start making a big deal abaout the surviving Muggle-born mages, inviting them to parties and stuff to demonstrate how anti-Death Eater they (the hosts) were. Some of the Muggle-borns might have played along by wearing their Muggle clothes, and dressing their children in Muggle clothes, and been imitated. I would have to invent some excuse why the mages who were suddenly so eager to invite the Mudbloods to their parties for the first time would dress their children in Muggle clothing but not themselves. I think we have canon evidence of one previous change of fashion of this type: from Roman togas, Greek chitons, and blue paint (woad: that's a joke) to medieval style robes. I further believe, without canon evidence, in a smaller but more recent change of fashion, between the Dumbledore and old Archie generation and the McGonagall generation, when wizarding folk adopted wearing some Victorianish looking underwear. That would have them adopting that style after the Muggles had abandoned it... I attribute to a play that had a scene with the heroine dressed in her camisole and bloomers... As for the question of whether all the kids wear Muggle clothing when not in school -- Draco and his buddies don't, unless by this time it has been sort of forgotten that these styles are Muggle styles rather than merely Youth styles. They wouldn't buy them from Muggle stores, but either wizard-made imitations or Muggle-made clothes imported by Muggle-born or Half-blood mages who can cope in both societies. From pen at pensnest.co.uk Wed Jul 3 09:04:46 2002 From: pen at pensnest.co.uk (Pen Robinson) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 10:04:46 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Diversity in Media and Literature (WAS No Subject) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40727 It has been interesting to learn in this thread that many non-British readers did not recognise the 'flagging' of the Patil girls as, hmm, what shall I say - non-white. I wonder if that is in part because of the incredible diversity of surnames in the USA? Indeed, the same applies to forenames: in a society in which Loree, Willow, Brandi, and so forth are of no particular moment, Padma and Parvati probably don't stand out. Here, they are noticeably different from the Hannahs and Ginnys and even Hermiones. My children had black friends at school (a brother and sister matching my own kids in age), who were called Jennifer and Andrew, and had a 'British' surname too. No 'flagging' for skin colour. The Asian children in their classes now do have distinctively different names, none of which I can for the moment recall. My point? That Dean Thomas could be any colour. Angelina is a slightly more unusual name, which makes tenuously more sense to me when I learn that she's black, but it isn't really 'flagged' either. So in both cases, we are outright told that these characters are black. [Hey, we have a couple of rather good British athletes, Linford Christie and Colin Jackson. The former, it may not surprise you to learn, is black - that forename is unusual. The latter is Welsh. And black. No way of gauging either of those facts from his name.] I don't have a copy of the US edition, but if I recall this train of thought aright, Dean is briefly described as being (a) black, and (b) even taller than Ron. I really don't see this 'black' as being overt or offensive mention of the boy's race. It's a one-word physical description! I for one am glad to have such a description of this boy (and it's a pity it wasn't added to the British edition). It gives me a clearer visual image of this character than I otherwise have. (We'd never have had this discussion if he had been, say, blond, but the word would have sharpened the visualisation in the same way.) The main characters, of course, get far more detailed physical description, so we can arrive at a more exact picture of Harry, Ron and Hermione (and Snape and Dumbledore). Fair enough. Peripheral characters may not be described at all (someone mentioned a Morag McDougall [I think], and for me, the name alone conjures up a girl with milk-pale skin, freckles, and dark red hair). We do have other brief descriptions of minor characters (Seamus being 'sandy haired', for instance) which perform the same function - give us a very basic glimpse at the appearance of said character. (Although Seamus' name is very clearly 'flagged' as Irish, which may or may not solicit assumptions about his appearance.) Surely the reason why Dean is mentioned at all at this point in the American edition is that he had been omitted from the Sorting scene in the original, and someone picked up on the fact? Quite right, too. (Pity they didn't then reconcile the numbers by changing the 'three' to 'four', but I suppose we can't have everything.) If we assume that JKR always intended Dean to be of West Indian origin, which is perfectly possible, how could this be better conveyed than by the mention that he is 'black'? Pen From pen at pensnest.co.uk Wed Jul 3 09:09:57 2002 From: pen at pensnest.co.uk (Pen Robinson) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 10:09:57 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: If Hogwarts were an American Boarding School.. In-Reply-To: <124.1320db44.2a536672@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40728 Talia Dawn wrote: >Ouch. You think that just because it's in America there would be all kinds >of hanky panky? We know about "stuff like that" going on in Hogwarts because >Ginny walks in on Percy making out with his girlfriend. We also saw Snape >blast apart the bushes in GoF to get those two kids (sorry, don't have my >books with me right now so I don't have their names) out of there. I'm >pretty sure they weren't going over their Transfiguration notes. But if it >were in America, I'm sure that the kids would use different slang. Also, I >think there would be alot more swearing. I personally have quite the gutter >mouth on me and was swearing up a storm in 6th grade. Do you really think British children don't swear? JKR could have included all sorts of ugly words with perfect verisimilitude, if that were the kind of book she had wanted to write. Come to that, do you really think British schoolchildren don't indulge in, um, hanky panky? But I agree, the slang would be different in an American boarding school. Pen From pen at pensnest.co.uk Wed Jul 3 09:11:41 2002 From: pen at pensnest.co.uk (Pen Robinson) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 10:11:41 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: If Hogwarts were an American Boarding School.. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40729 A.J. wrote: >Um. Boy, am I embarrassed to read that as an American, because I can >assure you that a great deal of American private (not public) day and >boarding schools are a lot more like Hogwarts than what you describe >above. I went to one of these, and except for the menu (how do those >kids at Hogwarts survive on that diet? ugh) it was uncannily like >Hogwarts. Oh - Pen is intrigued! What's objectionable about the Hogwarts food? Pen From zoomphy at yahoo.com Wed Jul 3 07:31:35 2002 From: zoomphy at yahoo.com (zoomphy) Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2002 07:31:35 -0000 Subject: Clothes In-Reply-To: <20020702225325.290.qmail@web20415.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40730 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Heather Gauen wrote: "Do all magic kids wear "muggle" clothes when not in school? If so, why do adults bother to wear robes? More importantly, why don't adults know how to dress properly as muggles? After all, if magical kids know enough how to wear things like jeans and sweaters, how come the adults think kilts, galoshes, and women's dresses (on men) are proper clothing?" I am not posting because I have any sort of answer to this, but merely to state that me and my best friend were--I kid you not!-- discussing the exact same thing this last weekend. And to me, the coincidence is just plain eery. Not to mention heartening, because it means we aren't the only ones who ponder such things. But, like, yeah! If the kids know enough to wear Muggle clothes, why don't their parents/the adults? I was thinking that maybe wizards do wear the same clothes as us-- just *under* their robes! Do they at least wear undergarments? Hmm. This line of questioning could be applied to other things. Like, do wizards eat the same food as us or do they have "wizard cuisine"? Clearly from book descriptions of their feasts and breakfasts, they do eat *some* of the same stuff as us. But they also seem to want to draw a very distinct line between themselves and Muggles. On a slightly related note, why do the wizards refer to a lot of things as "wizard" this or "wizard" that (ie Wizard Chess)? It's not like they have a lot of interaction with Muggles because it appears they don't have much knowledge of Muggle stuff in general (I assume this from the need to have an office in the MoM for the Misuse of "Muggle Artifacts"). So the act of differentiating their things from "Muggle" things doesn't seem particularly necessary. Although now that I think about it, a lot of wizard contraptions seem to be made to improve on original Muggle inventions (The Hogwarts Express, for instance). So "wizard" products would be better than "Muggle" products and the "wizard" part of the name would be a red flag to that effect. But it would also seem a given to me that if I were in a wizarding society, the things I use are "wizard" things so I wouldn't need to preface their names/descriptions with a "wizard" disclaimer. Especially if I didn't know much about Muggle stuff anyway. So are there just some things--clothes, food, etc--that are universally used by everyone, Muggle and Magical alike? I'm beginning to think this is probably just be a literary convention on JKR's part and I'm making a big to-do over nothing. Anyway, sorry for rambling, but this is my first post to the list and I wanted it to be a doozy. :) K. P.S. Also I apologize if this has been discussed before. I've skimmed the archives and never found anything explicitly addressing this, though I could obviously be very, very wrong. From lilac_bearry at yahoo.com Wed Jul 3 09:24:34 2002 From: lilac_bearry at yahoo.com (Lilac) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 02:24:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: humor Message-ID: <20020703092434.65540.qmail@web40311.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40731 A little late getting this out... Here's my fav, from PoA: ******* Percy, however, held out his hand solemnly as though he and Harry had never met and said, "Harry. How nice to see you." "Hello, Percy," said Harry, trying not to laugh. "I hope you're well?" said Percy pompously, shaking hands. It was rather like being introduced to the mayor. "Very well, thanks." "Harry!" said Fred, elbowing Percy out of the way and bowing deeply. "Simply splendid to see you, old boy." "Marvelous," said George, pushing Fred aside and seizing Harry's hand in turn. "Absolutely spiffing!" Percy scowled. "That's enough, now" said Mrs. Weasley "Mum!" said Fred as though he'd only just spotted her and seizing her hand too. "How really corking to see you!" ****** oh, and the "Humungous Bighead" comment on the next page. Basically, anything Gred and Forge say! Lockhart is so fun to laugh at as well. Lilac :) ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* "Tut, tut --- hardly any of you remembered that my favorite color is lilac. I say so in Year with the Yeti." --Gilderoy Lockhart, COS --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? New! SBC Yahoo! Dial - 1st Month Free & unlimited access [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From drednort at alphalink.com.au Wed Jul 3 04:28:29 2002 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 14:28:29 +1000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Mars is Bright Message-ID: <3D230A0D.18762.126CBDB@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 40732 On 1 Jul 2002 at 3:54, ezzie_mora wrote: > Here is a link to a timetable of Oppositions of Mars > http://www.uapress.arizona.edu/online.bks/mars/appends.htm > > Additionally, Mars was not in a position where it could be seen > easily with the naked eye that evening. After calculating the > position of Mars in the sky between 11pm-midnight May 26, 1992 > as it would have been seen in northern England (a guess since > we dont know where Hogwarts is exactly), we find that Mars was > a mere 15 degrees from the last quarter moon in the nighttime > sky. It would have been virtually impossible to discern it from > other stars and the bright quarter moon as they passed by the > Aries constellation. Speaking as an astronomer - are you sure of this? My checks place Mars in Pisces on 26/5/92 - and not even visible until sometime around 3.20am on the morning of the 27th (based on Glasgow - I wanted a Scotland position - around 3.10am for London) 26/5/91 looks better in terms of the brightness of Mars - Jupiter, Mars, and Venus were arrayed in a fairly bright cluster in the evening as viewed from Scotland. Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought Shaun Hately |webpage: http://www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html (ISTJ) |email: drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 "You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil | Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia From chetah27 at hotmail.com Wed Jul 3 15:43:48 2002 From: chetah27 at hotmail.com (aldrea279) Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2002 15:43:48 -0000 Subject: Clothes In-Reply-To: <20020702225325.290.qmail@web20415.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40733 Zoomphy: >>But, like, yeah! If the kids know enough to wear Muggle clothes, why don't their parents/the adults?>> I'm going to have to go with the only answer I can come up with: Generations Gaps. Do you wear the same things that your grandparents do? Or your parents, for that matter? I know I certainly don't. My dad wears jeans. Always. In the winter he wears button down shirts, in the summer cotton pull over shirts. And that's it. My grandfather always wears jeans, cowboy boots, cowboy belts, cowboy hats, and button down shirts. That's rather different than what someone my age would wear, I'd say. Zoomphy: >>I was thinking that maybe wizards do wear the same clothes as us-- just *under* their robes! >> I'd say that the older older wizards(like Archie, perhaps), are used to wearing just plain wizard robes(which is probably why he's so used to that breeze =P). Kind of like what Dumbledore was wearing in the movie. That MoM official was basically having to tell Archie what trousers are, IIRC. But then let's go to a younger generation. Snape was wearing pants in the movie, and from the pictures I've seen of Lockhart, he is too. So I'd guess that's what wizards around Arthur's generation would wear: robes over something like what Snape was wearing(not quite Muggle enough, you wouldn't seen someone walking down the street wearing that, I don't think). It sort of reminds me of something from...oh, I don't want to get flamed for using the wrong date, but around 1800's? *shrugs* Late 1800's, I suppose. And then on to Harry's and Ron's generation. The kids do seem to know what they're doing, and so I'd guess that maybe Muggle- born wizards are getting more and more popular? Perhaps during Voldemort's first reign, some wizards went into hiding in the muggle world, and ended up marrying Muggles...hmm... a possibility, I think. Heather: >>Also, I'm wondering what constitutes "muggle" and "wizard" clothing. For instance, Mrs. Weasley knits sweaters for the kids, which seems like a muggle item (unless wizards wear sweaters over their robes). And in GoF, Ron wears maroon paisley pajamas (with several inches of bare ankle showing beneath the trousers ;) ), not "sleeping robes" or something like that.>> IIRC, Snape is described as wearing a sort of gray sleeping gown in GoF. Again, this reminds me of 1800's or something like that. But I think it still goes by generations- Ron wearing his pajamas, and such. And as for sweaters, I think they wear them under their robes. I think wizards are very fond of their robes. What they wear under them has changed/will change, but they'll probably always stick to those robes. But one problem I always have with clothing: The Yule Ball. I know the girls are described as wearing pink robes and blue robes and such...but what are they wearing under them? A dress? Or do they keep their Hogwarts uniforms and just have the robe over that? Hmm... Zoomphy: >>On a slightly related note, why do the wizards refer to a lot of things as "wizard" this or "wizard" that (ie Wizard Chess)? It's not like they have a lot of interaction with Muggles because it appears they don't have much knowledge of Muggle stuff in general (I assume this from the need to have an office in the MoM for the Misuse of "Muggle Artifacts").>> Ah, but they DO interact with Muggles: Muggle-born wizards. This reminds me of a line I remember from the movie...Ron and Harry are sitting around during Christmas Break playing chess. Hermione comes up and watches. One of Ron's pieces takes out Harry's piece, and Hermion cries out "That's barbaric!" Ron replies wtih "That's Wizard's Chess." *shrugs* Just a clarification. Muggle Chess is where you move the wooden pieces yourself, and Wizard's Chess has live little soldiers battling each other. And Harry *is* Muggle- born, so to him it would be Wizard's Chess, or wizard's photographs. To Ron and other wizards I'd imagine that'd be the normal for them, whereas they would refer to other things as "Muggle" whatevers. ~Aldrea From divaclv at aol.com Wed Jul 3 16:32:17 2002 From: divaclv at aol.com (c_voth312) Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2002 16:32:17 -0000 Subject: Clothes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40734 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "aldrea279" wrote: > Zoomphy: > >>But, like, yeah! If the kids know enough to wear Muggle clothes, > why > don't their parents/the adults?>> > > I'm going to have to go with the only answer I can come up with: > Generations Gaps. Do you wear the same things that your grandparents > do? Or your parents, for that matter? I know I certainly don't. My > dad wears jeans. Always. In the winter he wears button down shirts, > in the summer cotton pull over shirts. And that's it. My > grandfather always wears jeans, cowboy boots, cowboy belts, cowboy > hats, and button down shirts. That's rather different than what > someone my age would wear, I'd say. That makes sense to me. Also I think it reflects the "dressed-down" tendency of younger generations, in that an older wizard may prefer the robes in order to appear "professional" or whatever, but the kids would rather go for comfort. > But one problem I always have with clothing: The Yule Ball. I know > the girls are described as wearing pink robes and blue robes and > such...but what are they wearing under them? A dress? Or do they > keep their Hogwarts uniforms and just have the robe over that? Hmm... I always assumed the dress robes were closed at the front (like the adult wizards wear), so it didn't really matter what the girls were wearing underneath. > Ah, but they DO interact with Muggles: Muggle-born wizards. This > reminds me of a line I remember from the movie...Ron and Harry are > sitting around during Christmas Break playing chess. Hermione comes > up and watches. One of Ron's pieces takes out Harry's piece, and > Hermion cries out "That's barbaric!" Ron replies wtih "That's > Wizard's Chess." *shrugs* Just a clarification. Muggle Chess is > where you move the wooden pieces yourself, and Wizard's Chess has > live little soldiers battling each other. And Harry *is* Muggle- > born, so to him it would be Wizard's Chess, or wizard's photographs. > To Ron and other wizards I'd imagine that'd be the normal for them, > whereas they would refer to other things as "Muggle" whatevers. > > ~Aldrea I think this is another key factor in the clothing issue: wizards who come from Muggle or part-Muggle backgrounds (Harry, Hermionie, Seamus, etc.), or those who seem more sympathetically inclined towards them (the Weasley family) are probably more likely to be familiar with--and utilize--Muggle clothing than those who are not. ~Christi From plumeski at yahoo.com Wed Jul 3 17:06:24 2002 From: plumeski at yahoo.com (GulPlum) Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2002 17:06:24 -0000 Subject: Dean Thomas - nitpicks on West Ham In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40735 Catherine Coleman wrote: > I am therefore interested in why people assumed this. Or was it a case > of knowing Dean's ethnicity from either the American edition or the film > and working backwards? I've been away for over a week and am only just catching up on messages (backwards, I might add). AFAIK, I'm the one with whom you're taking issue, as I'm the one who raised this subject a couple of weeks ago (after which it degenerated into an UK -v- US editions debate). (Sorry, I can't find the message #.) Just to clarify: I never suggested that Dean is black because he's a West Ham supporter. I got his ethnicity from the US edition. I then went on to speculate that *if* he's a local supporter, he's unlikely to be wealthy (I don't think anyone would *choose* to live in Newham if they had an option). I then made another leap to suggest that, in particular because we know nothing about his parentage (whereas we not only know about Harry's other friends' parents but have even met them all!), he may not have any, which made me suspect that he may have been raised in an orphanage. As it happens, his ethnicity isn't directly relevant to my thesis/speculation; it's just something we know. From naama_gat at hotmail.com Wed Jul 3 17:50:22 2002 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2002 17:50:22 -0000 Subject: Is HP Magic Different across Cultures? (was Re: Diversity in Media) In-Reply-To: <6f.29e1270b.2a537a9c@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40736 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote: >You see, I think that on the one level it is perfectly right and proper that Hogwarts should reflect the racial composition of Britain. As you say, it portrays a positive image for children of colour reading the books. And that is very important - all children should have positive images to which they can relate. On another level, I feel that it is implying an assumption that all races living in Britain should conform to the European magical tradition. (I know that JKR's > particular brand of magic is an invention of her own, but she > *portrays* it as a European tradition, doesn't she?) We don't assume that all races should follow European traditions of religion, dress, cultural customs, etc. So why magic? That, for me, is where there is just a hint of an uncomfortably false note of political correctness creeping in. I can imagine (and please correct and forgive me if I am wrong) that if I were a witch of African descent living in Britain, I should want to send my child to a school where >African witchcraft was taught, rather than to Hogwarts. > This is an interesting subject. As I see it, magic (within the logic of the Potterverse, of course) is quite different from religion, dress, cultural customs, etc. Magic is a practical thing. It is a that a person can either have or not have, but no matter in what community, it is the same kind of power. For instance, people run in the same way no matter where they were born. So, if you want to coach somebody in athletics, you apply the same methods, no matter what that person's cultural heritage is. A more fitting analogy may be engineering. It isn't really meaningful to talk of European engineering, Chinese engineering or Aztec engineering, is it? Engineering is the same all over the world, since it rests on objective forces and laws of nature. Magic as a cultural construct we have in the real world. In the Potterverse, magic is a real, objective force. Learning the rules and the various ways of using this force shouldn't differ between different cultures, then. At least, there may be local developments. Wizards from one community may find (or make?) spells that are not known in another community. Unlike cultural customs, however, those spells would work just as well in the other community (if practiced there). To return to the engineering analogy, it would be like an American engineer learning the specific methods involved in building a pagoda. Following on this, then, I'd say that parents wouldn't mind where their children learnt magic - so long as it's at a good school (in the same way that you wouldn't mind where your kid learns engineering, or biology, or physics, etc.). Naama From theresa_ryan85 at hotmail.com Wed Jul 3 18:00:31 2002 From: theresa_ryan85 at hotmail.com (theresa ryan) Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2002 18:00:31 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Digest Number 1958 Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40737 KSnidget WROTE: >The same goes for giants and humans, but with an additional twist; >mechanical isolation. Yeah... Um... Me and my squeamish american >stomach don't like to think about that. This kind of thing intrigued me from the start...how did Hagrid's parents get together originally? I mean, if giants are so ostracised in human society, surely they wouldn't really get the chance to date, etc.. get married. Can you imagine the costernation at the church? I kind of have an interesting theory- Fridwulfa and Hagrid Snr(for want of a better name)-Father is an auror and battles against the Giants. He gets Fridwulfa on her own but, due to his innate kindness, doesn't kill her. She recognises his generosity and prevents him being killed by the rest of the Giants. The rest is history. (or should I say canon?) Oh yes, that mechanical isolation thing; any suggestions as to how they managed it!?!) not a first time poster, but a long time lurker returns, theresa. _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com Wed Jul 3 18:12:05 2002 From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze) Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2002 13:12:05 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hagrid's parents References: Message-ID: <3D233E75.9000408@kingwoodcable.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40738 Before reading my entry - beware, my brain is in the gutter.... theresa ryan wrote: > > KSnidget WROTE: > > >The same goes for giants and humans, but with an additional twist; > >mechanical isolation. Yeah... Um... Me and my squeamish american > >stomach don't like to think about that. > > This kind of thing intrigued me from the start...how did Hagrid's parents > get together originally? I mean, if giants are so ostracised in human > society, surely they wouldn't really get the chance to date, etc.. get > married. Can you imagine the costernation at the church? I kind of have an > interesting theory- Fridwulfa and Hagrid Snr(for want of a better > name)-Father is an auror and battles against the Giants. He gets Fridwulfa > on her own but, due to his innate kindness, doesn't kill her. She > recognises his generosity and prevents him being killed by the rest of the > Giants. The rest is history. (or should I say canon?) Oh yes, that > mechanical isolation thing; any suggestions as to how they managed it!?!) > not a first time poster, but a long time lurker returns, > theresa. Oi! I think you're right that something about Hagrid Sr. kindness triggering something in Fridwulfa. I think that maybe he just wasn't mean to her whereas everyone had been, and so they got together. The sheer logistics of them *doing it* sort of frighten me though! I mean - does Hagrid Sr. have something in his pants that will satisfy a giant? Yikes! That would frighten me! Maybe that's why he didn't hook up with a human? hehehe Katze From ntg85 at prodigy.net Wed Jul 3 18:44:49 2002 From: ntg85 at prodigy.net (random_monkey0_0) Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2002 18:44:49 -0000 Subject: Hagrid's parents In-Reply-To: <3D233E75.9000408@kingwoodcable.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40739 Katze wrote: >The sheer logistics of them *doing > it* sort of frighten me though! I mean - does Hagrid Sr. have >something in his pants that will satisfy a giant? Yikes! That would >frighten me! Maybe that's why > he didn't hook up with a human? hehehe > > Katze Yeah, that's sort of what I was trying to get around to. The biological/genetic part is hard enough to explain, but then you get to just sheer physical attributes... I think it's been suggested that a spell might be involved. This seems fairly likely... Or maybe the stork brought them a baby. Or maybe they cut open a peach and there he was, and they just didn't like the name Momotaro. (10 points to anyone who gets that reference! Here's an even worse one... Mmm, let's put this one at 100.) Or maybe everything just works out if you try hard enough. I'll bet JKR never thought this would come up! The Random Monkey, who has probably convinced everyone here she has a sick mind. From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com Wed Jul 3 19:20:55 2002 From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze) Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2002 14:20:55 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hagrid's parents References: <3D233E75.9000408@kingwoodcable.com> Message-ID: <3D234E97.9070405@kingwoodcable.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40740 Apparently I ruffled some feathers with particular comments regarding Hagrid's father. I certainly didn't mean any offense, and I'm sorry it was taken as such. Katze From mrflynn6 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 3 19:38:31 2002 From: mrflynn6 at yahoo.com (mrflynn6) Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2002 19:38:31 -0000 Subject: Norbert Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40741 My 9 year old asked me to post this here and get thoughts on this. He was wondering if we would see Norbert again. He thought perhaps he will show up in a later book and come to Harry's aid in some way. I thought it was an interesting theory. Thanks. Gretchen From crana at ntlworld.com Wed Jul 3 19:44:04 2002 From: crana at ntlworld.com (rosie) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 20:44:04 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Norbert References: Message-ID: <000b01c222ca$075bf380$13b268d5@xxx> No: HPFGUIDX 40742 Gretchen wrote: "My 9 year old asked me to post this here and get thoughts on this. He was wondering if we would see Norbert again. He thought perhaps he will show up in a later book and come to Harry's aid in some way. I thought it was an interesting theory. Thanks." I thought that it might have been Norbert that Harry faced in GoF to begin with, as they were both Norwegian Ridgebacks (I think) and the dragon was brought over by Charlie.... BUT... . Hagrid would have had to get the dragon's sex wrong (easily done, I suppose?) . It would be strange that Hagrid wouldn't be tearfully reunited with Norbert (should I say Norbettina?) if he knew they were one and the same Well, ok, they probably weren't the same. It would have been nice if they were though - maybe Charlie just didn't tell Hagrid, in case Hagrid tried to steal him/her back or something... and maybe Hagrid didn't realise they were the same as he thought Norbert was a boy dragon and this one was a girl. I do like your son's theory that he would come to Harry's aid though - maybe he could team up with Fluffy? Rosie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Pam at barkingdog.demon.co.uk Wed Jul 3 20:17:59 2002 From: Pam at barkingdog.demon.co.uk (pamscotland) Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2002 20:17:59 -0000 Subject: Is HP Magic Different across Cultures? (was Re: Diversity in Media) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40743 There are definitely cultural preferences - flying brooms as opposed to flying carpets? Cheers for now Pam From divaclv at aol.com Wed Jul 3 22:19:25 2002 From: divaclv at aol.com (c_voth312) Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2002 22:19:25 -0000 Subject: Norbert In-Reply-To: <000b01c222ca$075bf380$13b268d5@xxx> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40744 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "rosie" wrote: > I thought that it might have been Norbert that Harry faced in GoF to begin with, as they were both Norwegian Ridgebacks (I think) and the dragon was brought over by Charlie.... BUT... > > . Hagrid would have had to get the dragon's sex wrong (easily done, I suppose?) > . It would be strange that Hagrid wouldn't be tearfully reunited with Norbert (should I say Norbettina?) if he knew they were one and the same > Actually, the dragon Harry faces in GoF is a Hungarian Horntail, not a Norwegian Ridgeback. The others are a Common Welsh Green, a Chinese Fireball, and one other whose species escapes me. I'm pretty sure Norbert is the only NR to show up in the series thus far. ~Christi From autryld at earthlink.net Wed Jul 3 16:58:56 2002 From: autryld at earthlink.net (autryld at earthlink.net) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 11:58:56 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Clothes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3D22E700.24611.8474C1@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 40745 In movie, Mrs. Weasley dressed in muggle clothes to drop of her boys at the station. (In the book we aren't told what she wore.) Might we suppose that wizards and witches that don't go out into (muggle) public very often would have problems with clothing taste or appropriateness? I would that the younger folks would dress in "casual" clothing more easily than adults. Likely, because they haven't graduated. Regards, Larry Autry Larry Autry autryld at earthlink.net From autryld at earthlink.net Wed Jul 3 17:18:40 2002 From: autryld at earthlink.net (autryld at earthlink.net) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 12:18:40 -0500 Subject: Hogwarts core curriculum Message-ID: <3D22EBA0.11890.96886F@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 40746 It seems that an assumption can be made regarding the core curriculum at Hogwarts' . That is, that there are no muggle type core classes like English or math, notwithstanding arithmancy. Obviously, muggle science or physics would be of no great interest to the majority of wizards or witches. Regards, Larry Autry Larry Autry autryld at earthlink.net From swimminwoman86 at aol.com Wed Jul 3 20:07:18 2002 From: swimminwoman86 at aol.com (hpistheman4me) Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2002 20:07:18 -0000 Subject: Clothes/Distinguishing between muggle and wizard things In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40747 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "zoomphy" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Heather Gauen wrote: > > "Do all magic kids wear "muggle" clothes when not in school? If so, > why do adults bother to wear robes? More importantly, why don't > adults know how to dress properly as muggles? After all, if magical > kids know enough how to wear things like jeans and sweaters, how come > the adults think kilts, galoshes, and women's dresses (on men) are > proper clothing?" Zoomphy, it is very strange because my sister and I were talking about the exact same thing the other day also. Enough of the strange coincidences...You would think that they wouldn't need to distinguish between wizard things and muggle things, but maybe it is mainly just the children who do it for the sake of the muggle-born witches and wizards. After all, Hermione and the other muggle-borns may not have heard of "wizard's chess" before. I was also thinking just the other day that it seems that we "muggles" seem to be doing just fine without magic considering that if we were at school and wanted to find out who a certain person was like Harry, Ron, and Hermione were looking for Nicholas Flamel, we would just have to get on a computer and look it up on the internet. It seems strange that we have such a good resource when it took them forever to find it. I also wonder why Ron had never heard of Nicholas Flamel before when he was supposed to have collected almost every famous wizard card from the chocolate frog's packs. Why hadn't he ever come across Nicholas Flamel or at least knew that he was missing it like he knew he was missing the Agrippa card? Surley Professor Dumbledore's partner and the only owner of the Sorceror's Stone would have a card. Sorry if this has been disscussed before it was just something that was bothering me! ~Cindy~ From nplyon at yahoo.com Wed Jul 3 20:07:25 2002 From: nplyon at yahoo.com (nplyon) Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2002 20:07:25 -0000 Subject: Norbert In-Reply-To: <000b01c222ca$075bf380$13b268d5@xxx> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40748 > Gretchen wrote: > "My 9 year old asked me to post this here and get thoughts on > this. He was wondering if we would see Norbert again. He thought > perhaps he will show up in a later book and come to Harry's aid in > some way.I thought it was an interesting theory. Thanks." > > Rosie responded: > > [Snip] > > I do like your son's theory that he would come to Harry's aid > though - maybe he could team up with Fluffy? > Oooh, I like this. Harry already has Buckbeak on his side too, as Buckbeak is Sirius's constant companion. Perhaps this is where Hagrid's usefulness will come into play? He's so handy with creatures that he will be able to form an army of Fantastic Beasts to help aid in the fight against Voldemort. Can you just imagine Aragog and family chasing down a bunch of DEs? Oh how I'd like to read about Lucius Malfoy dangling from the pincers of a giant spider! Charlie would be able to recruit his dragons to help as well. I even think an army of Fantastic Beasts would be scarier than an army of Snapes! ~Nicole, who thinks Hagrid should bring a band of nifflers to the Riddle house and let them loose. Voila! No more HQ for Voldie! From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Thu Jul 4 00:16:07 2002 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 17:16:07 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hagrid's parents In-Reply-To: <3D234E97.9070405@kingwoodcable.com> References: <3D233E75.9000408@kingwoodcable.com> <3D234E97.9070405@kingwoodcable.com> Message-ID: <9319739279.20020703171607@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40749 Wednesday, July 3, 2002, 12:20:55 PM, Katze wrote: K> Apparently I ruffled some feathers with particular comments regarding Hagrid's K> father. I certainly didn't mean any offense, and I'm sorry it was taken as such. Why do you say that? Did you get flamed? Personally I thought it was a valid point... There's a similar thread currently on alt.fan.harry-potter, where it's been asked, why does Hagrid need to *ask* which side of the family Madam Maxime's giantness is on, since, imagination-staggering though male-human-mating-with-female-giant is, the reverse would apear to be -- um -- *really impossible* (both at conception and birth time)! -- Dave From ntg85 at prodigy.net Thu Jul 4 01:32:17 2002 From: ntg85 at prodigy.net (random_monkey0_0) Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 01:32:17 -0000 Subject: Hagrid's parents In-Reply-To: <9319739279.20020703171607@mindspring.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40750 Katze wrote: > > K> Apparently I ruffled some feathers with particular comments regarding Hagrid's > K> father. I certainly didn't mean any offense, and I'm sorry it was taken as such. > Dave wrote: > Why do you say that? Did you get flamed? Personally I thought it was > a valid point... No, certain people were concerned that this thread was going in a less-than-mature direction. No flames, just a request to tone it down... There's a similar thread currently on > alt.fan.harry-potter, where it's been asked, why does Hagrid need to > *ask* which side of the family Madam Maxime's giantness is on, since, > imagination-staggering though male-human-mating-with-female-giant is, > the reverse would apear to be -- um -- *really impossible* (both at > conception and birth time)! Well, either way would be difficult, really. They both sound like something out of an Austin Powers movie, don't they? Whether conception would be possible or not is debatable, but birth certainly would be a problem if the giantness was on the father's side. Which leads to another question: Do wizards have C-sections? I have many questions about magical healthcare. Madame Pomfrey's remedies seem to be of the "take this potion and call me in the morning" ilk, but what if, say, someone needed their appendix removed? Is there an appendix-dissolving potion or something? Can it be removed by something like apparation? And what about in cases like a C-section, where the thing not only needs to be removed, but needs to be intact and undamaged as well? There! That's an intelligent, well-thought-out post! The Random Monkey, who is wondering why all of a sudden she never argues with Darrin anymore... From suzchiles at pobox.com Thu Jul 4 02:53:35 2002 From: suzchiles at pobox.com (Suzanne Chiles) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 19:53:35 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hogwarts core curriculum In-Reply-To: <3D22EBA0.11890.96886F@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40751 Larry observed: > It seems that an assumption can be made regarding the core > curriculum at Hogwarts' . > That is, that there are no muggle type core classes like English > or math, notwithstanding > arithmancy. Obviously, muggle science or physics would be of no > great interest to the > majority of wizards or witches. And, the students get plenty of practice with writing essays. As a former college writing instructor, I was most glad to see that the Hogwarts teachers assign plenty of writing assignments. Zo From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com Thu Jul 4 02:56:16 2002 From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze) Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2002 21:56:16 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hagrid's parents/medical remedies References: Message-ID: <3D23B950.9060108@kingwoodcable.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40752 random_monkey0_0 wrote: > Dave wrote: > >>Why do you say that? Did you get flamed? Personally I thought it >>was >>a valid point... > > No, certain people were concerned that this thread was going in a > less-than-mature direction. No flames, just a request to tone it > down... What I got in private email was *not* a request to tone it down (actually I didn't receive anything that resembled "tone it down") - it was a Howler as the flamer put it. > Well, either way would be difficult, really. They both sound like > something out of an Austin Powers movie, don't they? Whether > conception would be possible or not is debatable, but birth certainly > would be a problem if the giantness was on the father's side. Which > leads to another question: Do wizards have C-sections? > > I have many questions about magical healthcare. Madame Pomfrey's > remedies seem to be of the "take this potion and call me in the > morning" ilk, but what if, say, someone needed their appendix removed? > Is there an appendix-dissolving potion or something? Can it be removed > by something like apparation? And what about in cases like a > C-section, where the thing not only needs to be removed, but needs to > be intact and undamaged as well? They do have skelo-grow (sp?), so I would think they have various potions for everything. I've thought about the medicine in the wizard world as well, but I think it would eventually get really complicated. I also always wondered how they how did they managed to give the mandrake potions to the ghosts in CoS? Katze From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Thu Jul 4 04:17:07 2002 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001) Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 04:17:07 -0000 Subject: Third Task: It's A Maze (filk) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40753 Third Task: It's A Maze (GoF, Chap. 28 & 31) (To the tune of It's A Maze, from the 1991 musical The Secret Garden) Dedicated to Eileen (who introduced me to this music) THE SCENE: The Quidditch field. The Champions, who have assembled to learn about the Third Task, notice the rows of hedges sprouting up everywhere. CEDRIC:(indignantly, spoken) What've they done to it? HARRY:(bending to examine the nearest one) They're hedges! BAGMAN: Hello there! Growing nicely, aren't they? Give them a month and Hagrid'll have them twenty feet high..... (music) Plant a hedge, we have asked It will grow, as we sun it Tell the champs, "Here's your task, Toward the goal, you must run it." Through our maze, the trophy, in a maze of snares Our champion must locate. For our maze is guarded by fantastic beasts Who will throw around their weight. HARRY, CEDRIC, FLEUR & KRUM For we four champs know how the dangers grow How the dragons snap and the merfolk trap So there's one more threat we've to master yet And we then can homeward go (Segue to the Transfiguration Class, where RON and HERMIONE help HARRY practice hexes) TRIO Freeze, freeze opponents with Impediment Please, please, oh Four-Point Spell, North path present Seize, seize, Reductor Curse, what blocks my/his course Ease, ease with Shield Charm, strengthen its force (The morning of the Third Task. Segue to the Hedge maze, now fully grown. HAGRID leads a herd of ferocious critters into the Maze) HAGRID Come along, skrewt, come crawl away, crawl along Come along, spider stride home Come along, sphinx, you've come a long way You've riddled all day, come riddle us home (HAGRID provides the critters with their Third-Task job descriptions) Mix their steps, make them fall Block their path, throw toward wall Singe their hair, slash and burn Get them lost, trophy spurn (Segue to the Great Hall, where HARRY is pleasantly surprised by Molly and Bill Weasley unexpected visit to Hogwarts as his "family.") MOLLY AND BILL You'll amaze us, Harry, you'll amaze them all When you take the field tonight RON & HERMIONE Tied with Ced, but now, pull ahead somehow, And you'll fill us with delight (And now, with all Hogwarts in attendance, the Third Task begins!) ALL For the champs all know how the dangers grow How the dragons snap and the merfolk trap So there's one more threat we've/you've to master yet And we then can homeward go But win or lose It's our/their final cruise And we then shall homeward go! (Harry and Cedric enter the maze, followed by Krum and Fleur) - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm (updated on 7/1/02 with 22 new filks, two new illustrations) From catlady at wicca.net Thu Jul 4 04:20:10 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 04:20:10 -0000 Subject: mechanical isolation / muggle clothes /Flamel Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40754 The Random Monkey wrote: << The same goes for giants and humans, but with an additional twist; mechanical isolation. Yeah... Um... Me and my squeamish american stomach don't like to think about that. >> People have previously chirped up an answer: Engorgement Charms! They're even mentioned in canon! Another possibility is artificial insemination. It would be more difficult to make up an answer if the *mother* were the human... maybe a miniaturization spell on the fetus? Aldrea wrote: << Snape was wearing pants in the movie, and from the pictures I've seen of Lockhart, he is too. >> I don't think we can go by the movie. Its student uniforms are completely different from the ones described in the books. The books make no mention of Snake or Lockhart wearing trousers under their robes. And it describes the student uniforms robes as complete garments, not just overcoats. The pictures on the covers of the French translations show the uniforms as they are described: Thank You to whoever (I've forgotten already who it is!) posted them in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Graphics/Book-relate d%20Graphics/frenchhp/ << I know the girls are described as wearing pink robes and blue robes and such... but what are they wearing under them? A dress? Or do they keep their Hogwarts uniforms and just have the robe over that? Hmm... >> I'm convinced that the girls's dress robes were simply long party dresses (formals). 'Robe' is really a very generic term: dictionary.com says "1.A long loose flowing outer garment, especially: a.An official garment worn on formal occasions to show office or rank, as by a judge or high church official. b.An academic gown. c.A dressing gown or bathrobe. 2.robes Clothes; apparel. 3.A blanket or covering made of material, such as fur or cloth: a lap robe. == 1.An outer garment; a dress of a rich, flowing, and elegant style or make; hence, a dress of state, rank, office, or the like. 2.A skin of an animal, especially, a skin of the bison, dressed with the fur on, and used as a wrap.[U.S.] == n 1: any loose flowing garment 2: long flowing outer garment used for official or ceremonial occasions [syn: gown] v : clothe formally; esp. in ecclesiastical robes [syn: vest]" By the way, I have a stupid question. Mr Weasley's Muggle costume is described as "He was wearing what appeared to be a golfing jumper and a very old pair of jeans, slightly too big for him and held up with a thick leather belt." I don't know what precisely a golfing sweater is, which may be the reason I don't understand what's so laughable about that outfit. Cindy swimminwoman wrote: << Why hadn't he ever come across Nicholas Flamel or at least knew that he was missing it like he knew he was missing the Agrippa card? Surley Professor Dumbledore's partner and the only owner of the Sorceror's Stone would have a card. Sorry if this has been disscussed before it was just something that was bothering me! >> One listie once used the absence of a Nicholas Flamel Famous Wizard card to argue that Flamel was a Muggle. Being a Muggle would excuse him from taking an active role in the war about Voldemort. From buffyeton at yahoo.com Thu Jul 4 05:48:52 2002 From: buffyeton at yahoo.com (EtonBuffy) Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 05:48:52 -0000 Subject: Muggle Parents of Magical Children Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40755 Jeez, that subject title sounds like a support group lol. But it does bring questions on how muggle parents handle finding out their children are wizards and such. Do they recieve extra info to tell them how to get to Diagon Alley? Or how to get on to platform 9 3/4? Are they told where Hogwarts is or do they just have to have trust? What keeps them from going to the media and spilling all that info to other muggles? Questions, questions, questions. Tamara From draco382 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 4 02:06:14 2002 From: draco382 at yahoo.com (draco382) Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 02:06:14 -0000 Subject: humor In-Reply-To: <20020703092434.65540.qmail@web40311.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40756 Hey all, I just thought of one that I'd always loved, and it stars Hermione in PoA (pg 85). The trio have just gotten out of McGonagall's Transfiguration class after Trelawny's "Harry will die" episode and are eating lunch in the great hall: 'Hermione, if Harry's seen a Grim, that's-that's bad,' he said. 'My- my Uncle Bilius saw one and- and he died twenty-four hours later!' 'Coincidence,' said Hermione airily, pouring herself some pumpkin juice. 'You don't know what you're talking about!' said Ron, starting to get angry. 'Grims scare the living daylights out of most wizards!' 'There you are then,' said Hermione in a superior tone. 'They see the Grim and die of fright. The Grim's not an omen, it's the cause of death! And Harry's still with us because he's not stupid enough to see one and think, right, well, I'd better pop my clogs then!' hehe!! I like that bit of smart sarcasm..so in character for Hermione. Man, I wish I could come up with some of her lines in real life. ~draco382 From tmarends at yahoo.com Thu Jul 4 04:39:55 2002 From: tmarends at yahoo.com (tmarends) Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 04:39:55 -0000 Subject: humor In-Reply-To: <20020703092434.65540.qmail@web40311.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40757 My favorite funny scene is Harry and Ron trying to act like Crabbe and Goyle in CoS. It'll be interesting to see how the young actors hired as Crabbe and Goyle handle the Harry and Ron roles... trying to act like Crabbe and Goyle. From lilac_bearry at yahoo.com Thu Jul 4 03:33:21 2002 From: lilac_bearry at yahoo.com (Lilac) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 20:33:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Diversity, Mastermind Theory, Clothes, Weasley/Seer Message-ID: <20020704033321.50895.qmail@web40308.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40758 Diversity in Literature & Media (WAS book differences)----------------------------------- Amanda said: >>>"Me now --> The Patil twins are black? Just based on their names and the description of Parvati's hair, I sort of figured they were Indian (India, not American). Is there canon for them being black?">>> When I first read SS, Parvati/Padma Patil immediately struck me as from India like Amadna said. The only reason for this is that in the apartment building I manage, we have many university students here from India with names similar in style and pronunciation to this. But that is from my own background experiences, which would not have been the same had I lived in a different area of town. I live in a very conservative western US state that just screams "all white" but in a big city, which is definitely more diverse than smaller towns, especially being close to a university. Also, on the "black" students: My background is in Elementary Education, and I had to take classes on diversity in the classroom. When I read SS I remember thinking, "Oh, they must be trying to make Hogwarts seem diverse to us readers" but it didn't bother me at the time. I also admit I would have thought they were white without an obvious ethnic-sounding name, Like Parvati Patil, Cho Chang, etc. because of living in this very-white-with-pockets-of-diversity-US-state (although a friend has a son named Anton, but he is blond with blue eyes, so it's not always the case...) MASTERMIND THEORY -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alexander Lomski, Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed, said in his Mastermind Theory: >>> And it's real easy to make yet another Dark Lord. Just sort a right boy into right House with right friends... Guess what would happen to Harry is he would be sorted into Slytherin, but Ron and Hermione into Gryffindor. No friends (Draco would never become Harry's friend, even if they were in the same House), those friends he has just got have turned away from him... He would make a perfect new Dark Lord to replace Voldemort in this position.>>> I have a little pet theory of my own. ONE BIG IMHO TO START THIS OFF WITH... Harry is actually both the Gryffindor and Slytherin decendents combined, both through Lily, but his choices and life experiences make him lean more toward the Gryffindor side (very bangy for those who like bangs). That's why the hat had such a hard time, such the evil thing as it is. Lily's auburn hair makes me think that she is related to Dumbledore, who I believe is Gryffindor's heir because of all the G. paraphenalia in his office. But her green eyes tells me that she has a streak of Slytherin in her, enough to pass on those traits of parseltongue(maybe she spoke it, who knows?) and a propensity for ignoring rules (looking for cannon on this one) which were latent traits in her, imo. She could still be Severus Snape/Perseus Evans' sister. I also think that, true to MAGIC DISHWASHER/Spy Games fashion, that Dumbledore fed Harry wrong information about a bit of Voldemort transferred to him from that AK because he couldn't handle the truth just yet, but he is truthful in saying that it's the choices Harry makes that determines who he is, not his genetics. That's why the choice issue, between what is right and what is easy, is going to be more apparent in books 5-7. I think Judy (sorry if wrong reference) said she believes there is a prophecy out there about Harry. I think it's something to the effect of when Gryffindor/Slytherin combine, this person will become the most powerful wizard ever, even more than Voldie or Dumbledore, so that's why V wants to do away with Harry and Dumbledore wants him on the "right" side. That's also why Dumbledore has kept him at the Dursleys...believe it or not, those awful experiences shaped him into what he is now and what he will become, along with his genetic Gryffindor that has made him extrememly resiliant. It also kept him out of the WW where he probably would have gotten a big head and a little power hungry from the fame and the Slytherin part would just love that. Dumbeldore was masterminding this background experiences for Harry because children, if left to their own devices and choices, don't always choose what's good for them, but what might be easy or fun. When Harry came to Hogwarts, he started to make more choices for himself...his friends, "Not Slytherin", etc. Dumbledore wants Harry on the good side, but he wasn't going to force him there. Like my children, ages 5 and 2, I make choices for them right now (what TV shows allowed to watch, people we associate with, etc) but as they get older, they will make more and more choices for themselves. My husband and I as parents hope that they will make the right choices based on their background experiences we've given them, but the choices are theirs to make. Does this make any sense? I guess what I'm trying to say is that Harry's background, staying with the Dursleys (yes, he's related to Dumbledore, but D. was way too busy to be a dad, plus it's a secret that he's related to Lily except for a select few) was arranged by Dumbledore ala MAGIC DISHWASHER style so that when Harry was older, his choices would lean towards the Gryffindor side, but the choices were/are Harry's nonetheless. There...Phew! Got that over with. (puts on bullet proof vest to prepare for the holes that will inevitibally be shot in her theory) CLOTHES--------------------------------------------------------- Heather Gauen said: <<>> I think that the WW is becoming more intertwined with the Muggle world with each passing generation, so that muggle clothes are more normal for the kids, but the adults still have trouble with it, but are better at it than Dumbledore's generation. The line becoming blurred between Wizard/Muggle, I would daresay, is something that Voldemort is fighting against, but is something that needs to happen for the WW to survive in a "muggle world" (I am assuming here that the WW population is a tiny percentage of the entire Muggle world). Maybe something Harry & co. have to fight for...acceptance of cultural diversity (hmmm, very timely). Wasn't that Lockhart's wish (peace between all magic and non-magic folk), along with starting the hair care products? *Heather, who just burst into uncontrollable giggles at the thought of old Archie in his flowered nightgown (who likes a healthy breeze 'round his privates, thanks) Me too Seventh son or daughter (was Missing Weasley Children - Names)------------------------ "barefootpuppets" Heidi R. said: <<>> I think something will and should come out about Ron and Ginny that will be especially helpful in the fight against Voldemort. The Trio all have talents, but Ron's only seems to be chess strategizing and funny one-liners, while the other two's strengths seem to have been more apparent. Don't get me wrong, I love Ron! But there's something we don't know about him, imo... Now with Ginny, I also think she has more coming out about her. The 7th child/seer theory could be it. I think we'll see more of her personality as well as her bravery as more comes out about her encounter with Tom Riddle. Harry and Ginny do have a couple of connections...they've both survived encounters with V, and Ginny has a life debt to Harry. What does this mean, I have no clue. But I have been spending alot of time at the Sugar Quill, so I know what they think it means. I think that Hermione is anti-"fake" divination, because her only experience has been Trelawny. She hasn't seen the real thing...yet! -Lilac :) (who loves reading these messages while eating Otter Pops, and laughs at the irony of this with JKR's love of otters and the otter theme relating to the Weasley's) ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* "Tut, tut --- hardly any of you remembered that my favorite color is *lilac*. I say so in Year with the Yeti." --Gilderoy Lockhart, COS --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? New! SBC Yahoo! Dial - 1st Month Free & unlimited access [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From swimminwoman86 at aol.com Thu Jul 4 04:27:04 2002 From: swimminwoman86 at aol.com (swimminwoman86 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 00:27:04 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] re: mechanical isolation / muggle clothes /Flamel Message-ID: <2b.29921a55.2a552898@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40759 In a message dated 7/3/2002 11:21:22 PM US Eastern Standard Time, catlady at wicca.net writes: >> One listie once used the absence of a Nicholas Flamel Famous Wizard card to > >argue that Flamel was a Muggle. Being a Muggle would excuse him from > taking an >active role in the war about Voldemort Well, Muggle's aren't supposed to have known about magic, are they? How could Flamel possibly be a muggle? Not every famous wizard on the card took part in the fight against Voldemort, did they? If that was the case then it would have been impossible for Merlin and the other wizards to have been on the cards. So, assuming that he is a wizard, he would most likely still have a card wouldn't he? Sorry if I sound dumb in all this, it is just not clicking in my brain yet! ~Cindy~ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Thu Jul 4 05:55:20 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 05:55:20 -0000 Subject: Location of Hogameade Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40760 OK, this is not an earth shattering issue, but most people seem to think that Hogsmeade is out the front gate of Hogwarts and on the other side of the tracks. (see maps at Harry Potter Lexicon) Now, we all create our own personal visual image as we read, and in my visual image, Hogsmeade is on the same side of the tracks and the 'gate' that you go out is a side gate whose only purpose is to provide access to Hogsmeade. My vision is that just past Hagrid's near the lake is a side gate (and stone wall) that leads to Hogsmeade. That's not based on analysis, just the way I envisioned it when I read it. The 'gate' they went out, I did not interpet as the front gate, and tunnels leading from the whomping willow and from the inside of the castle to Hogmeade would seem to imply some closeness. Also, again based on my mental image, the tunnels would have to go under or around the lake to go to a Hogsmeade that was across the tracks. Other clues in the story help re-enforce this mental image. Any thoughts? BBoy_mn From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Thu Jul 4 06:59:45 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 06:59:45 -0000 Subject: medical remedies (short) In-Reply-To: <3D23B950.9060108@kingwoodcable.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40761 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Katze wrote: get really complicated. > > I also always wondered how they how did they managed to give the > mandrake potions to the ghosts in CoS? > > Katze Perhaps Madame Pomfrey took some Mandrake Potion and destroyed it in some known magical manner that would leave behind a 'ghost' of the potion? The ghosts could then be given the 'ghost' potion. Pip From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Thu Jul 4 08:39:43 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 08:39:43 -0000 Subject: TBay-Speaking Frankly Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40762 Eileen sits there sobbing uncontrollably. It's over now, but she now understands more than ever the sad fate of the sycophant. Avery pats her sympathetically on the back. He's been through this before, and knows how to be supportive. "But I have some new canons," sobs Eileen. But it is too painful to think long on. In desperation, she searches for another topic. What about Neville Longbottom? But Neville has been about done to death. Us Subversive!Neville types have made ourselves rather unpopular in the process, but what more can we say about Neville? Somehow Eileen can't but feel that we'll never understand Neville until we know something about Frank Longbottom. But we tried that before, didn't we? Eric Oppen said that Frank Longbottom was "Judge Dredd on acid," Eileen tried to prove that he was in Slytherin, someone else said something about Avery... "Ave, tell me about Frank." Avery shakes his head violently, his eyes firmly focused on the ground, his face white. No, there's no point in asking Avery. The whole basis of Fourth Man after all is that Avery tortured Frank within an inch of his life. It's not something Avery likes to reminisce about. He feels rather guilty about it, actually, and anyway, generally pretends it never happened. So why is it important to know about Frank? Well, Frank's not dead, in the first place. Insane or sane, it's virtually guaranteed that he'll make an appearance in the upcoming books, don't you think? Oh, and Neville's mother, of course. When we were talking about the warrior culture and Neville, it was pointed out that the poor woman isn't even graced with a name. Why not? Well, perhaps because the first thing we have to understand about Frank is that his appearance in GoF is tied up with the theme of "patricide." We are well within canon to believe that Neville's grandmother is urging him on to avenge the family's honour, to redress the injury done to them. And I think canon strongly hints that Neville is not to keen to do this. All this is old hat. Read Elkins' " Neville: Memory, History, Legacy, Power (LONG!) (Was:: Still Life)" http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/38398 and you shall know what manner of beast Subversive!Neville is, and weep. But, if this is true, isn't Neville involved in a case of symbolic patricide? To refuse to revenge a father's death in the old warrior tradition is to be an accomplice in it. Things get stickier and stickier for Neville, don't they? Porphyria once wrote: > If the series in general revolves around Harry accepting his > legacy as a Potter, then maybe Neville is there to demonstrate > the refusal to accept a legacy, and just exactly why legacies > are such a dangerous and threatening things to have. and Elkins wrote: >People who believe that Neville has a memory charm often >speculate that this charm will eventually be removed, and >that when it does, Neville will "come into his own." He >will be able to access previously-suppressed reservoirs >of magical power; he will gain self- confidence; he will >become SUPER-Neville. He will go out and kick DE butt. He >will bring honor to the family name; he will exhibit Proper >Pure-blooded Wizarding Pride. He will become at last a True >Warrior-Spirited Gryffindor. >I lie awake sometimes at night, fearing that something like >this might indeed be the author's intent. Because if it is, >then I won't view it as a triumph for the forces of Good at >all. I will view it as a horrible horrible tragedy. So, while much of HP fandom is rooting for a kick-ass fight scene with Mrs. Lestrange, Mr. Lestrange and the Fourth Man combined, we few, we unhappy few, want something else for Neville. What exactly? I believe that Elkins and I once made up a list of our demands. They included that Neville organize sit-ins at the Ministry of Magic, speak up publicly that the House Cup is meaningless, and wear a pillowcase in solidarity with the enslaved House-Elves. If these demands are not met, it will be "a horrible horrible tragedy." :-) But, what do we really want? There seems to be some confusion on the list as to what "Subversive!Neville" people are after. Someone suggested a scenario in which Voldemort is about to kill Harry, and Pacifist!Neville refuses to lend Harry a hand, while lecturing Harry about embracing one's inner subversiveness. Others have charged that "Subversive!Neville" theorizes that Neville, as he now is, is coping fine, and if Harry, Gran, and Snape were to cease bothering him, he could enjoy a life of being beat up by Draco Malfoy without distractions. Well, it seems time for that yellow flag special. Eileen stealthily retrieves it and finds herself back in time on Thursday, May 23rd. Three figures are coming towards her. She hastily ducks behind a bush. They are Debbie, Cindy, and a very dazed Eileen. "Neville... sacrifice... memory," moans the Eileen of HPfGU past. "Don't worry about that," said Debbie kindly. "We've got almost all of that figured out." Tell.... Elkins...." "Elkins Shmelkins," says Cindy rather fiercely. "You know what Elkins said? Have you seen her and her yellow flags? We're through with Elkins. She doesn't even do her share of cleaning up the hovercraft. Her and her memory charms." The Future-Eileen smiles. Elkins and Cindy will never be through with each other. They keep visiting each other to say that they're through, you see. "Super..." "Super what?" asked Debbie attentively. "Super Neville," said Eileen in a daze. "Elkins doesn't like Super Neville." "You mean the Neville that regains his memory then kicks serious DE butt?" asked Cindy. "Right," said Eileen. "I think I remember.... Of course, I can't remember all the research I did into the theme of memory in literature." "Sheesh," said Cindy. Sheesh is right, thinks the future-Eileen. She's much better off without those memories. "But Elkins was afraid Neville was going to end up that way as the avenging angel, if I recall correctly. She wants him to Renounce things, doesn't she?" "Things that he can't remember," said Cindy quickly. "Yes. She has said that." A look approaching a glare shows on Cindy's face. The future-Eileen starts guiltily. MATCHING ARMCHAIR, of course. Back then, she was one of Cindy's devoted MATCHING ARMCHAIR followers. But since then, Elkins' memory charms have acted like a Siren call on her. The future-Eileen has not completely left MATCHING ARMCHAIR, but she is hanging on to a leg with three fingers. "Well, I have a different theory," said Eileen of the past Cindy and Debbie exchange glances. "Are you sure you're strong enough?" begins Debbie. "Yes. What are the three ways by which a hero can succeed?" "He can conquer!" cried Cindy, her eyes wild with excitment. "He can renounce!" added Debby. "Or he can sacrifice himself," said Eileen quietly. * * * * * * * * The future-Eileen is intrigued. How could she have forgotten all this? She continues to listen to her harangue. > If the Longbottoms are, as Elkins has so ably demonstrated, > emblematic of the memory theme in the wizarding world, will not their > eventual fate be emblematic of the theme's resolution? And, has not > JKR basically promised to us that there will be a resolution, that > the wizarding world will learn to remember or forget, or whatever it > is that JKR thinks they should be doing? Cornelius Fudge, with his > dementor escort, will not be here for long. When Arthur Weasley is > Minister of Magic (End of Book 7 :-), what will have happened to the > Longbottoms? Is there any questions that they must learn to > remember/forget? That Frank and his wife must be restored to the > world of the living for the sake of the theme? The future-Eileen nods. That still seems sound. Even from a mechanical POV, doesn't it seem a little odd that the Longbottoms are still alive? JKR insists that Lily and James aren't coming back, because no-one comes back from death. But from fifteen years of magically-induced insanity? Now, that's possible. Now, JKR may have put Frank and his unnamed wife in this state for dramatic effect. After all, as Harry notes, it puts Neville in a worse emotional situation that said Harry. But, if so, one will leave the book with the Longbottoms still representing all the memory problems of the Potterverse. It would make so much more sense if they didn't die because, like everything else in the book, they will be rewakened. > But that's too good to be true, you say. Well.... What do we know > about these "unburials," these acts of remembrance? That they come at > a price. That they're painful, and yet always productive. Frank > revived will, I have no doubt, remember something, perhaps making it > redundant and un-bangy to have a secondary Nevile-remembers-something > plot, btw. Ah yes, perhaps there's something in this MATCHING ARMCHAIR after all, or in Tabouli's "Neville is just an ordinary kid with a traumatic but unwitnessed past who is clumsy, forgetful, and under a lot of stress." It all comes down to Frank, you see. Revived, who is Frank Longbottom? What did he do? What will he do? What is his function in the story? > > But, what ends a revenge, what puts a stop to that cliche: the never > ending cycle of violence? Sacrifice, that's what. From the dawn of > human history, it has been understood that sacrifice has this role. > Some civilizations try to pawn it off on the old guy, or the little > kid. Some see it as symbolic. Others think it's going far enough to > sacrifice your possessions. And then, there's a long history of self- > sacrifice, from the Livian hero who flung himself into a bottomless > pit for Rome's sake, to Christ's crucifixion, to Ron's Chess Game in > PS/SS. > > What do you want to bet that Neville shall eventually be tortured by > Cruciatus for a secret? It fulfills two generational parallels. > Frank/Neville, connecting the father and son in a way that Gran has > not envisioned, and Peter/Neville, both under pressure by Voldemort. > > And it fulfills the need for sacrifice. > > Elkins, it would not suit you if Neville killed for his parents' > sake, what if Neville was to die for his parents' sake? And that > would be, come to think of it, a mirror of Lily's sacrifice for >Harry. I still like the above, but I wonder... You see, Frank had a rather intriguing life. He was an auror, and extremely popular, but he managed to eclipse these accomplishments by being tortured by DEs to discover where Voldemort was. Time after time, listies have pointed out that the DEs were probably wrong. Frank had absolutely no knowledge of where Voldemort was. How could he? He didn't divulge the information because he didn't know it. It's perfectly rational, but I don't buy it. In a world where Peter is Scabbers, I refuse to believe that JKR sets up this fascinating possibility that Frank knew something, something that could still influence the plot as a complete red herring. It's well, as one my masters taught me when I was a young padawan learner, not BIG BANGY. If JKR passes up on this chance, I will be very disappointed. If Frank is to wake up, and my reasons for that assumption are above, he should do something other than drink tea with Moody while catching up on the last 15 years' news and gossip. Well, what could he do? There is this BIG BANGISH part of me which right now can see the scene. Mrs. Lestrange is torturing poor Neville with cruciatus. "Now, where did I see this before?" says the evil Mrs. Lestrange, her heavy-lidded eyes glinting with pure malice. "It seems I'll deal with you as I did your parents." Then, of course, suddenly ressurected Frank comes out of nowhere, his wand in hand, showing off what an auror can do (which admittedly needs showing since so far they seem very susceptible to ambushes, nose injuries, Imperius etc.) But, err, I don't know. What if Frank and Mrs. Lestrange were to finish each other off? The expression "Let the dead bury the dead" comes to mind. :-) Back to more serious speculation, what if it was Frank who was to sacrifice himself for Neville, thereby repeating the parent sacrificing themselves for their child theme (the opposite of patricide), and winding up Neville's obligations "burying the dead"? Especially, if as we like to think, Frank wasn't exactly the bloody boring saint James Potter apparently was. * * * * * * * * * "Well, Avery, lets call it day," says Eileen. I'm way too tired to think anymore about this...." Her voice trails off as she sees Avery's face. He looks frozen with horror. Before Eileen realizes what is happening, she feels cords around her legs and arms, and losing her balance falls to the ground. Managing to get into a sitting position, she sees a wand pointed straight at her and the similarly bound Avery. The wizard holding the wand is a stranger. He is tall and very good looking. His skin is tanned, his hair perfectly in place, and Eileen could swear that his teeth sparkle. Under his robes seem to be rippling muscles. And yet, there is something familiar about him. "Who are you?" gasps Eileen. "My name is Neville Longbottom, auror extraordinaire," says the paragon. For a second, Eileen's mind spins. Then it clicks. Somehow, all this talk of Super!Neville has conjured the man himself. "You obviously aren't a Death Eater," says Super!Neville with a condescending smile. With a swish of his wand, Eileen's cords fly off. "You should be careful keeping such woeful company." "What are you planning to do to Avery?" asks Eileen nervously. "I have come to avenge the honour of the Longbottoms," says Neville. "A Longbottom does not forget the past so easily, or had you forgotten, Avery?" Avery, as expected, begins to sob. "So," says Eileen, desperately trying to think of a way out. "So, did you marry Ginny?" A look of amazement comes into Neville's face. "Ginny? No, no. I'm married to Cho Chang, didn't you know? Ginny was a nice girl, of course, but where does niceness rank? Did Godric Gryffindor value niceness? No! Cho was the only girl who could really be a match for me. Smart, a capital quidditch player, good looking, nice - yes, she is nice - all around perfect. We have two sons now called, of course," he smiled delightfully here, "Frank and Cedric. Frank's just finished his first year at Hogwarts. To tell you the truth, he basically won the House Cup for Gryffindor, with all those points he racked up. I was so proud. The House Cup is about the most important thing in one's Hogwarts life, of course." "Did you always think so?" A shadow crosses Super!Neville's face. "I'd rather not remember my first years at Hogwarts. I was a very different and foolish child in those days. Oh well, enough of this. I must not forget my purpose. >From now on, let my thoughts be bloody or nothing worth!" With a wave of a wand, the cords fall from Avery as well. Neville takes a wand from his pocket and throws it to Avery. "It wouldn't be heroic and chivalrous of me not to duel you man to man on an even chance," says Neville. And, then Neville bows. Avery looks as if he is contemplating escape, but stands his ground. "You should know," says Neville, "just as a matter of fairness, of course, that no living man can kill me." One never knows when inspiration will strike. After months of silent sulking, Avery opens his month, and wonder of wonders, cries out in loud voice, "But no living man am I! You look upon a theory, Avery the Fourth Man, the child of Elkins' imagination. And I will smite you with my wand if you do not withdraw." For a moment, Super!Neville looks a little disturbed. But suddenly, he cries "Expelliramus!" In the twinkling of an eye, Avery blocks the curse. Those demonic Voldemort powers sure look good. Super!Neville is enraged. "Resist any further, Avery and I will not kill you in fair and open duel. I will bear you away to Azkaban where you will become a wraith of your former self." "Do as you will!" says Avery proudly. So intent in his wrath is Super!Neville on the man before him that he has forgotten Eileen crouched down on the ground. She is shaking and seems to have lost control over her limbs. But, seeing Avery so brave, so defiant, a dogged look in his beautiful brown eyes, she resolves that he will not die without her aid. Super!Neville raises his wand to finish Avery off with Avada Kedavra. But in that moment, he drops his wand, and falls forward. For Eileen had crept up behind, and jabbed him with a Fourth Man kayak paddle. Avery cried "Avada Kedavra!" and then fell forward on his vanquished enemy. The paddle mets away in smoke. No other weapon could have killed the evil Neville, and glad would she who crafted it long ago have been to know its fate, for Super!Neville had always been her greatest foe. Some hours later, Elkins finds Eileen wandering miserably along the shores of Theory Bay. "It's not always bad to be a sycophant," says Eileen, tears in her eyes. "I was overlooked just now by... But I can't talk about it. Are you going to bury me, Elkins?" Eileen Brandybuck From Zarleycat at aol.com Thu Jul 4 10:17:18 2002 From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001) Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 10:17:18 -0000 Subject: Is HP Magic Different across Cultures? (was Re: Diversity in Media) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40763 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "naamagatus" wrote: > > This is an interesting subject. As I see it, magic (within the logic > of the Potterverse, of course) is quite different from religion, > dress, cultural customs, etc. Magic is a practical thing. > A more fitting analogy may be engineering. It isn't really meaningful > to talk of European engineering, Chinese engineering or Aztec > engineering, is it? Engineering is the same all over the world, since > it rests on objective forces and laws of nature. >Learning the rules and > the various ways of using this force shouldn't differ between > different cultures, then. > At least, there may be local developments. Wizards from one community > may find (or make?) spells that are not known in another community. > Unlike cultural customs, however, those spells would work just as > well in the other community (if practiced there). You're right - this is an interesting subject. I think the engineering analogy works to show that, since that laws of nature/physics, etc. are the same regardless of location, what works in one area of the globe will work in another. I wonder about regional differences. Think about medical conditions. We have been told that there is no cure for lycanthropy in Potterverse. Maybe not. But, just as different societies have developed different methods of dealing with the body's ailments, could there not be different ways of dealing with wizard health matters? For instance, western medicine does not have a history of using techniques such as acupunture. But, eastern medicine does. Would it be out of the realm of possibility that wizards in, say, India, have different methods of dealing with health issues than Madame Pomfrey? Maybe no one else has discovered a cure for lycanthropy, but it wouldn't surprise me to discover that different societies have developed different potions, spells, etc. to tackle the same medical conditions. Marianne From shadowgirl_900 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 4 11:08:03 2002 From: shadowgirl_900 at yahoo.com (shadowgirl_900) Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 11:08:03 -0000 Subject: Clothes In-Reply-To: <3D22E700.24611.8474C1@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40764 Hello! New Chick Alert. :) Anywho, saw this and had to comment. --- In HPforGrownups at y..., autryld at e... wrote: > In movie, Mrs. Weasley dressed in muggle clothes to drop of her boys at the station. (In > the book we aren't told what she wore.) No, it doesn't say what she was wearing, but at the end of book three, Uncle Vernon is standing at the station, waiting for Harry and the book says : "Harry spotted Uncle Vernon at once. He was standing a good distance from Mr. and Mrs. Weasley, eyeing them suspiciously..." Now, at the begining of book one, we saw how he reacted to the wizards who were wearing robes and hats in public. If the Weasleys were wearing wizard clothes, wouldn't Vernon have known they were wizards, not just suspected it? I'm thinking he suspected it because of the fact they, like him, were waiting for people at a place in the station where no trains came to. (Platform 9 3/4.) He had no proof they were even connected to the wizarding world until they hugged Harry. This would seem to hint that they looked normal. I would think that most wizards who are in public do. The whole thing right after Voldemort was a fluke I think, just like the storm of owls out in the day. And all the other wizards we see are in the wizarding world, be that Hogwarts, Hogsmead, or Diagon alley. Just my two cents. :) Laura From ksnidget at aol.com Thu Jul 4 11:49:22 2002 From: ksnidget at aol.com (ksnidget at aol.com) Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 07:49:22 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Is HP Magic Different across Cultures? (was Re: Diversity... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40765 Naama writes: >This is an interesting subject. As I see it, magic (within the logic >of the Potterverse, of course) is quite different from religion, >dress, cultural customs, etc. Magic is a practical thing. It is a >that a person can either have or not have, but no matter in what >community, it is the same kind of power. For instance, people run in >the same way no matter where they were born. So, if you want to coach >somebody in athletics, you apply the same methods, no matter what >that person's cultural heritage is. >A more fitting analogy may be engineering. It isn't really meaningful >to talk of European engineering, Chinese engineering or Aztec >engineering, is it? Engineering is the same all over the world, since >it rests on objective forces and laws of nature. >Magic as a cultural construct we have in the real world. In the >Potterverse, magic is a real, objective force. Learning the rules and >the various ways of using this force shouldn't differ between >different cultures, then. >At least, there may be local developments. Wizards from one community >may find (or make?) spells that are not known in another community. >Unlike cultural customs, however, those spells would work just as >well in the other community (if practiced there). To return to the >engineering analogy, it would be like an American engineer learning >the specific methods involved in building a pagoda. >Following on this, then, I'd say that parents wouldn't mind where >their children learnt magic - so long as it's at a good school (in >the same way that you wouldn't mind where your kid learns >engineering, or biology, or physics, etc.). One thought that is crossing my mind (warped as it is) is that the culture one springs from may very well effect the directions that the practical applications are used in. For example Chinese inventors came up with gun powder and made fireworks. Others coming across the same thing made guns. How much those deep cultural differences effect magical development through time could have some effect later on. I study Taijiquan and we do a fair amount of background into Chinese culture in my school. What is striking me is what magic seems to be common place in Chinese life. To be a civil servant in the Muggle Chinese Gov't for most of history you had to know the I Ching by heart. That was what the civil servant exam was, etc. How much the cultural tradition of the 5 elements, Chinese cosmology, Herbology, and the I Ching system of divination may have had on magical development may add up to some differences at least in what areas/focuses magic ended up going in. Some practical things will be similar (although the theory of why it works may look completely different) as they would have to be. After all who doesn't want to be able to create some light when it is dark. But I tend to think that there could be some fairly profound differences between Chinese and European magic. K. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From alisonb2210 at yahoo.com.au Thu Jul 4 12:02:22 2002 From: alisonb2210 at yahoo.com.au (alisonb2210) Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 12:02:22 -0000 Subject: humor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40766 One of my favourite parts is also a line of Hermione's. In GoF she tricks Draco into thinking Moody is behind him, and then says, "Twitchy little ferret, aren't you Malfoy?" I bet that's the point when Ron falls in love with her. (I'm a firm believer in the Ron/Hermione romance prediction) :) Ali. From sophiamcl at hotmail.com Thu Jul 4 14:49:12 2002 From: sophiamcl at hotmail.com (sophia mclaughlin) Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 14:49:12 +0000 Subject: humour Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40767 Dear fellow Potterites, I've noticed that some of you are sharing some of your favourite humour from HP. Since I have many, I can't help joining in, but have managed to pick three out of the throng to mention here. One incident that had me chuckling was when Harry received the Monster Book of Monsters from Hagrid. Can't you just see the look on Harry's face as the parcel on his bed snarls; or when he finally unwraps it, poised to strike with a table-lamp in his hand? But best of all, I love shen tha book flips over and crawls away, and Harry has to hunt it down on all fours udner the curious collective gaze of Errol and Hedwig. The delicious absurdity of the situation just tickles my funnybone, if I may be so banal. Next up, an even greater favourite of mine that has placed me in danger of being considered loopy since it's had me laughing to myself out loud while walking down the street when occasionally this image has popped into my head: Malfoy and Harry are paired off at the first meeting of the Duelling Clug in CoS and hit each other with the tarantellegra and rictusempra charms. I vividly picture Malfoy writhing helpless with laughter on the floor under the tickling charm, while Harry does an involuntary quick-step around him. (Although the text says "quickstep" I rather fancy the idea that it looks riverdance-like...) I'm very sorry to say that I believe this incident has been altered in a forthcoming presentation that I'm not allowed to mention on this list, so on to my third favourite, the CROWNING GLORY of funny situations in HP. This one's also from CoS (in "The Very Secret Diary" chapter)and it's..YES, it is...VALENTINES DAY!!!! When I read the following scene, I took a leaf out of Malfoy's book and writhed helpless whith laughter. Picture it: (as I'm sure you all have)Unbeievably, Lockhart has persuaded a bunch of surly dwarfs to dress up as cupids and roam Hogwarts on Valentine's day, delivering messages of love and joy. If Lockhart had stayed up all night and used both hands, I don't think he could have come up with a worse choice of messengers for the occasion. Imagine the surly, grumpy dwarves incongruously befitted with gold wings attacking unsuspection victims--and Harry being the least fortunate of all the victims. Not only is he approached by a grim-looking dwarf with a valentine, it takes place in front of a group of first-years, including Ginny.With each attempt Harry makes to get away, the situation goes from bad to worse and more people pile up in the corridor to witness Harry's impending doom as the dwarf pulls Harry back and all his books spill on to the floor. As if this wasn't bad enough Malfoy shows up, then Percy, and when they're all assembled as it were adn Harry decides to make a run for it, the goblin fells him lika tree and sits on his legs while delivering a singing valentine with ludicrous lyrics....Well, you all know it and didn't need me to retell it, but I got carried away, and had a jolly good time remembering... Live long and pr....NO, NO, I mean, May the fo...nope...Ah! How about: Draco dormiens numnquam titillandus. Sophia _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com From lav at tut.by Thu Jul 4 15:36:55 2002 From: lav at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 18:36:55 +0300 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Norbert In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <13214694323.20020704183655@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 40768 Greetings! > nplyon wrote: n> I even think an army of Fantastic Beasts would be scarier n> than an army of Snapes! angry Snape lovers.> n> ~Nicole, who thinks Hagrid should bring a band of n> nifflers to the Riddle house and let them loose. Voila! n> No more HQ for Voldie! To sum up all the creatures that can potentially show up later: PS/SS: Boa-constrictor from the Zoo, Norbert, Fluffy CS: Aragog and his family PA: Buckbeak GF: Last remaining Blast-Ended Skrewt, Hungarian Horntail Seems nice... not an army (except Aragog family) but a special operation unit for sure... ;) Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed, always happy to throw weird ideas into community. Thursday, July 4, 2002, 18:32 local time (GMT+2:00) From lav at tut.by Thu Jul 4 15:52:23 2002 From: lav at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 18:52:23 +0300 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Muggle Parents of Magical Children In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <17415622206.20020704185223@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 40769 Greetings! > EtonBuffy wrote: E> Jeez, that subject title sounds like a support group lol. E> But it does bring questions on how muggle parents handle E> finding out their children are wizards and such. Do they E> recieve extra info to tell them how to get to Diagon E> Alley? Or how to get on to platform 9 3/4? Are they told E> where Hogwarts is or do they just have to have trust? E> What keeps them from going to the media and spilling all E> that info to other muggles? Questions, questions, E> questions. E> Tamara This subject was touched before, as far as I can remember it was me who raised it last time, and probably it was already raised a number of times before I wrote my first words to the List (oh, I was young, and naive... well, more naive than now ;). Actually, I was more interested in how muggle parents are made to *believe* that damn letters are not a stupid joke of some prankster. The only solution I could come up with back then was that there *had* to be a wizard who would come to their home and explain everything. After all, it doesn't make much sense to advise muggle-borns to reply with an owl, as it's quite difficult for them to get one... This, of course, also explains how do they get to Diagon Alley and Platform Nine-and-Three-Quarters. They are just escorted by this "guide" (from the Ministry or Hogwarts, not really matters). As for the reasons that prevent them from spilling the information in the local media... Well, first, it's hard to belive them. Indeed, who will? Only "hot-news" newspapers, but then they are publishing similar stories, and have published them, and will, no matter if Hogwarts exists or not. Also consider the resistance of children. Would they like this info to be spilled by their parents? Hardly. So add this influence as well. Also don't forget about the Ministry of Magic. Surely you wouldn't seriously consider squealing on Hgwarts if you knew that in case of doing so, you will be interrogated by a bunch of wizards and then made to forget everything about this... Last issue. Where is Hogwarts located, muggle parents know not. That's for sure. But then wizard parents don't know, either! So muggle parents are fed exactly the same information as wizard parents. They are just supposed to ear humble pie and get on with it. Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed, always happy to throw weird ideas into community. Thursday, July 4, 2002, 18:42 local time (GMT+2:00) From bard7696 at aol.com Thu Jul 4 16:22:07 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 16:22:07 -0000 Subject: Muggle Parents of Magical Children In-Reply-To: <17415622206.20020704185223@tut.by> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40770 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Alexander wrote: > Greetings! > > > EtonBuffy wrote: > > E> Jeez, that subject title sounds like a support group lol. > E> But it does bring questions on how muggle parents handle > E> finding out their children are wizards and such. Do they > E> recieve extra info to tell them how to get to Diagon > E> Alley? Or how to get on to platform 9 3/4? Are they told > E> where Hogwarts is or do they just have to have trust? > E> What keeps them from going to the media and spilling all > E> that info to other muggles? Questions, questions, > E> questions. > > E> Tamara > Alexander wrote: > This subject was touched before, as far as I can remember > it was me who raised it last time, and probably it was > already raised a number of times before I wrote my first > words to the List (oh, I was young, and naive... well, more > naive than now ;). > > Actually, I was more interested in how muggle parents are > made to *believe* that damn letters are not a stupid joke of > some prankster. The only solution I could come up with back > then was that there *had* to be a wizard who would come to > their home and explain everything. After all, it doesn't > make much sense to advise muggle-borns to reply with an owl, > as it's quite difficult for them to get one... > > This, of course, also explains how do they get to Diagon > Alley and Platform Nine-and-Three-Quarters. They are just > escorted by this "guide" (from the Ministry or Hogwarts, not > really matters). > > As for the reasons that prevent them from spilling the > information in the local media... Well, first, it's hard to > belive them. Indeed, who will? Only "hot-news" newspapers, > but then they are publishing similar stories, and have > published them, and will, no matter if Hogwarts exists or > not. > > Also consider the resistance of children. Would they like > this info to be spilled by their parents? Hardly. So add > this influence as well. > > Also don't forget about the Ministry of Magic. Surely you > wouldn't seriously consider squealing on Hgwarts if you knew > that in case of doing so, you will be interrogated by a > bunch of wizards and then made to forget everything about > this... > > Last issue. Where is Hogwarts located, muggle parents know > not. That's for sure. But then wizard parents don't know, > either! So muggle parents are fed exactly the same > information as wizard parents. They are just supposed to ear > humble pie and get on with it. > Ah, but what about Muggle parents who have no desire, for whatever reason, for their children to be brought up as a witch or wizard? Say, Dudley started to display Magic ability. Vernon and Petunia would sooner be turned into ferrets than to have him go to Hogwarts. I have a hard time believing all Muggles are overjoyed to find out their children have this potential. And we know that Wizard parents have the option of sending their children to other schools. Lucius nearly sent Draco to Durmstrang. It is possible some UK Wizards -- especially Slytherins -- would not want their children anywhere near Dumbledore. Are Muggle parents FORCED to send their children to Hogwarts? Darrin -- If my parents tried to stop me, I'd turn them into ferrets. From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Thu Jul 4 16:23:21 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (dfrankiswork at netscape.net) Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 12:23:21 -0400 Subject: Religion, Wizard genesis, Mars is bright Message-ID: <0E1F4530.60F77291.6E93A4F5@netscape.net> No: HPFGUIDX 40771 Religion Some listies have pointed out that Christmas and Easter are just the names of school vacations in Britain, and therefore don't necessarily have religious connotations. For many British children, I am sure this is true. However, at Hogwarts, they *do* celebrate Christmas (we don't really know about Easter). Hagrid puts up a Christmas tree. Peeves sings Christmas carols: that he makes up his own words doesn't change the fact that carols are part of the culture he is lampooning (side note: it is amazing how much JKR packs in, isn't it? Even our list pastime of FILK writing has its parallel in the Potterverse). It is misleading to say that the one has pagan origins and the other is now purely cultural: they are part of a culture profoundly influenced by Christianity. Perhaps most crucially, the Weasley family exchange presents, and apparently make no effort not to call them Christmas presents. More than anything else, this suggests to me that wizarding families are, in this respect as so many others, right in the British cultural mainstream. Being a wizard doesn't affect your religion. We may therefore expect to see wizards and witches from other than a Christian (cultural) background. (I do have some ideas as to why on the one hand they are palpably British, while on the other they are apparently completely out of touch about things like escalators, but it touches on what Grey Wolf would call metathinking, and I will reserve them for another post.) ________________________________ Wizarding Genetics I do not pretend to understand genetics beyond simple Mendelian BB and Bb type manipulations, so no doubt it is possible to work out schemes that account for the perceived numbers of Muggle-born wizards and Squibs, as well as, of course, the total numbers of wizards as a whole. However, it has always struck me that a genetic explanation of how people come to be wizards or not may be barking up the wrong tree. How about a developmental explanation? What makes you a wizard is not your genes, which make you human, but what happens in the womb. Embryos developing in an environment where magic is present may themselves be likely, but not certain, to become magical themselves. In addition, some developing in Muggle families may also inadvertently be exposed to magic and become wizards too. Perhaps the Grangers spent much of a crucial period in Hermione's development in the vicinity of Diagon Alley - possibly in second hand bookshops in the Charing Cross Road, which have much of the atmosphere of Ollivander's about them. There is a small amount of canon support for this, in that the Hogwarts Quill, IIRC, goes into action at birth, not conception. I think, though, that any explanation has to contend with a pretty basic difficulty: the genesis of wizards is essentially a natural phenomenon, and therefore unlike most other magic, which is intentional in nature (the existence of magical beasts and plants is perhaps similar). IOW, most magic reflects the intention of the wizard or witch. This is apparently not the case with birth, in the sense that neither wizards nor Muggles have any way of influencing whether their offspring are magical. (It has occurred to me that the reason Squibs are rare might be infanticide: what do you suppose the Malfoys would do if they had a Squib baby? The Fudges?) Given that (IMO) the essence of magic is that it represents abrogation of the laws of the physical world by human intention (even some magical beasts are the result of magical experimentation), in what sense is it a natural phenomenon? Where do other beings (Dementors, merpeople, etc) come from? Without a clear answer to this question it is IMO hard to address the genesis of individual wizards. __________________________________ Astronomy/Astrology - NOTE: my knowledge of astrology is pretty basic, so please correct any errors. 'Mars is bright tonight'. This is puzzling if regarded as a sample of astrology. The brightness of planets is not AFAIK a part of astrology as it is usually understood. Trelawney gets her students to do the things one might expect: draw charts, look for conjunctions, calculate aspects, and so forth. The centaurs' observation strikes me as just that: an observation. Mars is bright *tonight*, and we have noticed it. That is more like astronomy, which seeks to observe and understand the objects beyond the earth's atmosphere. However, Muggle astronomy does not detect significant variations in the planets' brightness on a day to day basis. If you go and look, the same planet will appear pretty mauch the same brightness from one night to the next. Yes, over the course of a revolution from opposition to opposition, they vary considerably, but that doesn't sound like what the centaurs were referring to, and one presumes it is not something that would interest them greatly anyway, as it is both predictable and easy to understand. It would be like saying 'the sun is high today'. That suggests that they are witnessing a magical phenomenon, presumably not detectable to Muggles. I think this means that interpretations based on general symbolism (Mars = war, Voldemort is about) are more plausible than precise astrological ones (Mars was in Aries in May 1991...). Beyond that, I am running out of ideas. BTW, if you have a passing knowledge of the constellations, it is very easy to see which one a planet is in. However, for historical reasons, if a planet is visible among the stars of a constellation (say, Pisces) that means that astrologically speaking it is in the next one (in this case, Aries). It's to do with the precession of the equinoxes: over about 2000 years, the vernal equinox advances along the ecliptic by one zodiacal sign, but astrologers don't advance with it (though I believe they take account of the phenomenon). 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 rvotaw at i-55.com Thu Jul 4 17:35:05 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 12:35:05 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Imperius Curse/ Evil Percy References: <1025479201.1801.17110.m1@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <044001c22381$233dc800$959ccdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 40772 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Richelle Votaw" wrote: >> Anyway, in the graveyard Harry gets an experience with Voldemort's imperius curse first that >>he can't throw off. That's when he bowed to Voldemort before the "duel." Could it have been >>that since he'd experienced one imperius curse from Voldemort that he was more prepared >>for the second? And that's why he could throw it off? Then Naama writes: >There was only one Imperius. The bow was not the result of Imperius, >but of some other spell (unspecified) that forced Harry's *body* to >move, unlike the Imperius which subjugates the victim's will. How do you figure? The way I see it, your will controls your body's actions. Therefore you must bend the will to bend the body so to speak. When Moody/Crouch is placing the Imperius curse on students for them to feel it, he does things with their bodies. Someone did cartwheels I think, and he tried to make Harry jump up onto the desk. Surely Harry's will would not have been to bow to Voldemort, therefore the will must be bent first to cause the body to bend. Comments? In other things, I watched the HP SS/PS movie for about the fifth or sixth time and noticed a line from Quirrell. I checked the book, and sure enough it's in there. "There is no good and evil, there is only power and those too weak to seek it." This reminded me a great deal of Percy Weasley. In GoF he was so obsessed with his new found power that he wasn't concerned about his missing boss as others were. He was instead enjoying his power. This makes me think that Percy could indeed turn to Voldemort in search of power. Richelle From crana at ntlworld.com Thu Jul 4 17:48:07 2002 From: crana at ntlworld.com (rosie) Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 18:48:07 +0100 Subject: Mandrake to Ghosts - Flamel - Dragons - Elvis Message-ID: <006201c22382$f53c8520$b7b068d5@xxx> No: HPFGUIDX 40773 Katze wrote: "I also always wondered how they how did they managed to give the mandrake potions to the ghosts in CoS?" Interesting question... maybe they boiled the potion under NHN so that the potion vapour would pass through him! I don't know! -------- Cindy (the one with squiggles) said: "Well, Muggle's aren't supposed to have known about magic, are they? How could Flamel possibly be a muggle? Not every famous wizard on the card took part in the fight against Voldemort, did they? If that was the case then it would have been impossible for Merlin and the other wizards to have been on the cards. So, assuming that he is a wizard, he would most likely still have a card wouldn't he? Sorry if I sound dumb in all this, it is just not clicking in my brain yet!" I don't think Flamel was a Muggle either...but... with your point about Merlin: Merlin lived ages ago, long before the time of Voldemort. He obviously couldn't have taken part in the war. However, Flamel (although old) *was* alive at the time and *was* a friend of Dumbledore, so I would have expected him to be involved in the war *a bit* at least, on the Light Side. Maybe he was though, and we just don't know it yet! ----------- Christi said: "Actually, the dragon Harry faces in GoF is a Hungarian Horntail, not a Norwegian Ridgeback. The others are a Common Welsh Green, a Chinese Fireball, and one other whose species escapes me. I'm pretty sure Norbert is the only NR to show up in the series thus far." Damn! I'm sorry, I didn't have my books to hand. Thanks! Rosie who giggled very loudly today, reading her newly arrived French Chamber of Secrets, when she discovered that Tom Riddle (aka Tom Jeudusort)'s middle name is now Elvis! :) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Edblanning at aol.com Thu Jul 4 18:08:01 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 14:08:01 EDT Subject: Diversity/ Is magic different across cultures? Message-ID: <8a.1ad2e84b.2a55e901@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40774 Catlady: > Eloise wrote: > > << On another level, I feel that it is implying an assumption that > all races living in Britain should conform to the European magical > tradition. (I know that JKR's particular brand of magic is an > invention of her own, but she *portrays* it as a European tradition, > doesn't she?) We don't assume that all races should follow European > traditions of religion, dress, cultural customs, etc. So why magic?>> > > I understand that it's very politically incorrect to speak of > 'assimilation' or to suggest that there might be a 'melting pot', > but, look, I don't speak a word of Yiddish and Tim doesn't speak a > word of Gaelic. We both wear jeans, and eat with knife and fork > (sometimes Tim uses chopsticks, so I accuse him of showing off), > changing the fork to right hand to put the food in our mouths with > it, and we are pretty much obsessed with the Constitution and the > Bill of Rights (and the Treaty of Guadelupe Hildago, but that's > another thing) even tho' none of our ancestors were in USA yet when > those were signed... I don't seem to be able to say clearly what I > Nor can I! it's a tricky one! Of course, in the UK there are many people of various ethnic groups who regard themselves as primarily British and whose life style is no different from my own. But there are others, whose lifestyles are quite different, who do normally speak Hindi, or Gujarati, or Ghanaian, a Chinese dialect, etc., etc., many of whom dress according to their own customs, celebrate according to their own customs, live lifestyles reflecting those of their ancestral homeland and who still have strong links with family overseas. It was of these whom I was thinking. In addition, RL schools spend time promoting cultural awareness, both helping children to understand the cultures of others and affirming the diverse traditions of pupils of different races. What I was simply pointing out is that although Hogwarts is multi-racial, it is mono-cultural. It reflects British racial diversity, but not British cultural diversity. I don't think it *could* do the latter. I am glad that it does do the former, for reasons I have already stated. I've just realised that some Americans might be taken aback by my implication that some UK citizens don't regard themselves as primarily British. Becoming a British citizen isn't accompanied by the same swearing of allegience, obligation to learn English, etc, as becoming an American citizen is. We are also usually (when we're not having a Jubilee) rather diffident about parading national pride. Things that are seen as normal expressions of being American, if translated into British terms, would seem distinctly jingoistic and there isn't quite the same strong sense over here of having pride in 'being British' that you have in 'being American', I think. I don't think many people could really put their finger on what it means, these days. Perhaps it is partly because it has overtones of imperialism that we'd rather forget. This year has been quite exceptional in the way that people have flown the flag and shown pride in their Britishness. I could go on, but I think I've strayed far enough OT! ................... Naama: >A more fitting analogy may be engineering. It isn't really meaningful >to talk of European engineering, Chinese engineering or Aztec >engineering, is it? Engineering is the same all over the world, since >it rests on objective forces and laws of nature. >Magic as a cultural construct we have in the real world. In the >Potterverse, magic is a real, objective force. Learning the rules and >the various ways of using this force shouldn't differ between >different cultures, then. >At least, there may be local developments. Wizards from one community >may find (or make?) spells that are not known in another community. >Unlike cultural customs, however, those spells would work just as >well in the other community (if practiced there). To return to the >engineering analogy, it would be like an American engineer learning >the specific methods involved in building a pagoda. >Following on this, then, I'd say that parents wouldn't mind where >their children learnt magic - so long as it's at a good school (in >the same way that you wouldn't mind where your kid learns >engineering, or biology, or physics, etc.). I agree completely that there are universal, unvarying principles behind engineering, as presumably there should be behind magic, if it exists. But, as you say there *are* local variations. The expression of the science of engineering, through the art of architecture is, as you have indicated, highly variable. And diffferent societies use different technologies to achieve different results which are dependent on the same principles of engineering. There are two places from which I draw my analogies, as some of you by now no doubt know. ;-) If we look at ancient societies, some of these raised monuments which obviously depend on the same principles of engineering, but using methods that we can only guess at. We actually don't *know* how the Egyptians raised their obelisks, or exactly how the Stonehenge trilithons were put into place, or how the Olmecs transported the vast heads that they sculpted. They didn't have our technologies and we don't fully understand theirs. So although the underlying principle is the same, the method of achieving it may be quite different. Could not the same be true of magic? I could also draw an analogy from music. Perhaps this is quite close. Music depends on the same *scientific* principles the world over. Yet it has developed in very different ways, with many different modes of expression. Now it happens that one school of music, the western, has come to dominate much of the world. Musicians of many, many nationalities and cultural backgrounds learn, play, listen to western music. But this does not deny thriving traditions of quite different forms of music in other cultures. And of course, even within western classical music, there have been 'national' movements. Although the principles underlying the magic might be the same, it is possible that different cultures might want to use magic to different ends. I don't think I'm saying anything much different from you in prinicple, although I see the cultural element as potentially more important. Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From naama_gat at hotmail.com Thu Jul 4 20:02:35 2002 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 20:02:35 -0000 Subject: Imperius Curse/ Evil Percy In-Reply-To: <044001c22381$233dc800$959ccdd1@istu757> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40775 I said: > > >There was only one Imperius. The bow was not the result of Imperius, but of some other spell (unspecified) that forced Harry's *body* to move, unlike the Imperius which subjugates the victim's >will. Richelle objected: > > How do you figure? The way I see it, your will controls your body's actions. Therefore you must bend the will to bend the body so to speak. > When Moody/Crouch is placing the Imperius curse on students for them to feel it, he does things with their bodies. Someone did cartwheels I think, and he tried to make Harry jump up onto the desk. Surely Harry's will would not have been to bow to Voldemort, therefore the will must be bent first to cause the body to bend. Comments? > Hmmmm. Ever had a doctor tap your knee to check your reflexes? If you had, you'll remember that your leg moveded involuntarily. Or, there's simple external force. When you're pushed, do you fall down willingly? The Imperius curse is very specific, and it involves, for one, saying the word ("Imperius") and, secondly, very specific symptoms (blankness of the mind, etc.). When Voldemort forces Harry to bow to him, he doesn't say 'Imperius'. He merely "raised his wand." Then, "Harry felt his spine curve as though a huge, invisible hand was bending him ruthlessly forward." See? He is forced into that posture *against his will*. Naama From lav at tut.by Thu Jul 4 20:37:20 2002 From: lav at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 23:37:20 +0300 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Muggle Parents of Magical Children In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1192823463.20020704233720@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 40776 Greetings! > darrin_burnett wrote: d> Ah, but what about Muggle parents who have no desire, for d> whatever reason, for their children to be brought up as a d> witch or wizard? I think the solution is the scene at the Hut-on-the-Rock, where Hagrid says that if Harry wants to go to Hogwarts, then no muggle will be able to stop him. Thus, I think it's the child who makes the decision to go or not to go (surely if child doesn't want to go, nobody will be able to force him to). d> Say, Dudley started to display Magic ability. Vernon and d> Petunia would sooner be turned into ferrets than to have d> him go to Hogwarts. I have a hard time believing all d> Muggles are overjoyed to find out their children have d> this potential. I would be overjoyed. It's just cool! Actually, I would soon know Hogwarts schoolbooks better than my child... ;) d> And we know that Wizard parents have the option of d> sending their children to other schools. Lucius nearly d> sent Draco to Durmstrang. It is possible some UK Wizards d> -- especially Slytherins -- would not want their children d> anywhere near Dumbledore. d> Are Muggle parents FORCED to send their children to d> Hogwarts? That's interesting, but I don't think it's the case. How many British children of age 11 do you know who can attend Beauxbatons and learn there? That is, who know French well enough? And to go to Durmstrang they probably need to know some Slavic language (most likely Russian). BTW this leaves me to wonder what school do German children attend? There were no Germans among Durmstrang students - all were Slavic in origin. So Germans probably have a school of their own, just not so big as the other three. BTW, about Karkaroff's name: in Russian "kar-kar" is the sound emitted by crows and ravens (corresponds to "caw-caw" in English). Ending "off" is just standard second name ending and conveys no meaning. So Karkaroff is "raven", whatever this means... d> Darrin d> -- If my parents tried to stop me, I'd turn them into d> ferrets. My mother would probably disapprove, but my father would say "yeah!" (he's a Potterfan as well... ;) But what question bothers me most of all, is just HOW did muggle-born wizards learn magic in Russia? Parents have choice what school to send their child to, that's no trouble, but sometimes they will need a document from the school that says that their child is learning there (such docs are required to get some other docs, this comes especially important when dealing with real estate - Russian laws limit real estate operations if there's a child living in the place). So there probably must be some "fictional" school that works as muggle cover for Durmstrang. And to keep this fake school secret, officials' hands must be "greased" with money... ya, so Durmstrang actually supports the corruption in Russian government!!! ;) I also wonder what marks do Durmstrang students get into their muggle fake-school certificates? Especially for subjects like physics, higher maths, biology etc... -- My IMHO: Rowling would do a great favour for the world, if she would just sit down and re-write the books, eliminating all the stupid mistakes, troubles and inconsistencies. Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed, always happy to throw weird ideas into community. Thursday, July 4, 2002, 23:07 local time (GMT+2:00) From Edblanning at aol.com Thu Jul 4 21:24:40 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 17:24:40 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] re: muggle clothes / Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40777 Catlady: > By the way, I have a stupid question. Mr Weasley's Muggle costume is > described as "He was wearing what appeared to be a golfing jumper and > a very old pair of jeans, slightly too big for him and held up with a > thick leather belt." I don't know what precisely a golfing sweater > is, which may be the reason I don't understand what's so laughable > about that outfit. > I've just consulted my golfing husband. The verdict is a V-neck, probably Argyle- patterned sweater. It's not a hilarious outfit, per se, although I guess you'd expect anyone who actually played golf (which tends to have standards of dress, no?) not to be wearing old, baggy jeans. I think JKR's just making a contrast between a smart casual top and scruffy trousers. Arthur, being interested in Muggles, has *almost* got it right. Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bard7696 at aol.com Thu Jul 4 21:43:47 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 21:43:47 -0000 Subject: Muggle Parents of Magical Children In-Reply-To: <1192823463.20020704233720@tut.by> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40778 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Alexander wrote: > Greetings! > > > darrin_burnett wrote: > > d> Ah, but what about Muggle parents who have no desire, for > d> whatever reason, for their children to be brought up as a > d> witch or wizard? > Alexander wrote: > I think the solution is the scene at the Hut-on-the-Rock, > where Hagrid says that if Harry wants to go to Hogwarts, > then no muggle will be able to stop him. Thus, I think it's > the child who makes the decision to go or not to go (surely > if child doesn't want to go, nobody will be able to force > him to). Hmmm...I would hope the parents get at least SOME say in an 11-year- old's decision to alter the course of his or her life. :) I agree with what has been said though. For Muggle parents, an owl just won't do. There needs to be some explanation of what's going on. But take Hermione's parents. They seem to have accepted all this. It seems the one thing they ask of Hermione is that she fix her teeth naturally. They are both dentists and perhaps violating the Muggle laws of physics in dentistry is just too much for them. But Hermione eventually gets them fixed magically anyway. Perhaps I am missing the cultural difference here -- the boarding school mentality where you send your child to a school to live as well as learn -- but such behavior leads me to believe that the Grangers have essentially lost their daughter to the Wizard world, and she's not coming back. > > d> Say, Dudley started to display Magic ability. Vernon and > d> Petunia would sooner be turned into ferrets than to have > d> him go to Hogwarts. I have a hard time believing all > d> Muggles are overjoyed to find out their children have > d> this potential. > > I would be overjoyed. It's just cool! Actually, I would > soon know Hogwarts schoolbooks better than my child... ;) > Sure, but imagine it happening to some Jerry Falwell-disciple. I mean, there are plenty of anti-Harry Potter wackos out there. I realize religious fundamentalism is perhaps not the force in the UK that it is in the United States, but I would have to believe SOMEONE somewhere would be against it. > d> And we know that Wizard parents have the option of > d> sending their children to other schools. Lucius nearly > d> sent Draco to Durmstrang. It is possible some UK Wizards > d> -- especially Slytherins -- would not want their children > d> anywhere near Dumbledore. > > d> Are Muggle parents FORCED to send their children to > d> Hogwarts? > > That's interesting, but I don't think it's the case. How > many British children of age 11 do you know who can attend > Beauxbatons and learn there? That is, who know French well > enough? And to go to Durmstrang they probably need to know > some Slavic language (most likely Russian). > The Malfoys would probably pay for a personal translator until Draco picked up the language -- if he ever decided to bother, that is. Other students would probably have to learn the language. > BTW this leaves me to wonder what school do German > children attend? There were no Germans among Durmstrang > students - all were Slavic in origin. So Germans probably > have a school of their own, just not so big as the other > three. > Well, just because there weren't any in the book doesn't mean there weren't any. I don't remember a roll call of the ethnicities of the Durmstrang students. But it's an interesting point. The Italians, Scandanavians, Spanish and Portuguese, Swiss, Austrians, and Germans seem to be left out here. > BTW, about Karkaroff's name: in Russian "kar-kar" is the > sound emitted by crows and ravens (corresponds to "caw-caw" > in English). Ending "off" is just standard second name > ending and conveys no meaning. So Karkaroff is "raven", > whatever this means... > > d> Darrin > d> -- If my parents tried to stop me, I'd turn them into > d> ferrets. > > My mother would probably disapprove, but my father would > say "yeah!" (he's a Potterfan as well... ;) > > But what question bothers me most of all, is just HOW did > muggle-born wizards learn magic in Russia? Parents have > choice what school to send their child to, that's no > trouble, but sometimes they will need a document from the > school that says that their child is learning there (such > docs are required to get some other docs, this comes > especially important when dealing with real estate - Russian > laws limit real estate operations if there's a child living > in the place). So there probably must be some "fictional" > school that works as muggle cover for Durmstrang. And to > keep this fake school secret, officials' hands must be > "greased" with money... ya, so Durmstrang actually supports > the corruption in Russian government!!! ;) > Actually, I envision Durmstrang not so much in Russia as in one of the old Eastern European provinces. It's a cliche, but the whole effect was very Transylvanian to me. As for the fictional school, Hogwarts is bewitched to look like a rundown old building. Why couldn't Durmstrang be bewitched to look like a normal school? No muss, no fuss. Just tell Comrade Busybody that the kid goes to the normal school, when in fact he or she goes to Durmstrang. > I also wonder what marks do Durmstrang students get into > their muggle fake-school certificates? Especially for > subjects like physics, higher maths, biology etc... > > -- > My IMHO: Rowling would do a great favour for the world, if > she would just sit down and re-write the books, eliminating > all the stupid mistakes, troubles and inconsistencies. > Yeah, and each book would be about 2,000 pages long to explain things like whether Polish students get to go to Durmstrang or do they have their own school. Don't see it happening. :) Darrin From crana at ntlworld.com Thu Jul 4 21:48:11 2002 From: crana at ntlworld.com (rosie) Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 22:48:11 +0100 Subject: FILK> The Scarred Wizard Of Gryffind-air Message-ID: <005701c223a4$7e536b00$543468d5@xxx> No: HPFGUIDX 40779 The Scarred Wizard Of Gryffind-air to the theme tune of The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air (note to CMC: I liked your link so much that my bro and I were inspired !) HARRY, EXCEPT BRACKETS: Now... this is a story all about how my life got flipped, turned upside down, and I'd like to take a minute, just sit right there I'll tell you how I became the enemy of Lord Voldie. In... 4 Privet Drive born and raised In the cupboard is where I spent most of my days, Being bullied by Dursley and his mum and dad too and I had no friends in my primary school After the Dark Lord Vold' said (VOLDEMORT) "I'm up to no good" and started making trouble in my neighborhood, He AK'd my dad and my mum got scared she said (LILY) "you're movin' with your uncle and auntie tho they don't care" I had 2 cool brooms, but neither I bought I headed for the World Cup, we used a boot to port I used my cloak so I wouldn't get caught but now I know my destiny is to kill Voldemort I ported out the graveyard about seven or eight and I yelled to the DE's "yo home, smell ya later," The war had started, Voldie was back I just hope next year he'll cut me some slack! Rosie and her little brother [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From nplyon at yahoo.com Thu Jul 4 16:49:10 2002 From: nplyon at yahoo.com (nplyon) Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 16:49:10 -0000 Subject: Norbert In-Reply-To: <13214694323.20020704183655@tut.by> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40780 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Alexander wrote: > > To sum up all the creatures that can potentially show up > later: > > PS/SS: Boa-constrictor from the Zoo, Norbert, Fluffy > CS: Aragog and his family > PA: Buckbeak > GF: Last remaining Blast-Ended Skrewt, Hungarian Horntail > Let us not forget the much-maligned flobberworms. They may yet have their useful purposes. There are also many other FBs that could join the crusade. Just to mention a few: merfolk, house elves, werewolves (Lupin as ambassador anyone?), centaurs, unicorns, gindylows.... ~Nicole, who will shut up before she starts to sound like Bubba a la Forest Gump From divaclv at aol.com Thu Jul 4 22:43:44 2002 From: divaclv at aol.com (c_voth312) Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 22:43:44 -0000 Subject: Religion--couple more thoughts In-Reply-To: <0E1F4530.60F77291.6E93A4F5@netscape.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40781 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., dfrankiswork at n... wrote: > Religion > > Some listies have pointed out that Christmas and Easter are just the names of school vacations in Britain, and therefore don't necessarily have religious connotations. For many British children, I am sure this is true. > > However, at Hogwarts, they *do* celebrate Christmas (we don't really know about Easter). Hagrid puts up a Christmas tree. Peeves sings Christmas carols: that he makes up his own words doesn't change the fact that carols are part of the culture he is lampooning (side note: it is amazing how much JKR packs in, isn't it? Even our list pastime of FILK writing has its parallel in the Potterverse). It is misleading to say that the one has pagan origins and the other is now purely cultural: they are part of a culture profoundly influenced by Christianity. > A couple other things which point towards a Christian influence: ~Some of the characters names--I can think of James and Peter right off the top of my head--are Biblical in origin (or at least, have very strong associations with Biblical people). ~The wizard attitude towards snakes and Parselmouths. The notion of serpents as evil is primarily a Judeo-Christian concept (think the Garden of Eden); several Eastern and pre-Christian beliefs look on the snake as a symbol of wisdom and rebirth. I agree with the idea that this doesn't necessarily indicate that the wizards are Christian (although they could be), merely that they, like the rest of European culture, have been strongly influenced by that philosophy. JMO, as always. ~Christi From ntg85 at prodigy.net Thu Jul 4 22:56:09 2002 From: ntg85 at prodigy.net (random_monkey0_0) Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 22:56:09 -0000 Subject: Muggle Parents of Magical Children In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40782 Alexander, at some point, wrote: >>Also consider the resistance of children. Would they like this info to be spilled by their parents? Hardly. So add this influence as well.<< What about the Muggle child who wants to be a doctor _so bad_, but suddenly gets a letter (or representative, whatever) from Hogwarts. You can't tell me the Hogwart's people won't pressure him to go there. For that matter, what about the wizard child who deciedes he/she wants to be an electrician or something? What if they want to go to a public school, then college? They'd have a heck of a time getting in, for one thing, unless they went to a Muggle elementary school. > > > darrin_burnett wrote: > But take Hermione's parents. They seem to have accepted all this. It > seems the one thing they ask of Hermione is that she fix her teeth > naturally. They are both dentists and perhaps violating the Muggle > laws of physics in dentistry is just too much for them. > > But Hermione eventually gets them fixed magically anyway. Perhaps I > am missing the cultural difference here -- the boarding school > mentality where you send your child to a school to live as well as > learn -- but such behavior leads me to believe that the Grangers have > essentially lost their daughter to the Wizard world, and she's not > coming back. Yes, they do seem just a bit too relaxed about all this, don't they?;) I think this is just a case of JKR being unrealistic. In reality, whether the parents approved or not, and no matter how many reps were sent, a parent would still be rather reluctant to let their child go. They would want to raise their child as much a muggle as possible. Going back to my previous point: Imagine Bob Wizard reeealy wants to be a muggle physician. He goes to all the trouble of getting the University of His State (UHS) director of Pre-med (of _course_ the University of His State has a premed course!) to come speak to his parents ("I must warn you, my family's a bit eccentric," warns Bob). Mrs. Director reassures the family that they have nothing to worry about, that the Premed program is one of the best in the state, that almost all its students graduate, that Bob will get three square meals a day and will have to keep his dorm room door open if he has a woman over. After Mrs. Director leaves, Mr. and Mrs. Bob sit down and talk with their son. "We don't understand," says Mr. Bob. "Why can't you be a doctor at St. Mungo's?" asks Mrs. Bob. "Because I want to be a muggle doctor. It's wicked! They can do anything we can, only they use science! Machines, and blood transfusions, and surgeries..." "Surgeries! Cutting and sewing people! Like garments!" exclaims Mr. Bob. Bob sighs. "This is what I want to do with my life," he says forcefully. "But... Why? Why can't you be a normal doctor?" asks Mrs. Bob. You see where this is going. It's strange territory, something the parents would never do, even if they got the opportunity (or at least, that's how they think, because they're parents) > Sure, but imagine it happening to some Jerry Falwell-disciple. I > mean, there are plenty of anti-Harry Potter wackos out there. I > realize religious fundamentalism is perhaps not the force in the UK > that it is in the United States, but I would have to believe SOMEONE > somewhere would be against it. SOMEONE is against almost everything. Someone is against teaching children the earth is round (Actually, several Someones; they're the Flat Earth society). That's probably why they have the noone-can-stop-you clause, for parents who are fanatically opposed to something without a basis. If Dudley did ever get a letter, he would probably go screaming into the street in front of a speeding car. That's just the kind of people the Dursleys are. Alexander: > > My IMHO: Rowling would do a great favour for the world, if > > she would just sit down and re-write the books, eliminating > > all the stupid mistakes, troubles and inconsistencies. > > Don't wea all? Even not adding anything, unless it was to solve flints, it would be great. But then, noone's perfect. Besides, then they'red be raging debates about which one was better. It'd end up being like the Star Wars trilogy (that's the _real_ trilogy, not the new ones). The Random Monkey, From tmarends at yahoo.com Thu Jul 4 19:06:39 2002 From: tmarends at yahoo.com (tmarends) Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 19:06:39 -0000 Subject: Mandrake to Ghosts - Flamel - Dragons - Elvis In-Reply-To: <006201c22382$f53c8520$b7b068d5@xxx> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40783 > Cindy (the one with squiggles) said: > > "Well, Muggle's aren't supposed to have known about magic, are they? How > could Flamel possibly be a muggle? Not every famous wizard on the card took part in the fight against Voldemort, did they? If that was the case then it would have been impossible for Merlin and the other wizards to have been on the cards. So, assuming that he is a wizard, he would most likely still > have a card wouldn't he? Sorry if I sound dumb in all this, it is just not > clicking in my brain yet!" > > Rosie wrote: > > I don't think Flamel was a Muggle either...but... with your point about Merlin: Merlin lived ages ago, long before the time of Voldemort. He obviously couldn't have taken part in the war. However, Flamel (although old) *was* alive at the time and *was* a friend of Dumbledore, so I would have expected him to be involved in the war *a bit* at least, on the Light Side. Maybe he was though, and we just don't know it yet! > According to the Chocolate Frog Trading Cards: "Merlin -- Charms Specialist. The wizard Merlin taught and helped King Arthur. (Arthur once ruled the land that is now part of England.) Merlin wanted wizards to help non-wizards, so he created the Order of Merlin. The Order made rules against using magic on non-wizards." Depending on when Arthur and Merlin lived (there is no reference to the actual dates in any HP material I've seen) there could be several different scenarios here. Was Merlin before the founding of Hogwarts? Was he after, say somewhere in the 1300/1400s?? Could Flamel, a Muggle, personally have known Merlin, a Wizard?? Could Dumbledore's friendship with Flamel be because Flamel is a family friend and Dumbledore is a descendant of Merlin? My feelings are that Flamel was a Muggle Alchemist who stumbled upon the secrets of creating the stone. From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Thu Jul 4 22:17:43 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 22:17:43 -0000 Subject: Neville grandmother In-Reply-To: <9bf0uc+nlf2@eGroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40784 > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., jennifer.k at l... wrote: > This must have been discussed...but I couldn't find it...I'd like the thread to it, if it's the case, please :)>> >What if Nevilles grandmother comes along as the new DADA-teacher? I always pictured her as quite competent...part of a great wizardingfamily, much gratified when her grandson turned out to possess at least a small amount of magical power, which to me indicate that she thinks highly of magic and so might able to perform quite a lot herself.>> > ... ... ... Edited ... ... ... > > I could picture some fun scenes involving Grams and Draco (if they would ever meet) perhaps with an amused Neville as bystander... or something about the look in Snapes face whenever he sets eyes on on her dress/hat.>> > > /Jennifer Just some general comments. I know this is an old thread, but I like Neville and wanted to add my comments. I think the whole Longbottom family will be more prominent in future books. Maybe it's just because I like Neville. In some of my fan fiction, I've made him a very strong character. OK, I'm rambling. I really do think Neville's presents in the story is significant. He and Harry have similarities; ie: they have both lost there parents. Neville's aren't dead but they are certainly lost. I also, think the book has implied that things are going on with Neville that aren't immediately obvious. Some people have speculated that his forgetfulness is related to a memory charm that was put on him, because of his parents encounter with Voldemort (although that seems a stretch). Rambling again, sorry. My point is that, I think Neville is a significant and special character in this story, and his presents, and therefore his family's present, will become more prominent. bboy_mn From tmarends at yahoo.com Thu Jul 4 16:50:52 2002 From: tmarends at yahoo.com (tmarends) Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 16:50:52 -0000 Subject: Connections In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40785 Sophia wrote: > > Live long and pr....NO, NO, I mean, >>>> May the fo...<<<< >nope...Ah! How about: Draco > dormiens numnquam titillandus. > This statement caught my attention. Has anyone else noticed some of the similarities between Star Wars and Harry Potter? How the infant (Luke/Harry) who can bring the downfall of the Dark Lord (Palpatine/Voldemort) is hidden for years until the time is ripe for them to learn about their powers (the Force/Magic). From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Thu Jul 4 23:07:00 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 23:07:00 -0000 Subject: Neville Longbottom In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40786 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ftah3" wrote: > Clareysage wrote: > > it always seems to me as if Neville is being > > set up as a dunce to surprise us all and give > > him room to develop - ie basic motivations > > are just as important as cleverness. > > You know, this is my inclination as well. I like your speculation > that Neville's aptitude for herbology foreshadows him discovering > something important like a cure for his parents' (possibly implied) > insanity, too. > > Also, I think that the fact that he's less a dunce/less > sniveling than he appears might be supported by the fact > that he not only had the guts to stand up to > Harry/Ron/Hermione at the end of SS/PS but also that he > had the gumption to ask Ginny to the dance in GoF. > > ... ... ... EDITED ... ... ... > > On the other hand, Neville has never groveled around HRH. > ... EDITED ... > > Also, when he has a moral disagreement with their actions, he stands > up to them - he stands up to The Famous Harry Potter to protect > Gryffindor from losing more points at the end of SS/PS! Heck, he > even offers to fight them if they didn't go back to bed. > ... EDITED ... > > I don't actually think that Neville parallels anyone from recent > (reign of Voldemort/death of Lily & James) history, at this point. > Unless he parallels his own parents - if they were like him: good > people, loyal and brave friends - in which case perhaps their fate > would be his. ...but I hope not, I really like Neville! > > Anyhoo, really enjoying the discussion of Neville.... > Mahoney I REALLY like Neville and I think he will show us that he is a very powerful force of magic. I write fan fiction (sorry can't go into detail, too far off topic) but in one of my stories, I characterized Neville as a great wizard hidden under a shroud; hidden under a veil of fear and insecurity. Can't we all indentify with that? Isn't the full potential in all of us supressed by a some veil of insecurity? Getting back on track, think about the first flying lesson. Who's broom was the first one to take off and soar effortlessly? Harry? NO. Draco? NO. It was Neville. Clearly he demonstrate a substantial magical force for flying. Others couldn't even get their brooms to respond. Neville flew effortlessly and with tremendous magical force but that force was corrupted and made uncontrolable by fear. To push the analogy of my characterization, Neville couldn't fly well because he was blinded by that shroud of fear. To me, that powerful flight shows the powerful wizard hidden underneath. Sometime, when circumstance are right, even the most frightened person can set aside that fear and do great things. I think this is what will happen with Neville. He will reach a point where the demands of his own internal needs and the demands of external circumstances will become so great that he will have no choice but to drop his fear, and show us his true mettle. BBoy_MN From coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com Fri Jul 5 04:47:55 2002 From: coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com (coriolan_cmc2001) Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 04:47:55 -0000 Subject: Religion--couple more thoughts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40787 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "c_voth312" wrote: > ~The wizard attitude towards snakes and Parselmouths. The notion of > serpents as evil is primarily a Judeo-Christian concept (think the > Garden of Eden); several Eastern and pre-Christian beliefs look on > the snake as a symbol of wisdom and rebirth. I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves. - Matthew 10:16 Genesis 49 Dan will provide justice for his people as one of the tribes of Israel. Dan will be a serpent by the roadside, a viper along the path, that bites the horse's heels so that its rider tumbles backward. I look for your deliverance, O Lord . - Genesis 49:16-18 Though they hide themselves on the top of Carmel, there I will hunt them down and seize them. Though they hide from me at the bottom of the sea, there I will command the serpent to bite them. - Amos 9:3 So the Judeo-Christian Bible recognizes the snake as having shrewdness, as an instrument of justice, and a vehicle of divine retribution, in addition to some of the scuzzier accusations it also conveys. The non Judeo-Christian Koran has this to say: 37.63: Surely We have made it to be a trial to the unjust. 37.64: Surely it is a tree that-grows in the bottom of the hell; 37.65: Its produce is as it were the heads of the serpents. 37.66: Then most surely they shall eat of it and fill (their) bellies with it. 37.67: Then most surely they shall have after it to drink of a mixture prepared in boiling water. 37.68: Then most surely their return shall be to hell. I'll bet you'd be hard-pressed to find in even those worthy Eastern and pre-Christian cultures much in the way of folks getting cuddly with their reptiles, as we habitually do with our kitties and puppies (whatever level of respect serpents may have commanded iconically). And since this is the 4th, I might also make reference to that famous "Don't Tread on Me" early American flag, which hasn't lead to any greater degree of snake-popularity state-side. Interestingly, the Slytherins seem as grossed out by reptiles as the other three houses, despite their serpentine emblem. - CMC (who always kept a pet snake or frog or toad or two as a child - BTW, the toad always stayed put, the snakes were constantly escaping) From ksnidget at aol.com Fri Jul 5 00:56:42 2002 From: ksnidget at aol.com (ksnidget at aol.com) Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 20:56:42 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Connections/Muggle Parents of Magical Children Message-ID: <160.102688fc.2a5648ca@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40788 tmarends at yahoo.com writes: >This statement caught my attention.? Has anyone else noticed some of >the similarities between Star Wars and Harry Potter?? How the infant >(Luke/Harry) who can bring the downfall of the Dark Lord >(Palpatine/Voldemort) is hidden for years until the time is ripe for >them to learn about their powers (the Force/Magic). Well both seem to be in the heroic saga tradition Typically this tends to have a child who is brought up elsewhere, or some other means by which the powerful person was hidden, or not revealed. He discovers a destiny/powers/etc., whether intrinsic or from some magical item (swords in stones, jewels, etc.). He wins against whichever evil is there in the end after many trials, not all of which are necessarily totally successful. There will be some themes that are seen in most hero stories, even when the details vary. ******************** Alexander Lomski says Russian parents must prove their children are in school: > > So there probably must be some "fictional" > >school that works as muggle cover for Durmstrang. And to > >keep this fake school secret, officials' hands must be > >"greased" with money... IIRC, didn't Draco say the Durmstrang will not admit muggle born children. However, there may be a lesser renowned school they go to that may be as you described. Ksnidget [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From wedgeaholic at icqmail.com Fri Jul 5 01:01:28 2002 From: wedgeaholic at icqmail.com (cathubodva_raven) Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 01:01:28 -0000 Subject: Neville Longbottom Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40789 Bboy_mn wrote: >To me, that powerful flight shows the powerful wizard hidden >underneath. Sometime, when circumstance are right, even the most >frightened person can set aside that fear and do great things. I ? >think this is what will happen with Neville. He will reach a point >where the demands of his own internal needs and the demands of >external circumstances will become so great that he will have no >choice but to drop his fear, and show us his true mettle. My interpretation of this scene was entirely opposite. Yes, it does demonstrate that Neville has power, but I can't see how it shows Neville "setting aside his fear to do great things". In essence, the broomstick attacks Neville, and I had always assumed it was *because* he was afraid. Dogs can sense fear, and so (why not?) can broomsticks. The more frightened and desperate Neville becomes, the more violent are the broomstick's attempts to dislodge him. I would hardly describe the results of this encounter as 'great': Neville ends up with a torn robe, a broken wrist, and a large dose of humiliation. However, having checked up on the Neville v Harry history, I think this scene contrasts with the Devil's Snare, where Harry (the 'Anti- Neville'?) is able to relax, clearly overcoming his fear. Cathubodva. From minga at idx.com.au Fri Jul 5 02:03:26 2002 From: minga at idx.com.au (mingarooni) Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 02:03:26 -0000 Subject: Connections (HP and Star Wars) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40790 Hehe, yes actually I thought about it and was about to post about it (don't know if it's really on topic though) :) tmarends said: > Has anyone else noticed some of > the similarities between Star Wars and Harry Potter? How the infant > (Luke/Harry) who can bring the downfall of the Dark Lord > (Palpatine/Voldemort) is hidden for years until the time is ripe for > them to learn about their powers (the Force/Magic). >From my online journal a month ago: Anyone else notice the parallels between Harry Potter and Star Wars? - The Force/magical abilities being something you're born with (but you of course have to study to become good at using it) - lead character's parents are dead (or darth) - lead character faces arch enemy who tries to tempt him to the dark side - lead character not knowing who his parents really were (and how they really died) until later in life - lead character not finding out about his abilities until he meets Hagrid/Obi-Wan - Dumbledore/Yoda similarities (ok they're both brilliant and hairy but only one is green) -lead character faces arch enemy who killed his parents (remember Obi-Wan tells luke that Darth Vader killed his father?) and faces this enemy who 'killed his parents' in some form in every episode of the saga! -and all the parallels between Luke and Darth / Harry and James (in magical/force prowess, temperament etc). I want Harry to find out that Hermione is actually his long lost twin sister! :P Ah but didn't someone ask JK in an interview if Harry was related to Voldemort at all and she said 'that would be a bit 'Star Wars' wouldn't it?' :) Belinda From daharja at bigpond.net.au Fri Jul 5 03:10:00 2002 From: daharja at bigpond.net.au (Leanne Daharja Veitch) Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 13:10:00 +1000 Subject: What house was Peter Pettigrew in? Message-ID: <9d1e989d28ae.9d28ae9d1e98@bigpond.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40791 Hi all, (sorry if this topic has been previously discussed, but I looked in the archive and couldn't find it). What house do people think Peter Pettigrew (Wormtail) was in? It makes sense that he was in Gryffindor with the rest of MWPP, but if so Ron's statement in PS/SS that "there's never been a wizard who went bad who wasn't in Slytherin" (or something along those lines) is incorrect. If PP was in Gryffindor, then it's clearly possible to trick the sorting hat so it sorts incorrectly (or maybe the sorting hat has other motives besides student welfare?). If PP *was* in Slytherin, shouldn't MPP have known better, and the Potters known better than to trust him as their secret-keeper? Heck, HRH certainly wouldn't trust a Slytherin with their lives! Thoughts? Comments? -- Leanne Daharja Veitch -- From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Fri Jul 5 03:47:24 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 03:47:24 -0000 Subject: mechanical isolation / muggle clothes /Flamel In-Reply-To: <2b.29921a55.2a552898@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40792 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., swimminwoman86 at a... wrote: > In a message dated 7/3/2002 11:21:22 PM US Eastern Standard Time, > catlady at w... writes: > > > > One listie once used the absence of a Nicholas > > >Flamel Famous Wizard card to argue that Flamel was > > >a Muggle. Being a Muggle would excuse him from > > taking an active role in the war about Voldemort > > Well, Muggle's aren't supposed to have known about > magic, are they? How could Flamel possibly be a muggle? > Not every famous wizard on the card took part in the fight > against Voldemort, did they? If that was the case then it > would have been impossible for Merlin and the other wizards > to have been on the cards. So, assuming that he is a wizard, > he would most likely still have a card wouldn't he? Sorry if > I sound dumb in all this, it is just not clicking in my > brain yet! > ~Cindy~ > > > I guess you could title my post "All of the Above". I'll try to respond to the question posted here and to some of the responses to this post. (Hope I can pull it off.) The Card- Do we know that their is no Nicholas Flamel Wizard Card? First, Ron has over 500 cards. That doesn't say there are only 500 cards, just that he has collected 500 so far, and it's conceivable that he may have some logic to his collecting. Like, finish his collection of all the potions master's, then get all the medieval witches, then all the famous Auror. Not saying that's true, but we don't know why he needs Agrippa or Ptolemy. Is it to complete his collection, to complete some sub-collection, or because he has some particular interest in those people? Note at this point that Ptolemy was a real person, just as Flamel was a real person. Another point of interest is that despite having 500 wizard cards, Ron isn't all that great at wizard history, and even makes up answers on one of his history tests. So he could have Flamels card, but may not have seen any significants in it. So he filed it away with most of the other 500 wizards and witches who's names he can't remember. Alchemy- Alchemy is an art/pseudo-science know to muggle man, but in anything which, in the grand scheme of things, would be considered modern times. Nicolas Flamel, in real muggle history, is the only known person to have decode and demonstrated the art of alchemy. Known by anecdotal evindence, but not by empirical evidence. The two basic concept in alchemy are turning base metals into precious metals, and to create the stone that provides imortality for as long as you have the stone and can apply it. Lead into gold, and imortality are certainly feats of magic to any muggle mind. Also, in fairtales and other fictional stories of European sorcerers, sorcerers are usually tied to the art of alchemy. So in fictional history (to my limited knowledge), alchemist are usually wizards. The king's wizard trying to make the king richer by turning lead into gold. Also note, that in fictional history, Merlin was the wizard to King Arthur. So through out fictional history, there has always been some overlap of the magic and muggle worlds. Some knowledge of each world by the other. So it's not unreasonable for magic Dumbledore to work along side muggle Flamel. The confusion around Flamel comes in because this is the real history of the real Flamel applied to fiction. Keep in mind that, although he supposedly succeeded at alchemy, he is none the less dead. Flamel- As I implied before, the fact that Flamel was a real person only clouds the issue. But Ptolemy was also a real person, and he is included as a wizard. What did Ptolemy ever do that was so great that we accept him as a wizard without question? Nothing as far as I know. Why didn't Flamel help the cause? When you've lived +600 years, war probably becomes very tedious. To a man 600 years old and 600 years wise, war is the folly of man. Do we really know that Flamel didn't help? I don't think so. Maybe he was a stratigist. With +600 years of knowledge, having seen hundreds of wars, and having seen hundreds of psychotic megalomaniacs, knowledge may have been his greatest weapon. On the other hand, right now a guerilla war of sorts is going on. It's the war of Harry Potter against Voldemort and the Death Eaters. Where the hell is everybody else? The point being, who is helping Harry? They know Voldemort is obsessed with Harry, so where is the army of powerful wizards guarding Harry; if for no other reason than to use him as bait to capture Voldemort? In any war, even the World Wars, the bulk of the world sits comfortably at home while children fight their battles for them. Now the bulk of the wizard world is sitting back and letting three children fight their battles for them. So is it really such a stretch for a 650 year old man to sit this one out? Is Flamel dead? As of the current writing of the books, I say he is not. He is 'getting his affairs in order". How long does it take you to get 600 years of affairs in order? Proportionally, 50 years to a 650 year old man is like 5 years to a normal person. Conclusion: Flamel could easily take 10 or 20 years to get his affairs in order. CONCLUSION: ? NONE With the very limited references to Flamel, there is simply no way to reach a conclusion. Opinions, yes; but I can't see any evidence however subtle to confirm either position. "Bboy_mn" From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Fri Jul 5 01:29:35 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 01:29:35 -0000 Subject: Clothes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40793 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "shadowgirl_900" wrote: > Hello! New Chick Alert. :) > Anywho, saw this and had to comment. > > > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., autryld at e... wrote: > > In movie, Mrs. Weasley dressed in muggle clothes to > > drop of her boys at the station. (In the book we > > aren't told what she wore.) > > No, it doesn't say what she was wearing, but at the end > of book three, Uncle Vernon is standing at the station, > waiting for Harry and the book says: "Harry spotted > Uncle Vernon at once. He was standing a good > distance from Mr. and Mrs. Weasley, eyeing them > suspiciously..." > > Now, at the begining of book one, we saw how he reacted > to the wizards who were wearing robes and hats in public. > If the Weasleys were wearing wizard clothes, wouldn't > Vernon have known they were wizards, not just suspected > it? > > I'm thinking he suspected it because of the fact they, > like him, were waiting for people at a place in the > station where no trains came to. (Platform 9 3/4.) > He had no proof they were even connected to the > wizarding world until they hugged Harry. > > This would seem to hint that they looked normal. I would > think that most wizards who are in public do. The whole > thing right after Voldemort was a fluke I think, just like > the storm of owls out in the day. And all the other wizards > we see are in the wizarding world, be that Hogwarts, Hogsmead, > or Diagon alley. > > Just my two cents. :) > > Laura Logically, there are very modern knowledgeable wizard families and very traditional isolated families. You'll notice at the Quidditch Tournement, the most freaky dressed wizards were older wizards. They see the muggle world with a distorted logic, so they see muggle clothes from an equally twisted logic. To the old man in the nightdress, what he was doing made perfect wizard logic sense to him. In fact, an older man like that probably sleeps in a nightshirt similar to the type worn by most men in the late 1800's and early 1900's. So a pretty nightdress made sense to him; just a fancy colorfull nightshirt. Other wizards dressed in 'plus-fours' (knee high puffy golf pants) wouldn't be too out of place on a very stuffy upper class muggle golf course but illogical for muggle camping. Still to wizards who typically have unusual taste in clothing, they probably looked pretty sharp. Upon hearing of another wizard in kilts and a poncho, Mr. Weasley questioned whether this was wrong? Logically, a poncho is close to a robe and has it's definite advantages, and kilts are the traditional dress of Scotish men, so the combination makes perfect sense to an outsider. The Weasley family in on the edge, the parents still very strongly affected by their isolated upbringing, but very open to muggle possibilities, and even making an effort to act and dress somewhat muggle. That could explain why the Weasley boys wore pajamas. The Weasley kids on the other hand are completely muggle knowledgable and comfortable (clothing wise; in general, they are still somewhat isolated). From a greater exposure to muggles and muggle kids, common muggle dress (t-shirt and jeans) is second nature to them. Of course, being that knowledgable, means they would never let Mr. Weasley out of the house dressed in a poncho and kilts. So through their kids, the Weasley parent could probably pass relatively easy for muggles as long as they didn't say anything like, "Oh look Molly, it's one of those fellytones." I could see a lot of younger magic teens going on adventures in muggle London dress passably, but not quite getting it right. Their dress would seem slightly odd to the average London teen, but not so unusual that it would be of any consequence. BBoy_MN From alisonb2210 at yahoo.com.au Fri Jul 5 02:34:54 2002 From: alisonb2210 at yahoo.com.au (alisonb2210) Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 02:34:54 -0000 Subject: Connections In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40794 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "tmarends" wrote: > Sophia wrote: > > > > Live long and pr....NO, NO, I mean, > >>>> May the fo...<<<< > >nope...Ah! How about: Draco > > dormiens numnquam titillandus. > > > > This statement caught my attention. Has anyone else noticed some of > the similarities between Star Wars and Harry Potter? How the infant > (Luke/Harry) who can bring the downfall of the Dark Lord > (Palpatine/Voldemort) is hidden for years until the time is ripe for > them to learn about their powers (the Force/Magic). Yes, and also: Han Solo= Ron (means well, can be a bit goofy at times) Princess Leia= Hermione (the smart, serious one) (these two very possibly will end up together, a la Han and Leia) Obi-wan Kenobi or Yoda= Dumbledore. (The wise mentor) Harry and Luke never know their real parents and were brought up in a safe place, with an aunt and uncle, hidden from the evil force that was the downfall of ma and pa. But i don't think Herminoe and Luke are twins! :P Ali From Pam at barkingdog.demon.co.uk Fri Jul 5 07:27:19 2002 From: Pam at barkingdog.demon.co.uk (pamscotland) Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 07:27:19 -0000 Subject: Clothes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40795 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bboy_mn" wrote: > > I could see a lot of younger magic teens going on adventures in muggle > London dress passably, but not quite getting it right. Their dress > would seem slightly odd to the average London teen, but not so unusual > that it would be of any consequence. I have absolutely no idea what constitutes the 'average London teen'. London, like most other western cities - and a fair few eastern ones too I would imagine - is one place where whatever you were wearing would pass without much of a second glance. On Saturdays throughout the year in main shopping streets of Glasgow (the city closest to where I live) there is street theatre of some sort going on - mostly buskers but dancers, jugglers, artists etc. Anyone wearing unconventional clothing is just assumed to be someone who likes to wear unconventional clothing. On the other hand, if wizard teens wished to join in any of the social rituals and ceremonies then they would need to be dressed in the appropriate 'uniform' or it would be commented upon. (Going out clubbing, attending football matches etc.) Pam S From buffyeton at yahoo.com Fri Jul 5 09:17:15 2002 From: buffyeton at yahoo.com (EtonBuffy) Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 09:17:15 -0000 Subject: What house was Peter Pettigrew in?/Neville Longbottom In-Reply-To: <9d1e989d28ae.9d28ae9d1e98@bigpond.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40796 I personally think PP (hee hee pee pee) was in Gryf. just for the fact that children do not seem to mix socially outside their houses. If he were in Slyth. he would have hero-worshiped some boys in there, not Potter and Black. Does anyone else think that Neville may pull at Petigrew later? In PoA in Harry's dream after he learned what happened to PP he saw him as someone who looked a lot like Neville. Was that a bit of a look into the future? Tamara --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Leanne Daharja Veitch wrote: > Hi all, > > (sorry if this topic has been previously discussed, but I looked in the > archive and couldn't find it). > > What house do people think Peter Pettigrew (Wormtail) was in? > > It makes sense that he was in Gryffindor with the rest of MWPP, but if > so Ron's statement in PS/SS that "there's never been a wizard who went > bad who wasn't in Slytherin" (or something along those lines) is incorrect. > > If PP was in Gryffindor, then it's clearly possible to trick the sorting > hat so it sorts incorrectly (or maybe the sorting hat has other motives > besides student welfare?). > > If PP *was* in Slytherin, shouldn't MPP have known better, and the > Potters known better than to trust him as their secret-keeper? Heck, HRH > certainly wouldn't trust a Slytherin with their lives! > > Thoughts? Comments? > -- > Leanne Daharja Veitch > -- From Ali at zymurgy.org Fri Jul 5 09:45:42 2002 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison) Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 09:45:42 -0000 Subject: Redeemable! Dursleys? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40797 All the recent discussions about "Goodies" really being evil has made me wonder whether the converse can be true. Can a baddy become (or actually "be" ) good? The Dursleys are probably my most hated characters and imo are really little more than charactures. Yet they have a vital role in the Potterverse ? both serving to show the strict contrast in Harry's pre- and Hogwart years: hated and venerated, and also being comic figures for Harry to thwart. JKR has said that we will see them in a different light in future books (sorry I can't find the quote and I have tried), and also that someone will find magic late in life. Obviously, a Dursley is a strong candidate for this. I am therefore wondering if the Dursleys can be redeemed. In the context of the Potterverse, imo this means can Harry and the Dursleys be reconciled? The Dursleys are shown to be bigoted and small-minded and would undoubtedly be guilty of child-neglect/ cruelty in real life. Yet, they do take Harry in, and have inadvertently contributed to him becoming the hero he undoubtedly is. Whilst the Dursleys reasoning for taking Harry is still a moot point, the protection they offer is important. GoF really shows how Harry has grown away from the Dursleys. He has been able to shut his emotions from them. Imo, for them to continue to have a function in the rest of the series, they must change. Their characterisation has rested chiefly on their cruelty, lack of love for Harry and over indulgence of Dudley. If they are to be transformed they need a life-changing event. In the case of the Dursleys, one of them discovering hitherto untapped magical powers would do it. I think that perhaps the funniest event would be for Dudley to find out he is a wizard, but I suspect that it will be Aunt Petunia (of course it could be Filch, Aunt Marge or even Uncle Vernon ). Once endowed with magical powers how would the Dursleys be? At this stage I would have to agree with the posters who think that the Dursleys must be doomed. After all, if Harry can't be touched when he's in their "care", surely an answer for Voldemort would be to kill them. This seems too easy though. I do wonder exactly WHAT Dumbledore told them, what they actually know. Petunia appears to have felt no grief at her sister's death. At that moment would she have cared if her nephew, a boy she despised on principle, was at risk? So why did the Dursleys take Harry in? Scenario A:- It would look good to take in their orphaned nephew. The Dursleys are certainly keen on appearances ? in the zoo they allow Harry to have a looly, albeit a cheap one, rather than have the ice cream lady think them mean. - After the snake incident, Uncle Vernon waits until Piers has gone home before turning on Harry. and yet, the clothes they force Harry to wear, and their seeming reluctance to repair his glasses make him a laughing stock, which surely can only reflect badly on them. BUT how would anyone in their circles have known about Harry if they had refused to take him in? BUT they seem to lack any basic humanity, when raising Harry. The idea that Harry's first memory of being hugged as "though by a mother" is just short of his fifteenth birthday speaks volumes about Aunt Petunia, and it's not favourable. Personally, as a mother, I cannot understand another mother failing to offer any kind of comfort to a small child, whoever it is. Surely, if the decision was between "looking good" and hatred/fear [of all things wizarding and therefore by implication, Harry], hatred was the stronger and should have won. Scenario B:- Their future is somehow entwined with Harry's This could either be by way of cash ? which they have come to rely on to spoil Dudley, or that Dumbledore has made them understand that thy are in some way at risk, but this risk is diminished if they keep Harry. In other words, they might need him as a safety measure as much as he needs them. This could explain why they are so keen to squash magic out of Harry and prevent him going/returning to Hogwarts once he knows about his wizardry. Perhaps they feel that if he does not take up his place in the WW he will not be endangered and neither will they. If Scenario B is plausible, then how will they ? and Harry be effected if say, Aunt Petunia suddenly becomes aware of her latent magical abilities. It has been suggested the Dursleys treatment of Harry will provide some much need cathartic effect. Perhaps the Dursleys will finally realise that Harry needs to be treated with care and love, but if they continue as they always have, it's more than possible that Harry will snap. Perhaps if this happens and he uses magic against Dudley (as JKR has hinted) this will provoke [Aunt Petunia's] latent magic to surface. The alternative incident that might force out latent magic would be if the Dursley family came under attack. Once again, I can only think that it would be an attack on a Dursley rather than Harry that would provoke Aunt Petunia, and I can't think what latent magic she would have that would be sufficient to ward off a murderous attack. If you agree with me that the "life-changing event" will be Petunia discovering magic, could the Dursleys be reconciled with Harry if it was his attack that provoked the magic to surface? On the face of it the answer would be no. But, if she really had no idea that she had any magical ability than Imo the psychological impact could be profound. Would the psychological shock be enough to change the way Petunia views her dead sister and her abused nephew? If it is, will it be enough to win over Uncle Vernon ? or will it cause a marital split? If the Dursleys were able to offer genuine love then imo Harry would be able to forgive them. He is the hero after all. As much as his aunt and uncle have sadistically tried to make Harry's life miserable, he has been able to move on. Ali saying hi! to all the over Alis, Alleys and Alisons now posting! From pat_mahony at hotmail.com Fri Jul 5 06:50:26 2002 From: pat_mahony at hotmail.com (Patrick Mahony) Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 06:50:26 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] What house was Peter Pettigrew in? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40798 In regards to Ron's comment about Slytherin and Dark wizards, there are two important points to consider: *No one knew that Pettigrew was a Death Eater at the time *With Dark wizards, even good characters tend to discriminate and generalise. It is likely that the majority of the Dark Wizards came from Slytherin, but remember that being a Slytherin does not mean that you will turn out evil. I imagine that Peter would have been in Gryffindor with the others; otherwise it would have been very difficult for them to become friends. JK Rowling is setting up a wonderful parallel between James' gang and that of Harry's. However, where the original group failed (Peter turning dark), I think we'll see the opposite occur (eg Neville doing something courageous) Roo _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com From drednort at alphalink.com.au Fri Jul 5 06:52:51 2002 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 16:52:51 +1000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] What house was Peter Pettigrew in? In-Reply-To: <9d1e989d28ae.9d28ae9d1e98@bigpond.com> Message-ID: <3D25CEE3.16005.112290@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 40799 On 5 Jul 2002 at 13:10, Leanne Daharja Veitch wrote: > If PP *was* in Slytherin, shouldn't MPP have known better, and the > Potters known better than to trust him as their secret-keeper? Heck, HRH > certainly wouldn't trust a Slytherin with their lives! > > Thoughts? Comments? It seems to me that PP might very easily have been in Slytherin. The description of his character that we have from Sirius in PA ("But you, Peter - I'll never understand why I didn't see you were the spy from the start. You always liked big friends who'd look after you, didn't you? It used to be us... me and Remus... and James...") seems to me smack of Slytherin - a person making friends who'd be to his benefit? Definitely seems Slytherin like to me. Should the others have known better? Maybe. But I wonder if the timing comes into it. This is all meant to have been around the early 1970s right. Consider the Muggle world at that time - when as part of the Civil Rights, movement, etc, a lot of meaningless prejudices were more than ever before being exposed as wrong in the eyes of the average person. How much impact this had on the Wizarding World, I don't know - but in the case of these boys, you have a group who have already challenged one of the prejudices of their world (that against werewolves) and found that they weren't as bad as they were painted. They may well have been willing to give someone else more of a chance - to not let preconceived ideas of what Slytherin's were like colour their decisions. People who in two cases given a werewolf a chance - and who had in one case had to deal with that prejudice themselves - I can certainly see them giving a Slytherin a chance. Yes, HRH wouldn't do so - but Ron has grown up in a world recovering from a very dark period, and so would be far less likely to trust. Harry's opinion of Slytherin comes from what Ron told him - and what he has seen, primarily in Draco - it's a limited perspective based on his experiences. Hermione's is the same to an extent. If MWP had a different experience, that could make a real difference as to who they trusted. And for all we know, PP may have been a true friend during his time at Hogwarts. He gave into Voldemort because he was weak and scared. When that fear didn't exist, he may well have seemed loyal and decent. They had no reason to question his loyalty and friendship - because it had not been tested. When it was, unfortunately, he was found wanting. Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought Shaun Hately |webpage: http://www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html (ISTJ) |email: drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 "You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil | Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia From Ellen_Fremedon at hotmail.com Fri Jul 5 07:32:16 2002 From: Ellen_Fremedon at hotmail.com (Ellen Fremedon) Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 03:32:16 -0400 Subject: Religion, Wizard genesis, Mars is bright Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40800 Hi-- delurking here. This caught my attention: --- In HPforGrownups at y..., dfrankiswork at n... wrote, in the discussion of Wizarding Genetics: >...the Hogwarts Quill, IIRC, goes into action at birth, not conception. >...neither wizards nor Muggles have any way of influencing >whether their offspring are magical. (It has occurred to me that the >reason Squibs are rare might be infanticide: what do you suppose the >Malfoys would do if they had a Squib baby? The Fudges?) ...and I got to thinking-- The Hogwarts Quill knows whether a child is magical at birth, but it doesn't seem that the child's own family knows until they begin (or don't begin) manifesting some magic. Remember that Neville's family worried that Neville was a Squib, tried (successfully) to shock him into showing his magic, and were relieved when he got his Hogwarts letter. Which I find kind of surprising. I can see that Hogwarts, for whatever reason, might have a policy of not revealing who's in the book until the letters go out, but you would think that whatever magical-child- detecting charm has been performed on the Hogwarts Quill could be duplicated by someone else-- that, say, the Longbottoms, purebloods all, could have had some more reliable way of finding out whether Neville was really a wizard than dangling him out the window by his ankles. Just my two knuts. Ellen ____________________________________________________________ thaet mon eathe tosliteth thaette naefre gesomnad waes --"Wulf and Eadwacer" Ellen's stories live here: http://www.geocities.com/ellen_fremedon _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com From shadowgirl_900 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 5 10:07:29 2002 From: shadowgirl_900 at yahoo.com (shadowgirl_900) Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 10:07:29 -0000 Subject: What house was Peter Pettigrew in?/Neville Longbottom In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40801 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "EtonBuffy" wrote: > I personally think PP (hee hee pee pee) was in Gryf. just for the > fact that children do not seem to mix socially outside their houses. > If he were in Slyth. he would have hero-worshiped some boys in there, > not Potter and Black. It also would have been harder for all four of them to sneak out and play at night. And for them to have all that time to work with Peter and teach him to change into a rat, they would have had to be in the same house. And the above makes an even better point. Had Peter been in Slytherin, he would have hung about with the likes of Snape and Lucius Malfoy. And his supporting Voldemort wouldn't have been something he had to hide. As well as the fact that he had no way of knowing that Voldemort was someday going to barbeque the Potters, so why would a boy who was being taught that the dark was good and Voldemort was right even *want* to be "brothers" with James and Sirius? > Does anyone else think that Neville may pull at Petigrew later? In > PoA in Harry's dream after he learned what happened to PP he saw him > as someone who looked a lot like Neville. Was that a bit of a look > into the future? You want to know what I think? If Peter gives him half a chance, I think Neville will surprise everyone and turn Peter into toast. Neville lost his parents to Voldemort and Peter supported and helped the dark lord. And Neville, in spite of his seemingly overwhelmed personality has shown he's got some fire hidden in there. (He tried to stop Harry, Ron, and Hermione from going out in book one.) But in my, admittedly uninformed opinion, I don't think it will come up again and I also think if Harry dreamed it again, the boy would in no way look like Neville. > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Leanne Daharja Veitch wrote: > > It makes sense that he was in Gryffindor with the rest of MWPP, but > if > > so Ron's statement in PS/SS that "there's never been a wizard who > went > > bad who wasn't in Slytherin" (or something along those lines) is > incorrect. Keep in mind that no one, not even Dumbledore, knew that Peter *did* go bad. Everyone thought he was the good little guy who died avenging his friends. Heck, he even got the order of Merlin for that act of bravery. :::furrows her brow::: Come to think of it though, that was a very inacurrate statement anyway. Everyone thought Sirius was evil and he wasn't Slytherin. One is guessing though that he was the exception, not the rule. > > If PP was in Gryffindor, then it's clearly possible to trick the > sorting > > hat so it sorts incorrectly (or maybe the sorting hat has other > motives > > besides student welfare?). I will bet Peter was quite a challenge for the hat. To be in Hufflepuff, he would have to be just and true and willing to work. (I'm getting that from the book.) Peter was none of those. For Ravenclaw, he would have to be wise, smart, and be good at learning. Again, doesn't fit Peter. To be in Slytherin, he wouldn't have to be evil, just ungodly talented and very ambitous. (Let's not think that Slytherin is teaching a course on How To Get Into The Dark Arts. It's still a part of Hogwarts. It is just the house where the really ambitious go and when you have the drive to suceed at any cost, you open the window to the dark side of things.) Peter had no talent and no ambition. So, Slytherin is out. For Gryffindor, he'd have to be brave and caring. Well, while it doesn't fit him, it fits him better than any other. I think that hat put him there by process of elimination. Of course, if he had actually taken on the traits of the house he was in, he'd have never gone over to Voldemort. But I don't think the hat made a mistake. I don't think Peter was evil while he was at Hogwarts. (This of course if just conjecture on my part. We know nothing about him when he was there, but I can't see the other marauders being fooled by someone who was evil incarnate.) I think that when he was there, he wasn't the perfect Gryffindor as he was weak, but he hadn't hooked up with Voldemort yet. He was talentless, but he didn't turn to Voldemort until he got out of school. I think that somewhere after graduation he realized that James, Remus, and Sirius could never make him as good as they were, even if they did love him. He knew his talent was almost non exsistant and the only way he could be to their level was to sell his soul to the only person who could give him power. And for some reason, he found himself willing to do so. In my opinion, he wasn't evil then, just stupid. {{{{{{{{{{{Hugs}}}}}}}}} Laura From Edblanning at aol.com Fri Jul 5 11:29:21 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 07:29:21 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Religion (names and snakes)/ diversity/connections Message-ID: <17b.ab8a9ce.2a56dd11@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40802 Christi > A couple other things which point towards a Christian influence: > > ~Some of the characters names--I can think of James and Peter right > off the top of my head--are Biblical in origin (or at least, have > I honestly think this is merely cultural. Particularly in England (which doesn't have the same corpus of regional names as other parts of the UK), Biblical or Christian-associated names are very common. In fact James for long headed the annual list of most commonly registered boys' names. We have noticed before that the younger generation of wizards tend to have what we would think of as 'ordinary' names, whereas may older wizards do not, but tend towards the classical, mythological, or just plain strange. This doesn't work completely, of course, as we have Molly and Arthur of the older generation and Sirius and Severus as contemporaries of James and Peter. But perhaps they were of a transitional generation. The present Hogwarts students mostly have pretty Muggle-sonding names. > ~The wizard attitude towards snakes and Parselmouths. The notion of > serpents as evil is primarily a Judeo-Christian concept (think the > Garden of Eden); several Eastern and pre-Christian beliefs look on > the snake as a symbol of wisdom and rebirth. > > More specifically, I suspect this is primarily a Christian association, which arose as a result of connecting the serpent of the garden of Eden with Satan (capital letter, no article!Satan, that is). As has been pointed out before, this concept of Satan is not found in Judaism. In fact, given that Jesus compares Moses lifting of the serpent in the widerness to his own crucifixion (John, 3, 14), he himself doesn't seem to have had any problems with its image. The incident Jesus refers to is in Numbers 21, where God instructs Moses to make a bronze image of a poisonous serpent and set it on a pole, so that those who had been bitten by snakes could look at it and be cured by something that sounds like a form of sympathetic magic. This relationship between snakes and healing was found elswhere in the ancient world: in an example of strikingly similar imagery, the symbol of Aesculapius, the Roman god of healing, is a staff around which a snake is coiled. In the modern world, the caduceus, (actually the winged staff of Hermes, nothing originally to do with healing), around which two serpents are coiled is commonly a symbol of the medical profession. In Ancient Egypt, snakes had both positive and negative connotations. The giant snake demon, Apophis, was the counterpart to the sun god and thus symbolic of dark powers. (In the Book of the Dead he is portrayed as being vanquished by a cat.) OTOH, the Pharaohs wore the sacred Ureaus cobra on their foreheads (think of Tutankhamen) as a powerful symbol to protect them from their enemies. Snakes also symbolised eternal life. > I agree with the idea that this doesn't necessarily indicate that the > wizards are Christian (although they could be), merely that they, > like the rest of European culture, have been strongly influenced by > that philosophy. Or at least by its imagery. ...................... A thought on diversity which just hit me. Crouch Jr. describes Winky as using 'her own brand of magic', which implies that there is a difference between house-elf magic and wizard magic. This would seem to be confirmed by the way in which Dobby appears to disapparate on the stairs of Hogwarts after Harry sets him free, when we know that this is impossible for wizards. So are there actually *different* types of magic in the Potterverse? ...................... Ali (alisonb2210, that is. This is getting confusing!) wrote: > In HPforGrownups at y..., "tmarends" wrote: > > Sophia wrote: > > > > > > Live long and pr....NO, NO, I mean, > > >>>> May the fo...<<<< > > >nope...Ah! How about: Draco > > > dormiens numnquam titillandus. > > > > > > > This statement caught my attention. Has anyone else noticed some > of > > the similarities between Star Wars and Harry Potter? How the > infant > > (Luke/Harry) who can bring the downfall of the Dark Lord > > (Palpatine/Voldemort) is hidden for years until the time is ripe > for > > them to learn about their powers (the Force/Magic). > > > Yes, and also: > > Han Solo= Ron (means well, can be a bit goofy at times) > Princess Leia= Hermione (the smart, serious one) > > (these two very possibly will end up together, a la Han and Leia) > > Obi-wan Kenobi or Yoda= Dumbledore. (The wise mentor) > > Harry and Luke never know their real parents and were brought up in a > safe place, with an aunt and uncle, hidden from the evil force that > was the downfall of ma and pa. > > But aren't HP and Star Wars both modern myths which simply draw on the same mythic archetypes? There may well be parallels between the two, but I wouldn't go as far as to say that they are *connections* and I would certainly not suggest that the one is in any way derivative of the other. The saviour who waits to learn of and/or develop his powers until the time is ripe is not an uncommon theme. Eloise who will confess that in Episode 2, Yoda's duelling did make her remember little Prof. Flitwick's history as a duelling champion, although suspecting wizard duelling is more static! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mrflynn6 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 5 13:01:18 2002 From: mrflynn6 at yahoo.com (mrflynn6) Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 13:01:18 -0000 Subject: Tom Riddle/Avada Kedavra---also another Arther Weasley question Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40803 The current timeline suggests that Tom Riddle (Voldermort) kills his family in about 1946, a year after he graduates from Hogwarts. In GOF, Moody tells the students in Harry's class, while showing them the unforgivable curses, that it takes powerful dark magic to perform AK. Was Riddle/Voldermort powerful enough, at such a "young" age to perform such a curse on his family? Was he practicing this at Hogwarts? Where did he learn this? Arther Weasley question: In re-reading GoF, a line hit me that I did not notice before. On Page 203 of the US hardcover version, Malfoy is reading Harry and Ron an article from the Daily Prophet about Arthur Weasley at Moody's and the dustbins. Malfoy was commenting on how they got Arthur's name wrong in the article saying "imagine them not even getting his name right, Weasley. It's almost as thought he's a complete nonentity, isn't it?" Is he a nonentity? It was suggested he was an unmentionable-maybe he is, but uses another name for the sake of his family. Maybe he changed his name for other reasons? Could this be a "clue" into Arthur's past? Gretchen From mrflynn6 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 5 13:14:40 2002 From: mrflynn6 at yahoo.com (mrflynn6) Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 13:14:40 -0000 Subject: What house was Peter Pettigrew in? In-Reply-To: <9d1e989d28ae.9d28ae9d1e98@bigpond.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40804 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Leanne Daharja Veitch wrote: > Hi all, > > > What house do people think Peter Pettigrew (Wormtail) was in? > > It makes sense that he was in Gryffindor with the rest of MWPP, but if > so Ron's statement in PS/SS that "there's never been a wizard who went > bad who wasn't in Slytherin" (or something along those lines) is incorrect. > > > -- > Leanne Daharja Veitch We don't know that the Maurders were in Gryffindor. They could have been in Slytherin. I wonder if the association of Slytherin and bad wizzards in a more recent thing, espcially since Voldermort's rise. Perhaps when James et al were there, Slytherin was just a house for ambitious wizards like the sorting hat states in GOF. It is also possible that they were not all in the same house. We don't see HRH associating socially with many outside of their house, but they do some. Percy is dating Penelope from Ravenclaw. Harry has eyes on Cho, also from Ravenclaw. Perhaps Pettigrew is from Hufflepuff, being that he isn't very brave, ambitious or a very good student, and the Maurders felt sorry for him. > -- From bard7696 at aol.com Fri Jul 5 13:42:24 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 13:42:24 -0000 Subject: What house was Peter Pettigrew in? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40805 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "mrflynn6" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Leanne Daharja Veitch wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > > > What house do people think Peter Pettigrew (Wormtail) was in? > > > > It makes sense that he was in Gryffindor with the rest of MWPP, but > if > > so Ron's statement in PS/SS that "there's never been a wizard who > went > > bad who wasn't in Slytherin" (or something along those lines) is > incorrect. > > > > > -- > > Leanne Daharja Veitch > > Mr. Flynn wrote: > > We don't know that the Maurders were in Gryffindor. They could have > been in Slytherin. I wonder if the association of Slytherin and bad > wizzards in a more recent thing, espcially since Voldermort's rise. > Perhaps when James et al were there, Slytherin was just a house for > ambitious wizards like the sorting hat states in GOF. It is also > possible that they were not all in the same house. We don't see HRH > associating socially with many outside of their house, but they do > some. Percy is dating Penelope from Ravenclaw. Harry has eyes on > Cho, also from Ravenclaw. Perhaps Pettigrew is from Hufflepuff, > being that he isn't very brave, ambitious or a very good student, and > the Maurders felt sorry for him. > > -- The Lexicon tells us that it is almost a 99 percent certainty, based on an interview with JKR, that James and Lily were Gryffindor. I further submit that the level of social interaction between the Mauraders indicates they belong to the same house. They created a rule-breaking map. They learned to be Animagus together. They spent countless hours together and that does not seem possible if they are in separate houses, especially one with the animosity between Gryffindor and Slytherin. Further, the timeline in the Lexicon says that Voldemort's rise began in the early 1970s. James and Lily were at Hogwarts from 1971-1978. Most, if not all, of their school careers would have taken place at a time of fear and darkness. This would HARDLY be the time to be open and friendly to the Death Eaters residing over in Slytherin. I realize it is fun to look for shades of gray and there is a serious culture of "Slytherins aren't so bad, just misunderstood" out here, but the Death Eaters were mostly descended from a Slytherin gang that ran together at Hogwarts. The war with Voldemort has had some parallels drawn to World War II. It's very simple. The Gryffindor were the resistance fighters and the Slytherin were the sympathizers. Dumbledore was able to turn one of the sympathizers - Snape - to his cause. And as soon as the V-Man disappeared, the smarter sympathizers like Lucius Malfoy began proclaiming "It wasn't my fault. I was tricked," just like some of the sympathizers in France and other occupied nations said after Hitler fell. I don't see future resistance fighters like James and Lily fraternizing too much with the enemy. Darrin -- Sometimes the search for gray is so intense that the black and white right in front of you is lost. From mrflynn6 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 5 14:11:48 2002 From: mrflynn6 at yahoo.com (mrflynn6) Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 14:11:48 -0000 Subject: What house was Peter Pettigrew in? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40806 > > > -- > > > > The Lexicon tells us that it is almost a 99 percent certainty, based > on an interview with JKR, that James and Lily were Gryffindor. > > I further submit that the level of social interaction between the > Mauraders indicates they belong to the same house. They created a > rule-breaking map. They learned to be Animagus together. They spent > countless hours together and that does not seem possible if they are > in separate houses, especially one with the animosity between > Gryffindor and Slytherin. > > Further, the timeline in the Lexicon says that Voldemort's rise began > in the early 1970s. James and Lily were at Hogwarts from 1971-1978. > Most, if not all, of their school careers would have taken place at a > time of fear and darkness. > > This would HARDLY be the time to be open and friendly to the Death > Eaters residing over in Slytherin. > > I realize it is fun to look for shades of gray and there is a serious > culture of "Slytherins aren't so bad, just misunderstood" out here, > but the Death Eaters were mostly descended from a Slytherin gang that > ran together at Hogwarts. > > The war with Voldemort has had some parallels drawn to World War II. > It's very simple. The Gryffindor were the resistance fighters and the > Slytherin were the sympathizers. Dumbledore was able to turn one of > the sympathizers - Snape - to his cause. > > And as soon as the V-Man disappeared, the smarter sympathizers like > Lucius Malfoy began proclaiming "It wasn't my fault. I was tricked," > just like some of the sympathizers in France and other occupied > nations said after Hitler fell. > > I don't see future resistance fighters like James and Lily > fraternizing too much with the enemy. > > Darrin > -- Sometimes the search for gray is so intense that the black and > white right in front of you is lost. I have to beg to differ with you Darrin. Although the Lexicon states that James is in Gryffindor, the interview does not. A reader asked the question "What position did James play on the Gryffindor team" JKR stated simply that he was a chaser. She did not confirm nor deny that he was in Gryffindor. She does state outright that Lily was in Gryffindor. Gretchen From editor at texas.net Fri Jul 5 14:24:24 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 09:24:24 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Neville Longbottom References: Message-ID: <005401c2242f$aada6ee0$ba7763d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 40807 Cathubodva wrote: > However, having checked up on the Neville v Harry history, I think > this scene contrasts with the Devil's Snare, where Harry (the 'Anti- > Neville'?) is able to relax, clearly overcoming his fear. AHA! (I so love doing this) Amanda appears in a clap of thunder, brandishing her purpleheart wand and wearing a XXL T-shirt saying "My Other Personality Is A L.O.O.N. Too." Cathubodva! You, too, have got Movie Poisoning! **points wand, intones "Verbatim Clarificatum!" Cathubodva is overcome and dives for her copy of Book 1 to begin re-reading, her hand already itching to write her lines......** Copies of your written "I will check my references" lines can be delivered by owl to Anal P. Lardbottom at the L.O.O.N. offices. There is no discussion of relaxing whatsoever in the books. This is where Hermione panics when she can't make a fire, and Ron gets to bellow his wonderful "Are you a witch or not?" line. That is a wonderful scene in the books, much superior to the film version, in my not-in-recorded-history-humble opinion, but I don't think Harry's actions in the book offer you the same sort of grounds for comparison; he (like Ron) pretty much is just getting tangled up and urging Hermione to do something. So your comparison is between Book!Neville and Movie!Harry, and probably goeth upon the Movie list. --Amanda, L.O.O.N. of old From bard7696 at aol.com Fri Jul 5 14:40:37 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 14:40:37 -0000 Subject: What house was Peter Pettigrew in? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40808 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "mrflynn6" wrote: > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > The Lexicon tells us that it is almost a 99 percent certainty, > based > > on an interview with JKR, that James and Lily were Gryffindor. > > > > I further submit that the level of social interaction between the > > Mauraders indicates they belong to the same house. They created a > > rule-breaking map. They learned to be Animagus together. They spent > > countless hours together and that does not seem possible if they > are > > in separate houses, especially one with the animosity between > > Gryffindor and Slytherin. > > > > Further, the timeline in the Lexicon says that Voldemort's rise > began > > in the early 1970s. James and Lily were at Hogwarts from 1971- 1978. > > Most, if not all, of their school careers would have taken place at > a > > time of fear and darkness. > > > > This would HARDLY be the time to be open and friendly to the Death > > Eaters residing over in Slytherin. > > > > I realize it is fun to look for shades of gray and there is a > serious > > culture of "Slytherins aren't so bad, just misunderstood" out here, > > but the Death Eaters were mostly descended from a Slytherin gang > that > > ran together at Hogwarts. > > > > The war with Voldemort has had some parallels drawn to World War > II. > > It's very simple. The Gryffindor were the resistance fighters and > the > > Slytherin were the sympathizers. Dumbledore was able to turn one of > > the sympathizers - Snape - to his cause. > > > > And as soon as the V-Man disappeared, the smarter sympathizers like > > Lucius Malfoy began proclaiming "It wasn't my fault. I was > tricked," > > just like some of the sympathizers in France and other occupied > > nations said after Hitler fell. > > > > I don't see future resistance fighters like James and Lily > > fraternizing too much with the enemy. > > > > Darrin > > -- Sometimes the search for gray is so intense that the black and > > white right in front of you is lost. > > Gretchen wrote: > I have to beg to differ with you Darrin. Although the Lexicon states > that James is in Gryffindor, the interview does not. A reader asked > the question "What position did James play on the Gryffindor team" > JKR stated simply that he was a chaser. She did not confirm nor deny > that he was in Gryffindor. She does state outright that Lily was in > Gryffindor. > > Gretchen OK, I consider this hairsplitting. First, the Lexicon states with 99 percent certainty -- that's a quote from it -- that James was in Gryffindor, so I suppose it takes into account the sliver of doubt that could be raised by the interview. Second, I consider a question -- What position did James play on the Gryffindor team? -- to be clear. It would be like asking the question, "What position did Michael Jordan play on the Bulls?" and then saying that simply answering "shooting guard" refuses to confirm that he DID play for the Bulls. Further, we have, in PoA, Lupin and Sirius referring to Snape as "a greasy haired Slytherin" and in GoF as "running with a gang of Slytherin who all became Death-Eaters. If the Marauders were Slytherin, why in the world would they refer to the House as belonging to someone else? It doesn't conclusively prove they weren't Slytherin, but it certainly removes much of the remaining doubts. The Marauders started in 1971, about the same time as Voldemort rose to power. By the time they graduated, a good portion of the Slytherins, INCLUDING SNAPE, were on their way to becoming Death Eaters. We saw what happened when Snape turned against Voldemort - he is essentially a man targeted for death. Wouldn't any Slytherin who stood up against the Death Eaters -- or perhaps even refused to be considered DEs -- also have been put, at the very least, under a cloud of suspicion? So what you are saying is that the Marauders would have been Slytherin, somehow turned against the DEs while still in school, and then graduated safely at a time when the entire nation was in fear of Voldermort? No, I think that is too far-fetched. I concede there could be doubt as to whether all the Marauders were Gryffindor, though I believe they were. But I believe there is loads of evidence indicating that none of them were Slytherin. As for Ron's statement about no bad wizard coming from anywhere but Slytherin, it is either a bit of exaggeration, lack of knowledge -- he didn't know about Sirius Black being bad until PoA -- or just another FLINT. And again, I think the picture might be in broader strokes than people want to admit. The players on the sides of good and evil might be switched around and twisted, but I don't think the books have ever contradicted the overriding notion of clear good and clear evil. Pettigrew chose a side. Maybe he was a tortured little man who battled demons of insecurity, but in the end, he chose a side. Ditto for Voldemort, Snape, and the Malfoys. On the other side, we have the Potters, the HRH combo and Dumbledore. Now, we may get surprises as to who is on what side, and we may get switching of sides, but I don't think this blurring of good and evil that I see here is accurate. Darrin -- Yes, good and evil does exist From ksnidget at aol.com Fri Jul 5 14:14:53 2002 From: ksnidget at aol.com (ksnidget at aol.com) Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 10:14:53 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] also another Arther Weasley quest Message-ID: <248EA1FA.31F77093.007B4FA9@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40809 Gretchen wrote about the Moody article in the Daily Prophet and asked: >Is he a nonentity? It was suggested he was an >unmentionable-maybe he is, but uses another name for the sake of his >family. Maybe he changed his name for other reasons? Could this be >a "clue" into Arthur's past? But the Daily Prophet on other occasions has been shown to be somewhat...um...lax in good jounalistic practices. IIRC when the reported on the 4 champions they may have misspelled a name and I think they forgot to list Cedric at all. At any rate this wasn't the only time some detail of what was going on was obviously not quite accurate. My take is that while it is a popular newspaper it certainly has more of a tabloid feel to it than a major well-respected newspaper feel to it. I don't know if you can base too much on what they mis-spell mis-quote or sensationalize. Ksnidget From msiscusack at yahoo.com Fri Jul 5 13:50:28 2002 From: msiscusack at yahoo.com (Kristin Cusack) Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 06:50:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What house was Peter Pettigrew in? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020705135028.3458.qmail@web13108.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40810 I heard that the if the Mauraders were all in the same house, it must have been Slytherin. Because... Hagrid tells Harry that "there wasn't a wizard that went bad who wan't in Slytherin." And at this time, Siriius Black had not yet been proven innocent. We know tha Hagrid knew about Sirius' alleged crimes and that he was most certainly considered a bad wizard in his eyes, so for him to make this statement he must have known Sirius to be in Slytherin. Regards, Kristin From craigf4656 at hotmail.com Fri Jul 5 13:44:22 2002 From: craigf4656 at hotmail.com (Craig Frizzell) Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 08:44:22 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Connections (HP and Star Wars) References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40811 tmarends wrote, > Anyone else notice the parallels between Harry Potter and Star Wars? I first thought this after Harry et. al. get caught in the devil's snare while going after the Sorceror's Stone. (Think the trash compactor scene from Star Wars Ep. 4) (The movie version actually illustrates this one more). And I'm sure it's been said, but GoF is definitely the Empire Strikes Back. Actually, when describing the cultural phenomena that is HP I often refer to Star Wars. Besides all that, just wanted to introduce myself - I just discovered this list existed yesterday while searching for articles about HP and the adults who read him. I'm 21 and about to start graduate school to study Political Science. I held off for a year after a friend of mine started pestering to read HP. Then I got dragged to the discount theater to see the movie; after that I read all 4 books and saw the movie twice in the span of a week. (see, movies can be good; they turned *me* onto the books at least). Now I pester all my other friends to read it (one friend left my apartment last night with the first two, and and my grandmother just got #1 as a birthday present). Anyway, Hi! Craig From msiscusack at yahoo.com Fri Jul 5 15:10:02 2002 From: msiscusack at yahoo.com (Kristin Cusack) Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 08:10:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What house was Peter Pettigrew in? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020705151002.77909.qmail@web13102.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40812 I think I made a mistake in my last post in that it was Ron and not Hagrid woh made the comment about bad wizards and Slytherin. While I do realize that the arguments for James et al being in Gryffindor are very strong the comment raises questions. Everyone "knew" that Sirius Black had gone just about as bad as possible, including Ron. So why would he make that comment unless he had been a Slytherin? Cheers, Kristin From heidit at netbox.com Fri Jul 5 15:31:16 2002 From: heidit at netbox.com (heidit at netbox.com) Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 11:31:16 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Tom Riddle/Avada Kedavra---also another Arther Weasley question In-Reply-To: 2d Message-ID: <16600080.1043448161@imcingular.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40813 Gretchen asked: ***"imagine them not even getting his name right, Weasley. It's almost as thought he's a complete nonentity, isn't it?" Is he a nonentity? It was suggested he was an unmentionable-maybe he is, but uses another name for the sake of his family. Maybe he changed his name for other reasons? Could this be a "clue" into Arthur's past?*** How would being a nonentity be a clue into his past? A nonentity isn't a wizarding term- it's an English-language word and it means someone who has little consequence or significance. I think you may be mixing this common noun with the proper noun Unspeakable, which jkr has coined for the books. Heidi Tandy Follow me to FictionAlley - Harry Potter fanfics of all shapes, sizes and ships - 7 sickles an ounce http://www.FictionAlley.org From divaclv at aol.com Fri Jul 5 16:05:48 2002 From: divaclv at aol.com (c_voth312) Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 16:05:48 -0000 Subject: Religion--couple more thoughts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40814 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "coriolan_cmc2001" wrote: > So the Judeo-Christian Bible recognizes the snake as having > shrewdness, as an instrument of justice, and a vehicle of divine > retribution, in addition to some of the scuzzier accusations it also > conveys. Perhaps the Bible recognizes this, but does its adherents? The fact remains that the single most dominant reptile image in the Bible is the Serpent in the Garden of Eden. There's also dragons, which are basically big snakes, and in Western legend are generally thought of as big bad nasties for the slaying. So generally, in European archetype, snakes=evil. There are exceptions, of course--in Greek myth (where again, snakes are primarily seen as monsters, or some component thereof), there's a physician who gains his wisdom when a family of snakes clean out his ears, enabling him to understand the speech of animals. But on the whole, Medusa and company get more publicity. ~Christi From nplyon at yahoo.com Fri Jul 5 15:52:22 2002 From: nplyon at yahoo.com (nplyon) Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 15:52:22 -0000 Subject: Redeemable! Dursleys? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40815 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "alhewison" wrote: > > JKR has said that we will see them in a different light in future > books (sorry I can't find the quote and I have tried), and also > that someone will find magic late in life. Obviously, a Dursley is > a strong candidate for this. > I have often wondered about the Dursleys. I think Harry's life with them provides a good foil for his life at Hogwarts but it does seem strange to me that JKR, whose characters are so fully drawn, should have inserted three seemingly disposable characters. After rereading the books, I have started to wonder if the Dursleys have some significance that has not yet been revealed. I was not aware that JKR said as much in an interview but I am kind of relieved by that. I really feel like there has to be more to the Dursleys than the shallow bits we've seen so far. In fact, I have begun to entertain the thought that their conduct is *deliberate* and that they are actually in on everything and are treating Harry the way they are for a particular reason. Otherwise, why would they keep him? My personal feeling is that they know about what's going on with Harry and are active participants. Ah, I finally have a crazy theory of my own :) . [snip] > If Scenario B is plausible, then how will they ? and Harry be > effected if say, Aunt Petunia suddenly becomes aware of her latent > magical abilities. > I really think that it's Petunia that has the latent abilities. It seems to me that her condemnation of all things magic smacks of her jealousy with regards to her sister, which I think was perfectly played in the film-that-must-not-be-named (and we all know that JKR met with the director and actors and gave them information about what would happen with some of the characters in yet unwritten novels). Sometimes we hate people just because they're different and human beings have the habit of fearing things that are different. And sometimes we hate someone because we are jealous of them. We look at them and they have some trait, some attribute that we desire and feel is lacking in ourselves and we hate them for having it when we don't. Hey, if my brother got a letter from Hogwarts, I would probably grow to dislike him because I'd be jealous that he got to go off and be a part of this fantastic magical world and I didn't. Isn't it possible that Petunia feels the same way? Doesn't it stand to reason that she wanted to be seen as special and important and that Lily's abilities overshadowed those of Petunia? What do we really know about Petunia? We know she doesn't work, that she overindulges her son, and that she likes to spy on her neighbors. Do we know anything about any of her particular talents? Perhaps she felt that her parents didn't notice either because they were too busy fawning over Lily. This may also explain why she treats Dudley the way she does. If she felt neglected as a child, it would stand to reason that she would vow that no child of hers will ever feel that way. She has simply carried it to extremes. I remember my high school days. You just knew which kids had parents who'd felt that their parents were too strict and who vowed that they'd be "cool" with their kids. They were always the kids who got away with the most, just like Dudley. ~Nicole, who cannot help but feel jealous of her brother because he graduated from college with a 3.8 overall GPA, the little brat. :) From hsowaw2001 at yahoo.co.uk Fri Jul 5 16:54:24 2002 From: hsowaw2001 at yahoo.co.uk (hsowaw2001) Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 16:54:24 -0000 Subject: Connections In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40816 Sophia wrote: > > > > > > Live long and pr....NO, NO, I mean, > > >>>> May the fo...<<<< > > >nope...Ah! How about: Draco > > > dormiens numnquam titillandus. > > > tmarends wrote: > > This statement caught my attention. Has anyone else noticed some > of > > the similarities between Star Wars and Harry Potter? How the > infant > > (Luke/Harry) who can bring the downfall of the Dark Lord > > (Palpatine/Voldemort) is hidden for years until the time is ripe > for > > them to learn about their powers (the Force/Magic). > Ali wrote: > Yes, and also: > > Han Solo= Ron (means well, can be a bit goofy at times) > Princess Leia= Hermione (the smart, serious one) > > (these two very possibly will end up together, a la Han and Leia) > > Obi-wan Kenobi or Yoda= Dumbledore. (The wise mentor) > > Harry and Luke never know their real parents and were brought up in a > safe place, with an aunt and uncle, hidden from the evil force that > was the downfall of ma and pa. > > But i don't think Herminoe and Luke are twins! :P > > Ali This thread was BOUND to catch ~my~ eye. The only thing I'm addicted to more than Harry Potter, is most definately, Star Wars! I think the Star Wars story is full of very universal ideas, and the formula (of the trilogy) is one that has been reproduced many times, in various forms. In fact, Lucas ~himself~ has reproduced the formula of the orignial trilogy, in the latest films, which he has said, are meant to parallel the originals. There are many simlilarities between that 'Galaxy far, far away', and the Potterverse. A few cosmetic examples include: wands/lightabers; Robes (seem to be the chosen garment in both universes, by adults at least); The Light and Dark sides; The seeming Death of the Arch-enemy (in the Star Wars novels, Emperor Palpatine is ressurected through cloning). On that note, might it not be a posibility that Harry may be tempted (at least) to join the Darkside, as Luke was in ROTJ ('Release your anger')? Up to now, Harry hasn't been very prepared when facing LV, that is, he has just sort of 'bumped into' him. Suppose he were to go out of his way to face Voldemort, would his anger get the better of him? (Personally I find it hard to believe, that being put thru so much at the hands of this 'Emperor', that, given time, Harry will not grow to resent Voldemort, on a personal level, and want blind revenge) --Jasmine, who feels the need to write a Harry/Star Wars crossover! Coffee first, methinks! From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Fri Jul 5 18:17:01 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 18:17:01 -0000 Subject: What house was Peter Pettigrew in? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40817 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "darrin_burnett" wrote: > OK, I consider this hairsplitting. First, the Lexicon states with 99 > percent certainty -- that's a quote from it -- that James was in > Gryffindor, so I suppose it takes into account the sliver of doubt > that could be raised by the interview. > > Second, I consider a question -- What position did James play on the > Gryffindor team? -- to be clear. > > It would be like asking the question, "What position did Michael > Jordan play on the Bulls?" and then saying that simply > answering "shooting guard" refuses to confirm that he DID play for > the Bulls. > > Further, we have, in PoA, Lupin and Sirius referring to Snape as "a > greasy haired Slytherin" and in GoF as "running with a gang of > Slytherin who all became Death-Eaters. > > If the Marauders were Slytherin, why in the world would they refer to > the House as belonging to someone else? It doesn't conclusively prove > they weren't Slytherin, but it certainly removes much of the > remaining doubts. > > The Marauders started in 1971, about the same time as Voldemort rose > to power. By the time they graduated, a good portion of the > Slytherins, INCLUDING SNAPE, were on their way to becoming Death > Eaters. We saw what happened when Snape turned against Voldemort - he > is essentially a man targeted for death. Wouldn't any Slytherin who > stood up against the Death Eaters -- or perhaps even refused to be > considered DEs -- also have been put, at the very least, under a > cloud of suspicion? > > So what you are saying is that the Marauders would have been > Slytherin, somehow turned against the DEs while still in school, and > then graduated safely at a time when the entire nation was in fear of > Voldermort? No, I think that is too far-fetched. > > I concede there could be doubt as to whether all the Marauders were > Gryffindor, though I believe they were. But I believe there is loads > of evidence indicating that none of them were Slytherin. As for Ron's > statement about no bad wizard coming from anywhere but Slytherin, it > is either a bit of exaggeration, lack of knowledge -- he didn't know > about Sirius Black being bad until PoA -- or just another FLINT. Add to this Lupin's Cheers to a Gryffindor victory, though I'm not supposed to be biased remark, and well... Don't you think Slytherin was pretty full up anyway? We never see more than five boys in a class, JKR's population estimates notwithstanding, and we've already got the names of five male Slytherins of that year. Wilkes, Lestrange, Avery, Rosier, and Snape. (N.B. Wilkes could be a girl, of course, but knowing Voldemort, I don't think it's likely. And women in the Potterverse tend to be accorded their first names when mentioned. It's always Pansy Parkinson, Millicent Bullstrode, not Parkinson and Bullstrode.) Eileen From chrisnlorrie at yahoo.com Fri Jul 5 16:33:13 2002 From: chrisnlorrie at yahoo.com (alora67) Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 16:33:13 -0000 Subject: Imperious Curse Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40818 I know that this has been discussed, so please please point me to the correct thread, if there is one devoted to this. If Crouch! Moody is Barty Jr. and working for Voldemort (which we know he is), why does he teach Harry to throw off the Imperious curse in DADA class? I have always wondered about this. Does he do it because he is, as the DADA teacher, expected to do that? In my eyes, he seems to really be excited about Harry being the only one to be able to throw it off. Why is that? Any comments or suggestions? In GoF it says "Moody had insisted on putting Harry through his paces four times in a row, until Harry could throw off the curse entirely." (page 232, US) Why did he do this? Any insight would be much appreciated... Alora From mlacats at aol.com Fri Jul 5 18:13:28 2002 From: mlacats at aol.com (mlacats at aol.com) Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 14:13:28 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's State of Mind Message-ID: <9f.29b75aa1.2a573bc8@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40819 In a message dated 06/21/2002 2:07:30 PM Pacific Daylight Time, suzchiles at pobox.com writes: > > I have been giving thought to what Harry's state of mind is going to be at > the opening of Book 5. In the CoS, PoA, and GoF, he's bounced back > extremely > well from his end-of-the-year adventure, though of course, adding new > layers > of maturity and wisdom. > > But I can't help but worry about Harry's psychological and emotional state > after going through what he did at the graveyard. > > It rather seems to me that, unlike the earlier years, this year is going to > present a great leap from boyhood to early manhood. I think he's going to > realize that he, and only he, has any chance of defeating Voldemort. Of > course he's going to need help: from Ron, Hermione, Dumbledore, Sirius, and > even my beloved Hagrid. But I do think he's going to come out of this > knowing that he represents the good side's only hope at defeating Voldemort > and the Death Eaters. And his sense of honor and responsibility has to fall > heavily upon him. I think he hinted at that at the very end of GoF, when he > told the twins that everyone was going to need some jokes and laughs for > the > next year. > > I'd be very interested in hearing what everyone else thinks on this topic. > > Zo? > > > Hi Zoe. This is Harriet.. I do agree that the end of GOF marked marked a turning point for Harry -- I mean, this is really serious. Not only the fact that Harry underwent an ordeal far worse than anything he has thusfar experienced...but, the mere fact that V is back to full power.....! I think that now Harry realized that he is to play a major role in V's downfall or the Fight of Good vs Evil....he may even realize that he is *the one* to do this.... I believe that he (Harry) will still be in a kind of shock and he may even be having some nightmares and maybe even some of his 'premonition-type dreams'......at least one or two, showing what V is up to.... I don't know....it's a thought.... I know that this response is a couple of weeks late....I don't get a whole lot of opportunity to check the post....work...work....work.... But I'm interested in reading what other people think... Harriet [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mlacats at aol.com Fri Jul 5 18:40:10 2002 From: mlacats at aol.com (mlacats at aol.com) Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 14:40:10 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Voldemort's death Message-ID: <1e.2aa6bf27.2a57420a@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40820 In a message dated 06/22/2002 11:33:47 AM Pacific Daylight Time, cureluv88 at hotmail.com writes: > > Fist of all, I would like to apologize if this has been posted > before. I couldn't find it anywhere in the archives. Okay, when > Voldemort was "killed" the first time, (incident that resulted in > Harry's scar) he was able to come back. He was able to become a > parasite off of Quirrell. Then, finally, in book four, he got his > body back. So what I'm asking is, if Voldemort can keep on coming > back like that, how can they ever really kill him? > > "liz" > Good question... Maybe he needs a direct AK curse to hit him from an extremely powerful vizard like a fully mature Harry to do it. The first time, it was a *deflected* curse that hit V..... I know there's more to it...stuff we'll find out in the future books... Harriet [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Fri Jul 5 19:12:50 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 19:12:50 -0000 Subject: Imperious Curse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40821 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "alora67" wrote: > I know that this has been discussed, so please please point me to > the correct thread, if there is one devoted to this. > > If Crouch! Moody is Barty Jr. and working for Voldemort (which we > know he is), why does he teach Harry to throw off the Imperious > curse in DADA class? I have always wondered about this. Does he do > it because he is, as the DADA teacher, expected to do that? In my > eyes, he seems to really be excited about Harry being the only one > to be able to throw it off. Why is that? Any comments or > suggestions? In GoF it says "Moody had insisted on putting Harry > through his paces four times in a row, until Harry could throw off > the curse entirely." (page 232, US) Why did he do this? Any > insight would be much appreciated... > > Alora After the gleam in Dumbledore's eye, this question seems to be up there vying for #1 question Potter fans are likely to raise. :-) Do a search on "Barty Crouch Moody Imperius Harry Voldemort" and you'll get a whole whack of stuff. In short, though, 1. Crouch Jr. is fascinated with the Imperius curse, and the ability to resist it. 2. It shouldn't have made any difference, anyway. The plan wasn't for Voldemort to Imperius Harry, but to kill him. 3. Crouch was trying to be a realistic Moody. 4. Crouch missed his real vocation: teaching. I see #2 and #3 as the justifications he offered to himself and #1 and #4 as the underlying reasons. Eileen From editor at texas.net Fri Jul 5 19:45:40 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 14:45:40 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What house was Peter Pettigrew in? References: <20020705151002.77909.qmail@web13102.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <004401c2245c$8be188c0$477c63d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 40822 Kristen said > I think I made a mistake in my last post in that it > was Ron and not Hagrid woh made the comment about bad > wizards and Slytherin. No, you didn't. In the book, Hagrid says this. Ron says it in the *movie.* We seem to be having a rash of people confusing the movie and the book scenes, lately. I find this odd; several instances just in the past month or so, when nobody seemed to have any trouble distinguishing them before. > While I do realize that the arguments for James et al > being in Gryffindor are very strong the comment raises > questions. Everyone "knew" that Sirius Black had gone > just about as bad as possible, including Ron. So why > would he make that comment unless he had been a Slytherin? This has been discussed numerous times, but the best argument I recall is that Hagrid (who *is* the source of the comment) is not always the best source of factually accurate statements. He tends to be more the voice of emotion, not clear history. In context, with this comment Hagrid is not trying to impart a fact of history, he is trying to underscore the depths of his dislike for Slytherin house. This is not unlike me saying, "There's not a person I know who lost weight who wasn't in Weight Watchers." This isn't really true. But I might make such a statement simply to underscore how well I think the program works. Hope that made sense, --Amanda, wondering if she should cast "Verbatim Clarificatum" over the whole list..... From adatole at yahoo.com Fri Jul 5 20:01:37 2002 From: adatole at yahoo.com (Leon Adato) Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 16:01:37 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Verbatim Clarificatum (was "What house is...) In-Reply-To: <004401c2245c$8be188c0$477c63d1@texas.net> Message-ID: <00b301c2245e$c5fd41f0$6464a8c0@leonhome> No: HPFGUIDX 40823 Amanda G. said: *************** We seem to be having a rash of people confusing the movie and the book scenes, lately. I find this odd; several instances just in the past month or so, when nobody seemed to have any trouble distinguishing them before. ***************** Not surprising if you figure that "yon celluloid object which mayest naught bee naymed" was released in VHS and DVD formats around the same time. With the onset of summer months, and the extra leisure time it brings many folks, it is not surprising that people have been watching it (mayhap repeatedly) and therefore getting "neural cellulose" - the unsightly wrinkles and sags of logic that comes from overindulging in empty calories. Leon Adato ----------------------------------- If you wish to make an apple pie truly from scratch, you must first invent the universe. -Carl Sagan, astronomer and writer (1934-1996) From coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com Fri Jul 5 20:03:09 2002 From: coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com (coriolan_cmc2001) Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 20:03:09 -0000 Subject: Mars is Bright Tonight (filk) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40824 Mars is Bright Tonight (to the tune of Strangers in the Night) Dedicated to Ezzie, whose "Mars is Bright" essay (#40634) inspired this: Hear a MIDI at: http://home.wxs.nl/~frank553/karaoke.htm THE SCENE: The Forbidden Forest, right after sundown. Enter a Chorus of Centaurs, ready for another evening of star-gazing CHORUS Mars is bright tonight, it's simply glowing Pluto is in sight, just barely showing Betelgeuse is dim, so is Orion too All us centaurs watch Alpha Centauri As that star erupts in cosmic fury At the Pleiades who plead for peace anew Jupiter's Great Eye seems very swollen And in Ganymede's bleak sky We see clouds roll in Is that boy condemned to die?, We ask Gemini Mars continues to shine bright `n' So do Mercury and Titan .. And everyone of us sing an adept tune At the very sight of planet Neptune Music carries us to Sagittarius - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From catlady at wicca.net Fri Jul 5 21:12:40 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 21:12:40 -0000 Subject: multi-culti wizarding education / Karkaroff / Pettigrew Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40825 Eloise wrote: << But there are others, whose lifestyles are quite different, who do normally speak Hindi, or Gujarati, or Ghanaian, a Chinese dialect, etc., etc., many of whom dress according to their own customs, celebrate according to their own customs, live lifestyles reflecting those of their ancestral homeland and who still have strong links with family overseas. It was of these whom I was thinking. >> I suppose those people would have to send their children to the wizarding school in their old country. If the parents are wizards, they probably made arrangements before they came to Britain. If the parents are Muggles, they would have to figure out enough about wizardy and wizarding educaation to know that they needed to ask their Hogwarts recruiter to refer them to a South Asian, sub-Saharan African, Chinese wizarding school. If the parents came to Britain for refugee-type reasons (e.g. dissidents who got tired of being re-arrested each time they were released from prison), they might need one hell of a lot of special (i.e. magic) arrangements for sending their child to the old country. A messy situation would be a wizarding child born in USA to the Hasidic or Amish subcultures ... suppose the child were born in one of those all-Hasidic villages that they've built in New York State. The parents would not only have certain religious difficulty about magic, they would have immense cultural objections to allowing their child to attend a North American wizarding school in which boys and girls take classes together and the school uniform isn't 18th century eastern european plus yarmulke and tallit, and I don't think there is an all-Jewish or primarily-Israeli wizarding school; I imagine that Israeli wizards go to a Middle Eastern school with Arabs and Persians, and I can't imagine Hasidic parents allowing that either. Alexander wrote: << How many British children of age 11 do you know who can attend Beauxbatons and learn there? That is, who know French well enough? And to go to Durmstrang they probably need to know some Slavic language (most likely Russian). >> I suspect that the language of instruction at Durmstrang is German, like its name. I wonder if the wizarding folk have spells or potions to learn languages quickly and easily. Do they have translator earrings (other language to native language) and translator tongue piecings (native language to other language)? Darrin wrote: << I envision Durmstrang not so much in Russia as in one of the old Eastern European provinces. >> I believed that Durmstrang was in Latvia, but JKR made me wrong by saying in an interview that it is in northern Scandinavia. I can't find the particular interview. The random monkey wrote: << They'd have a heck of a time getting in, for one thing, unless they went to a Muggle elementary school. >> I believe that the wizarding folk are REALLY excellent at fake ID, and at modifying both paper and electronic records the same as they modify memories. If someone wants to go to a Muggle university when they leave Hogwarts, they will get all records modified to show that they went to a proper school (maybe a fake school that screens Hogwarts for all the Muggle-born students) and had wonderful O-levels and A-levels, not to mention birth certificates and tax records and all that Muggle stuff that people like Weasleys surely don't have. (It has been suggested that there is a bureau in the Ministry responsible for setting up Muggle cover identities for wizards who want them, but I'd rather have it done by private enterprise: a person whom I PAY to give me false ID is less likely to ask me what I want it for.) I suppose they will also use magic to make up for classes that they didn't take -- maybe a magic bean you can stick in your ear and it whispers all the answers to you? The Muggles can't defeat it with an Anti-Cheating Quill. Darrin wrote: << such behavior leads me to believe that the Grangers have essentially lost their daughter to the Wizard world, and she's not coming back. >> I believe that Muggle-born wizarding folk generally become amphibious -- okay, ambi-cultural: Able to live as a wizard in the wizarding world AND as a Muggle in the Muggle world, and accustomed to moving between them. She'll have two wardrobes, wizard and Muggle, have all the ID she needs (see above) to be admitted to the Reading Room of the British Museum (oops, that's an out-of-date reference, isn't it?), and visit her parents often. (Being able to Apparate, she'll probably visit them MORE often than if she were entirely Muggle.) I don't think that getting a wizarding job and marrying a wizard and sending her children to wizarding school qualifies as being 'lost' to her parents, unless getting a job that isn't the one they chose for her (e.g. they want her to be a physican and she becomes a photojournalist) and marrying a person they didn't choose for her qualifies as being lost to them. Alexander wrote: << in Russian "kar-kar" is the sound emitted by crows and ravens (corresponds to "caw-caw" in English). Ending "off" is just standard second name ending and conveys no meaning. So Karkaroff is "raven", whatever this means... >> I think he's a crow rather than a raven ... I know there is no consistent way to decide whether any particular species of black corvid will be called "raven" or called "crow", but, in English, "raven" has a strong connotation of wisdom and "crow" has a strong connotation of cowardice and cheating. Both crows and ravens are carrion eaters (so are eagles, for that matter), but only the crow is bad-mouthed as being "carrion-crow". And "carrion" is probably the connecting link: my reaction to the name Karkaroff was to think of "carcass" and "canker". He could be (stereotyped) hyena, too. Leanne wrote: << If PP was in Gryffindor, then it's clearly possible to trick the sorting hat so it sorts incorrectly (or maybe the sorting hat has other motives besides student welfare?). >> Peter might have been a *good* Gryffindor at the time! He *was* brave enough to practise the allegedly dangerous Animagus transformation, pal around with a werewolf, and never tell on his friends. I don't think it's true that Schoolboy!Peter was a coward who only clung to James and Sirius so they would protect him; Sirius said that well after the fact, and in a highly emotional context. He turned to the Dark Side after leaving school; we don't know what happened to change him, but people *do* change. There are a couple of statements in canon, that during the Voldemort Reign of Terror (what I call The Bad Years), "you never knew whom you could trust". There must have been people of all Houses serving Voldemort or passing information to Death Eaters, or else you could trust anyone who had been a Gryffindor. Canon asserts that some people served the Dark Lord under the Imperius Curse (and when he fell, they kinda came out of trances -- wouldn't their trance-like state have been visible before, and served as a warning that there was Something Wrong?) rather than having *chosen* evil (and currently it appears that Ludo Bagman passed information out of sheer stupidity). So one *could* claim that all Gryffindors who served the Dark Lord acted under Imperius or because they had been fooled ... I must run off and construct a theory of how Peter changed because of having been put under Imperius too many times ... From suzchiles at pobox.com Fri Jul 5 21:15:34 2002 From: suzchiles at pobox.com (Suzanne Chiles) Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 14:15:34 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups]The movie (was Re: What house was Peter Pettigrew in?) In-Reply-To: <004401c2245c$8be188c0$477c63d1@texas.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40826 Amanda said: > > No, you didn't. In the book, Hagrid says this. Ron says it in the *movie.* > We seem to be having a rash of people confusing the movie and the book > scenes, lately. I find this odd; several instances just in the > past month or > so, when nobody seemed to have any trouble distinguishing them before. > Not so odd, considering that the home DVD and video versions were just released a month or so ago. I'm sure many of us, myself included, have secretly enjoyed watching the film, perhaps more than once, such as myself. Zo, who loves both the books AND the film From crana at ntlworld.com Fri Jul 5 21:27:45 2002 From: crana at ntlworld.com (rosie) Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 22:27:45 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] re: multi-culti wizarding education References: Message-ID: <000701c2246a$ce165aa0$ceb268d5@xxx> No: HPFGUIDX 40827 Eloise said: "But there are others, whose lifestyles are quite different, who do normally speak Hindi, or Gujarati, or Ghanaian, a Chinese dialect, etc., etc., many of whom dress according to their own customs, celebrate according to their own customs, live lifestyles reflecting those of their ancestral homeland and who still have strong links with family overseas. It was of these whom I was thinking." I suppose that to any Muggle family living in Britain, magic is going to be *another culture* anyway. I mean, magic is a completely different culture to even your stereotypical WASP Muggle one... yeh, I know the spells and so on... but how many people know Latin in Britain today anyway? So I suppose that even if you were say a British Chinese family with strong links to your ancestral background, etc, Chinese magic would probably be just as foreign to you as Hogwarts-style magic. I'm not explaining this very well, am I? Rosie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From skelkins at attbi.com Fri Jul 5 22:26:47 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 22:26:47 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Peter Doesn't Get The Girl -- Sycophants and Evil Overlords In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40828 "Get up, Eileen," said Elkins softly. "Stand up. You ask for forgiveness? I do not forgive. I do not forget. Three long months....I want three months' repayment before I forgive you. Cindy here has paid some of her debt already, have you not, Cindy?" Elkins looked over to Cindy, who continued to sob. "Er, Avery, old man," George whispered, leaning over to the Indeterminate Character sitting in the chair beside his desk. "Remind me again, will you? Just what precisely is it that Cindy is supposed to have done to Elkins?" Avery did not answer. He was gripping the armrests of his chair tightly enough to sink his fingers to the first knuckle into the overstuffed leather, and his eyes were squeezed shut. George blinked, then winced. "Oh," he said. "*Oh.* Right. Er, Eileen? Elkins?" he called. "Look. This little...vignette of yours? Has it occurred to you that it might not really have been the most sensitive choice? Given that Avery's right here in the--" "You returned to me, Eileen," Elkins continued, loftily ignoring him. "Not out of loyalty, but out of boredom. You deserve this pain, Eileen. You know that, don't you?" "Yes, Elkins," moaned Eileen, "please, Elkins...please... I only... I only wish to serve, to...to..." "To make a start on repaying your debt?" "Yes." Eileen nodded gratefully. "Yes. I... I brought canon, Elkins. *Canon.*" She shuffled forward, her arms outstretched. A number of small canons tumbled from her shaking hands. Elkins glanced down at them. She raised an eyebrow. She smiled slightly. "That will do," she said. **************** Eileen wrote: > But then one wonders why Voldemort even bothered to ask her to > stand aside. Perhaps he thought it would be sadistically fun to > hand her over to Peter, but having that documented disdain for > women, he decided he didn't care, and just killed her? Well, let's see. If we assume, as so many people have done when speculating about the Voldemort's Wand Mystery, that Peter was actually *there* at Godric's Hollow at the time, then it could have been just a tease, couldn't it? To make Peter believe that she really was going to be spared, just for a moment, before Voldemort casually offed her? > I mean, what evidence has Peter to be so darn suspicious of > Voldemort's promises? Yes. That's really the question, isn't it? To my mind, that's the strongest defense for a scenario in which Peter thought that he was going to be able to secure at least one of the Potters' lives, and Lily seems the strongest candidate by far. > We all know that the devil is the prince of lies, but other than > that? Heh. Well, yes, but then, we all know that it's a really *bad* idea to throw your lot in with Evil Overlords too, don't we? I mean, that just never works out happily for anyone. Just ask poor Avery. Or ask Snape, for that matter. But apparently Peter never got that memo, so I assume that he never got the one about Prince of Lies, either. > And, he keeps jumping to the conclusion that Voldemort's going to > kill him. A reasonable conclusion perhaps but what has got Peter's > mind into "He's trying to kill me and double cross me" mode? The > only way he could already have been doubled-crossed is if we > involve Lily. I agree. Peter isn't an ideologue, to say the least. He's self-serving. So if he had always believed Voldemort to be the sort of Evil Overlord who reneges on his promises and kills his minions the second that they have outlived their usefulness, then it's rather hard to imagine why he ever would have become involved, isn't it? His service to the DEs before the Secret Keeper fiasco seems to have entailed spying on the Potters' circle. After his betrayal, his cover would have been, er, blown. To say the least. Would he have agreed to the plan -- or even engineered it, as it does seem likely to me that he *volunteered* the information that he had been made the Secret Keeper to Voldemort -- if he had believed at the time that Voldemort was such a "kill the spare" type when it came to his own followers? I just don't know. I rather think he might have tried to flee instead, or tried to keep the SK switcheroo a secret. So what happened to change his mind, between his act of betrayal and Voldemort's return? Something must have happened to alter his expectations. I see only two likely possibilities. One is Quirrell's death. The other is Lily's death. > It isn't even bleeding to death that Peter's primarily afraid of. I > didn't notice this very much before but... > "He caressed it gently, too; and then he raised it and ponted it at > Wormtail who was lifted off the ground, and thrown against the > headstone where Harry was tied; he fell to the foot of it and lay > there crumpled up and crying." > As far as Peter can see, Voldemort is about to kill him, not just > leave him to die. He isn't even pleading for the reward, or even > for the bleeding to stop. He's pleading that he not be killed. Ugh. You're right, of course. That's precisely what he thinks. >From his perspective, he has just exhausted his usefulness, and now he is to be killed. And probably in an unpleasantly slow and experimental fashion, too, since Voldemort seems to want to play around a bit with his new body and his wand. And so, naturally, he responds as he always does when he thinks that he's about to die: he collapses into helpless weeping. As, frankly, so would I. Of course, he hasn't really quite outlived his usefulness yet, since Voldemort still needs his Dark Mark to summon the rest of the DEs, but it's clear enough from his reaction to being asked for his arm that Peter hasn't the slightest *clue* what that's all about. The reminder of the "promise" is interesting, though, because Voldemort has actually never promised Peter a damned thing. Not "on- screen," at any rate. He doesn't even give him any real assurance that he *won't* be killed after the resurrection. His actual words ("Wormtail, Wormtail...why would I kill you?") sound far more like an evasion than an assurance; if anything, they suggest that he really *is* planning on killing the poor wretch. They certainly do not constitute a "promise." And from his awed response later on to the hand reward, I think it fairly clear that he was never promised anything like *that,* either. So what *is* this promise he's nattering on about, eh? > A perfect time to remind Voldemort. "You promised.." "So, you > killed Lily and now you're going to kill me?" The more I think about this, the more eerily compelling I find it. > Elkins then went into a lot of Freudian stuff. Eileen doesn't > really get Freudian stuff, but she did find it interesting that > Peter cut off his pointer finger. Kind of inconvenient. Inconvenient on a number of different levels, really. It's not just that it's his pointer finger. It's that it's also the pointer finger of his *good* hand. Peter is right-handed. His right hand is the one that he instinctively raises against Harry in the graveyard. Now, there are perfectly sound symbolic and magical reasons for a right-handed man to offer his right hand as a sacrifice in the rebirthing ritual of his Dark Lord. But just to frame Sirius? What on earth was he *thinking?* Not only is the pointer finger of ones good hand quite far down on the list of digits that any normal person would ordinarily choose to sacrifice (it's better than a thumb, but that's about it), it also raises some logistical difficulties. It left him forced to use his off-hand to do the actual cutting or wandwork or whatever it was that he did to lop it off in the first place. This is counter-intuitive. So it's really hard for me not to view that decision in a psychological light. Leaving Freud out of it, it does seem to me that on some level he must have *wanted* to be maimed, and not only maimed, but maimed in a way that *would* be inconvenient for him, a way that would serve as a constant reminder to him of what he had done. Otherwise, he just would have gone for a pinky. Hey, speaking of Pettigrew's self-mutilating tendencies, has anyone but me ever wondered whatever happened to his left ear? At the beginning of PoA, when the woman in the pet shop is looking him over as Scabbers, he is specified not only as missing a toe, but also as having a "tattered left ear." What do you think? Did those real rats rough him up in the sewers? Or was it just some Weasley manhandling? One of the Twins' little games, perhaps? > > "Harry, James wouldn't have wanted me killed...James would have > > understood, Harry..." > I could see Peter having convinced himself that he did everything > he did to protect Lily. Voldemort would sooner or later have made > him crack, or found out some other way, so he made a deal that > would save Lily. And surely James would understand that. Wouldn't > he? Well, that's certainly one of the all-time classic rationalizations, isn't it? The triage of the traitor? It's as old as time, that one. Or at the very least, as old as warfare. Again, I find this eerily compelling. > I'm not sure that his evident liking for Weasleys and Ron is > relevant, but if you say so.... It's relevant because it suggests that he might have a weakness for red-heads. You know, just like Hastings? ;-) Hey. With a theory like this one, you take the canon where you can find it. And besides, there's certainly more evidence in canon for *Pettigrew* having a thing about red-heads than there is for Snape having one. We've never seen a shred of evidence that Snape gets all Weak and Sentimental -- or even unusually Bitter and Resentful -- when he sees a red-head, have we? Nope. None. None at all. But Pettigrew? I'm telling you. The guy's just a *soft-touch* when it comes to red- heads. Well. In his own murderous sort of way, that is. Maybe Florence wasn't the future Lestrange after all. Maybe she was one of those mysterious missing Weasley cousins. But about Florence... > You're right that the hex story should belong to Peter, not Snape, > not Sirius, or anyone else. It just doesn't make sense that > Dumbledore would bring it up here. I think Peter did take his > revenge on Bertha Jorkins. But what for? > "I'll tell you what for!" cries Cindy. Cindy: > "Bertha told Peter she had seen him kissing Florence, and it was a > *flat-out lie.* Er, but doesn't that sort of weaken your original canon, Cindy? I mean, your original "Peter Gets the Girl" canon was so very compelling in the first place in part because it set up such a lovely parallel. It suggested that what the message from Dumbledore's subconscious was trying to tell him was: "This is a direct parallel. History has repeated itself. Once again, Bertha Jorkins has come by knowledge of a secret that somebody very badly wants hidden, and once again, she has been victimized by Peter Pettigrew." The other way, the parallel isn't nearly so tidy or so convincing. Not to mention the fact that Dumbledore does ask her why she had to "follow him in the first place," which does rather suggest that she saw something that, er, really did *happen.* I mean, don't get me wrong. I do appreciate the fact that you're trying to grant Peter a bit of nobility here, by making his Love For Lily pure and uncorrupted and all that. In fact, I'm really touched. It's...well, it's downright SYCOPHANTSish of you, Cindy! It just plain makes me want to cry. But...well, look. I just don't know about this new UnTough Cindy we've been seeing around here lately. First you go to George and start *snivelling,* and now you're tinkering around with a spec to increase its SYCOPHANTS potential? That's...well, it's just plain Wrong, Cindy. You aren't a SYCOPHANT. You're *Tough.* You're messing with my *mind* doing this sort of thing, okay? It's really beginning to Freak Me OUT. I mean, next thing you know, I'm going to become an Evil Overlord. Not, of course, that that's so much of a stretch, really. Sycophants and Evil Overlords are really just two sides of the same ugly coin. ************* "May your loyalty never waver again, Eileen," said Elkins. "No, Elkins... never, Elkins." Eileen stood up and turned to take her place on the chaise lounge, staring at her powerful new canon, her face still shining with tears. "Oh," said Elkins, just as she had turned her back. "And Eileen? One more thing?" Eileen hesitated, a glimmer of apprehension crossing her face. She turned slowly. "I...yes, Elkins?" she asked. "You didn't really think I would fail to notice that you chose to spare yourself the Cruciatus Curse," said Elkins softly. "Did you?" "Well, I...I..." "It does cast this...contrition of yours in a rather dim light, don't you think? All of that humility. All of that *grovelling.* Yet not a touch of genuine *penance.* Why, Eileen." Elkins smiled thinly. "If I didn't know better, I might even find myself doubting your *sincerity.*" "Elkins, my devotion to your--" "Your devotion is nothing more than cowardice. Atonement without penance? Remorse without restitution? You're almost beginning to sound like *him.*" She jerked her head contemptuously towards Fourth Man Avery With Remorse, who buried his face in his hands. "But *Elkins,*" Eileen objected, spreading her hands helplessly. "I-- " "I am told that you have not renounced the ways of SYCOPHANTS, though to the world you present your bowls of CRAB CUSTARD. You are still ready to take the lead in a spot of Death Eater Anti-Defamation, I believe? Yet you never really *atoned,* Eileen. Your little Graveyard pastiche was fun, I daresay...but might not your energies have been better directed toward a somewhat stronger adherence to the original canonical material?" "Elkins, I am constantly thinking of the sensibilities of our audience," said Eileen rapidly. "Had I had any assurance, any conviction at all that actual depictions of torture were not completely out of bounds for the standards of civility of this list, I would have been writhing at your feet immediately, nothing could have prevented me--" "And yet you were perfectly willing to acknowledge the possibility of such a plot development back in message number 39000?" said Elkins lazily, and Eileen stopped talking abruptly. "Yes, I noticed that, Eileen...You have disappointed me...But still. Still. You *are* only a sycophant, aren't you? And not a house elf. So I suppose that it might have been a bit much to expect you to be capable of disciplining yourself." "Yes, thank you, Elkins," Eileen gasped. "You are merciful, thank you..." "Fortunately, you chose to dress me in these ridiculous robes," Elkins continued, slipping one of her rather pudgy hands into a deep pocket and drawing out a wand. "So I'm willing to do you the favor of helping you to correct this unfortunate little...oversight of yours." "Elkins," Cindy objected, half-rising from her seat. "What are you DOING?" "Oh, nothing any less forgivable than all of that Imperius that Captain Tabouli used to dole out below decks on the LOLLIPOPS," said Elkins casually. "Nothing to worry about." "Elkins," Eileen stammered, backing slowly away, her eyes fixed on the wand in Elkins' hands. "Elkins, listen, please..." "You can't *do* that!" Cindy turned to George. "She can't do that, can she?" she said. "George, is this *your* idea? Is this some kind of sick twisted THERAPY, or something?" "Therapy?" George shook his head. "This isn't *my* therapy," he said. "I'm *George.* I stand for principle *over* inclination. Reason over emotion. And restraint," he concluded, pursing his lips in disapproval at Elkins' somewhat fevered expression. "Restraint over *indulgence.* This *certainly* isn't my therapy. But what can I do about it?" He shrugged irritably. "I'm just a Snapetheory. This sort of thing is really outside my purview. In fact," he said, frowning. "I'm not even entirely sure what I'm doing in this thread in the first place." "There has *got* to be some rule against this," muttered Cindy, fishing out her TBAY Rulebook and flipping through the pages. "I'm sure there has to be SOMETHING against this." "Oh, come now, Cindy," Elkins said coolly, advancing on Eileen. "Where's your sense of intellectual *curiosity?* Don't you want to settle for once and for all the question of whether she'll actually sound anything like that Second Task Egg? After all, who knows? She just might prove you right about that one after all. And we all know how much you do love being *right,* Cindy. Besides," she added, with a nasty snigger. "Cruciatus makes you *stronger,* right? So I'm doing her a favor, really, aren't I?" "Yeah, look," Cindy muttered. "How about we just *forget* about Cruciatus Makes You Stronger, okay?" Eileen collided violently with the water cooler in the corner. She staggered, then fell to her knees. "Please," she whimpered. "Elkins, please...*please*..." "It is customary to *thank* people who offer to correct your blunders for you, Eileen," Elkins told her. "Where are your manners?" "Elkins, please listen to me. Please. Just listen. You've already been *through* this crisis once already. Don't you remember? In your argument with Cindy over the Egg? You *resisted* the twin lures of power and vengeance. Remember? You said that you were a pacifist and that--" "Oh, but that was to make a rhetorical point about *Neville,* Eileen," said Elkins. "This is to make a different rhetorical point altogether. Now as for myself," she mused, eyeing Eileen contemplatively. "I've always found myself wondering about those Longbottoms. Could the Cruciatus Curse really have accounted for their condition? Debbie thinks not, but I...well, I'm just not so sure. It's not realistic, no, but it does conform to genre convention. I do find myself wondering, though, just how long that might have *taken.* Avery's never been willing to discuss it with me. I mean, are we talking hours here? Days? What do *you* think, Eileen?" Eileen burst into tears. "Elkins," Cindy said firmly. "You. Are. A. SYCOPHANT. *Not* an Evil Overlord." "Oh, indeed," agreed Elkins pleasantly. "Indeed. But you know, the two are hardly polar opposites. They're not incompatible in the least. In fact, they're essentially the same position. Inside every sycophant, there's an Evil Overlord just waiting to come out. Have you ever read Fromme, on the totalitarian personality? The type of person who toadies to his superiors, yet bullies his subordinates? Whose abject professions of loyalty and fanatic devotion to charismatic leaders and ideological doctrines are matched only by their equally extreme, yet seemingly-incompatible tendency towards self-serving hypocrisy and back-stabbing betrayal? The sort of person whose fundamental capacity for inhumane behavior is masked by a somewhat sloppy sentimentalism? One which often presents as a self- professed love of animals?" She frowned briefly, one hand reaching up to toy absently with her Bleeding Heart-festooned feather boa, then shook her head and continued on: "They're the same type of person, really, you know, Evil Overlords and their Sycophants. It's a personality characterized by a...well, a very specific type of personal relationship with power. Power over, that is," she specified, looking down at the huddled and weeping Eileen with a faint and dreamy smile. "Power over others," she murmered. "Elkins," George said quietly. "Are you aware that your nostrils are dilating?" Elkins blinked. "Are they really?" She thought about this for a moment, then shrugged. "Oh, well, what else can you expect from me, George? I wear my SYCOPHANTS badge pinned to my FEATHERBOAS, for heaven's sake! Surely you must appreciate the significance of that particular combination? Eileen here did try to explain it to Cindy once, sometime back in March, didn't you, Eileen? But I fear that she may have been a bit too...delicate to really get her point across. You see, Eileen," Elkins said, reaching down to force Eileen's head up to face her. "Cindy's not Bent, like we are. She's *Tough.* Tough people really don't understand Bent all that well, I'm afraid. You really have to spell it out for them." "I'm not Bent," sobbed Eileen. "I'm *not!*" "Oh, don't be ridiculous," snapped Elkins, shoving her away in disgust. "Of course you are. You're a featherboa-wearing SYCOPHANT, aren't you? That's a fundamentally sado-masochistic position. Self- flagellating, even. You *did* used to torture your dolls, didn't you, Eileen? And I'll bet you *identified* with them, even while you were doing it. Didn't you." Eileen shook her head wildly from side to side. "Liar," said Elkins, with cruel amusement. "I've seen the sort of specs you favor." "I--" "Just ask Avery here, if you don't believe me. He knows all *about* the totalitarian personality. Even Canon!Avery's rather obvious that way, but once you start talking about Fourth Man Avery...well! At times he's been known to go absolutely Over The Top in that direction." "I've *never* liked that Over the Top Fourth Man," muttered Cindy darkly, narrowing her eyes at Avery, whose head was now cradled in his arms on George's desk. "Oh, I think that Avery has quite enough troubles right now without you adding to them," said Elkins. "Especially now that Peter's got that new *hand* of his. We were talking about sycophants and their Inner Evil Overlords? Just look at Mr. Pettigrew." "Wormtail?" said George, frowning. "Mmmmmmm. Back in April sometime, your friend Marina said that she thought that he was likely to get pushed around quite a bit by the other DEs in future canon. I seem to remember her calling him "eminently bulliable." I'm not altogether sure of that, though, myself. The thing about sycophants, you know, is that they do have this way of getting *nasty,* if you're ever fool enough to hand them the good side of the whip. It's that victim-turned-bully phenomenon that Tabouli's always writing about. I found Wormtail's reaction to his silver hand rather suggestive of that possibility, myself. *You* know the canon I mean, Eileen." Eileen nodded slowly, sniffling. "The...the twig," she offered, in a trembling voice. "And...and..." "And 'beautiful.' Yes. He's just been given some freaky magical *cyborg* appendage, it can crush things into powder, and he's lost in awe, isn't he? He's calling it 'beautiful.' Mm-hmmm. I'd watch my back around that Pettigrew from now on if I were you, Avery," Elkins advised. "If you ask me, he's headed straight for victim-turned- bulliedom. I certainly hope that you weren't in the habit of hexing him in any corridors back in your schooldays. I certainly hope not. For your sake." Avery let out a sick sort of moan. "Indeed?" Elkins smiled slightly. "Oh, bad call, Aves. Very bad call. Let's just hope he doesn't remember that, then, shall we? Although I really wouldn't count on that, you know, if I were you. I remember every single person who ever even once hexed *me* in the corridors at school. Now," she said, levelling her wand at Eileen. "As for *you,* Eileen. Perhaps one more little reminder why I will not tolerate further disloyalty from you..." "Elkins," sobbed Eileen. "No...I beg you..." "Aw, come on, Elkins," Cindy said. "She did call you 'nice,' you know." "Nice?" Elkins laughed. "Oh, yes. Every bit as nice as the English, I dare say. Every bit as nice as Eileen herself is. Are you feeling a little bit sorry for Eileen right now, Cindy? You needn't be, you know. I assure you, if our positions were reversed, this situation would be playing out in *precisely* the same way. Don't you remember the relish with which she used to propose bloody ambushes? Or Avery's outing as a DE at the office, with horrified Arthur Weasley slowly backing away from him?" Elkins shook her head. "No," she concluded. "Eileen is not really nice. No more than I am, in fact. You had better leave her to me." *********************** For an explanation of the acronyms and theories in this post, visit Hypothetic Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin% 20Files/hypotheticalley.htm and Inish Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database? method=reportRows&tbl=13 -- Elkins, who really would rather cut her own right hand off than harm Eileen in any way From grega126 at aol.com Fri Jul 5 21:04:44 2002 From: grega126 at aol.com (greg_a126) Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 21:04:44 -0000 Subject: Greater and More Terrible Than ever before Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40829 Ok, this whole post is based on Professor Trelawney's prediction in PoA that Volemort is going to rise, greater and more terrible than ever before. As I see it, there are four possible outcomes to the 7th Harry Potter book, they are: 1. Harry, Dumbledore, Sirius, the Weasley's and everyone else important except for Voldemort is dead, Voldemort's won the war & acheived immortality. Wow, what a bad ending this would be. I just don't see it happening. 2. The outcome of the war is inconclusive. Harry & Voldemort are both still alive, both still battling it out. Again, how awful would this be? Not gonna happen. 3. Harry & Voldemort are both dead, but the "good guys" have won the war. J.K.R. hasn't ruled out a dead Harry at the end of book 7, but I for one, would think this ending to be relatively awful, but that's a different post for a different day. 4. Harry wins by the end of his seventh year of school, Voldemort's dead, the Death Eaters all go to prison. Of the four, I think this is the most likely, just because we happen to know that there's only going to be seven books, something the characters can't "know". So in other words, Voldemort's going to be coming back, and he's going to be "greater and more terrible than ever before", but he's only got 3 years to do it. During his first rise to power, he had 11 years, and in that time he became so powerful and so terrible that people nearly 15 years after his defeat are still afraid to say his name. Now, as far as I'm concerned, a great big part of the word "terrible" is the word "terror". People can't be terrified of someone they don't know exists. So as far as I'm concerned, Fudge is playing into Voldemort's hands. The first time people hear of Voldemort's rebirth is going to be something like Voldemort attacking and taking over the MoM. People who have thought he's still dead are going to wake up one morning and realize that he's in charge of the Ministry. Secondly, by the time the first war was nearing its end (unbeknownst to those actually fighting in it) there were only two things that gave people hope, Hogwarts was still open, and Dumbledore, the only wizard Voldemort feared, was still alive and kicking. Now, fourteen years later, there are two other things, that are as powerful, if not even more so than Hogwarts + Dumbledore. 1. Harry Potter, the Boy-Who-Lived. and the one that I think is the most important, 2. The knowledge that Voldemort can be defeated. Hope during a war is an extremely powerful thing. Fifteen years ago, wizards and witches lived in fear of Voldemort, and they had no idea what-so-ever whether or not he could ever be defeated. Now, they know that if he can't be permanently defeated, at least he can be banished for a great period of time. Mothers have some hope that they might be able to save their children should Voldemort come to their house. IMO, in order for Voldemort to become "more terrible than ever before" he's going to have to eliminate these 4 things giving witches & wizards hope. First, DUMBLEDORE HAS TO DIE. Hagrid can't be the only person to have the sentiment that Dumbledore's a great man and as long as we have him we'll be ok. The elimination of Dumbledore will be a blow to the wizarding world unlike anything else I can imagine. J.K.R. has said that Harry's going to finish all 7 years at Hogwarts, and that means that Voldemort can't take the school over. In, addition, the knowledge that Voldemort was once defeated can be defeated can't just be eliminated from people's memory. Entirely too many memory charms, even for Voldemort. And so the fourth thing is Harry Potter. I decided at the top that I don't think Harry can die. I think it would just completely defeat the purpose of the whole series, which I think is good vs. evil. If Harry dies, even if his death defeats Voldemort what message does that send? Harry's had to make sacrifices his whole life because of evil. Live with his horrible relatives, be completely cut off from the magic world until his 11th birthday, and if he had to sacrifice growing old, falling in love, and finally one day have a family of his own just because of Voldemort, what kind of message would that be? So he can't die. But what can happen to him? First, I think the work Rita Skeeter started isn't going to stop w/ her. Fudge knows that in his 3rd year Harry thought that Sirius Black was innocent, that he can speak to snakes, & so when people start disappearing rather than admit it's b/c Voldemort is back, I think he's going to try & tie it to Sirius Black & by extension Harry. If the wizarding world believes that the reason Voldemort came to Godric's Hollow was b/c he thought Harry would one day grow to become a powerful Dark Wizard, that virtually eliminates any hope they'd be receiving when they find out the truth. And let's face it, based on the reaction of their children in CoS I think a similar response from mom & dad is equally likely. These kids had to learn *somewhere* that people who spoke to snakes were evil. Tom Riddle said that he & Harry were likely the only 2 Parselmouths to attend the school since Slytherin himself. Since it doesn't come around all that often, yet almost everyone seemed to be aware of the evil Parselmouths, it must be something that their parents had taught them. Secondly, I think someone running around in Polyjuice as Harry, doing some pretty awful things would help as well. Even if he had an airtight alibi, I think the wizarding world is the type that says, "Never mind the facts, I know the truth." But I've had this stuff on my mind for a while, glad to get some of it down. Looking forward to feed back. :) Greg From skelkins at attbi.com Fri Jul 5 22:42:22 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 22:42:22 -0000 Subject: The Triwizard Portkey In-Reply-To: <33.293be323.2a4f2513@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40830 This is quite late, really, but I've had some computer troubles. Pippin wrote: > I admit that arrival via portkey is somewhat disorienting and that > it's not practical for all the DE's to show up at once. However... > The DE's also have an agent on the scene who can create a > diversion to cover their arrival. In fact, he already has, by > disabling Krum and Fleur. He may have also put a confundus > curse on Fudge and Bagman so that they didn't immediately > notice what was happening in the maze--the residual effects of > this may account somewhat for Fudge's inability to grasp that > Voldemort has returned. Hmmmm. I think that if Crouch had actually confounded Fudge and Bagman, then he would almost certainly have bragged to Harry about that in his "I want you to DIE, Mr. Potter...but first, let me provide some plot exposition for the folks watching at home" scene. Also, if Crouch had really been that heavily involved in a plan involving use of the Portkey as a means of allowing the DEs to attack Hogwarts, then I would rather expect for him to be a bit more interested in learning from Harry why the plan didn't work. Instead, he seems far more anxious to learn first if Voldemort has really returned, and second, how he then treated the other DEs. He's just panting to hear that Voldemort punished them *severely* for their disloyalty. He wants to hear that they've been made to suffer. In fact, I really don't get the impression that he would shed too many tears to hear that a good number of them had been killed. I can't really imagine that he'd be expecting or hoping for such a thing if he knew that the DEs would then be called upon to aid Voldemort in an attack on Hogwarts. They simply wouldn't be in any *condition* to do so if they'd been punished in quite the manner that Crouch seems to be so desperately hoping to hear about. He does seem rather undismayed by the fact that Harry *escaped,* though, doesn't he? Debbie wrote: > Also, Crouch Jr., after explaining to Dumbledore how he turned the > cup into a Portkey, says "My master's plan worked. He is returned > to power . . . ." This doesn't make it sound like the plan was to > attack Hogwarts. No. It doesn't to me, either. Or at least, if that *was* part of the plan, then it doesn't sound to me as if anyone sent Barty a memo to that effect. I do agree with Debbie, though, that Crouch's relative lack of dismay over the appearance of Alive!Harry does strongly support Pip's idea that Voldemort might have always had the possibility that Harry might escape in mind as a "Plan B." Pippin wrote: > Dumbledore would have been notified by Snape as soon as possible > once the Dark Mark burned, at which point he would certainly > evacuate the students to their Houses, especially if he had > realized by that time that Harry was missing. So most of the > students would have been leaving the stands and the adults would be > guarding the students. This is why Harry saw people moving in the > stands when he returned. It's an interesting question, this. Just what *was* going on when Harry first returned from the graveyard? I've just gone and reread the passage, and it is somewhat ambiguous. The sense of time passing is deliberately vague -- it's actually a rather nice bit of writing here, JKR's conveyance of the poor boy's state of shock -- but the impression that I receive is that Harry lies there in the grass for a few moments in silence ("waiting...waiting for someone to do something...something to happen...") before the "torrent of sound deafened and confused him" and the stampede begins. I don't get the impression that there was already an evacuation of the stands underway at all. Certainly if the students were being shepherded away, then they were not being very *competently* shepherded away. Harry hears girls screaming and sobbing in the crowd thronging around him while he is still lying on the grass, right before Crouch drags him back to the school. It looks like chaos to me. I don't see any signs that anyone is trying to lead the students back to their dormitories or that any adults are standing guard over them. Pippin: > However, I think the terrorist purpose would be served if Voldemort > was at Hogwarts long enough to drop off Harry's body, set off one > of those blast spells like the one Peter used to kill all those > people at once, laugh his unmistakeable laugh, and portkey out > again. This, however, I *can* accept as a possibility. It strikes me as perfectly consistent with everything that we've seen of Voldemort so far. He does generally seem to prefer to take care of matters personally, rather than delegating them to his followers while he himself remains hidden safely away. He attacked the Potters in person. He chose to reveal himself at the end of PS/SS. And he tried (at first, at any rate) to convince the DEs in the graveyard not to interfere in his "duel" in the graveyard. So all right. I will accept the "Voldemort portkeys in with Harry's body, kills a bunch of people, laughs like a fiend, and then vanishes again" plan. I can live quite happily with that. Rosie suggested the possibility of a "Voldemort portkeys in with Harry *alive,* kills a bunch of people, laughs like a fiend, and then vanishes again" plan. Rosie: > If they didn't zap Harry before appearing through the Portkey...who > would they have as a very convenient hostage? Given that Voldemort *did* cast the Killing Curse at him, I can only imagine this as a variant on the Spying Game's Plan B. According to this interpretation of events, Plan A was "kill Harry with the good old AK," while Plan B was: "And if that doesn't work, then Portkey to Hogwarts with Harry in tow as a hostage." Sure. That has possibilities. Debbie, however, objected: > But a more practical objection. If the Portkey was rigged to take > Voldemort back out of Hogwarts after dropping off Harry's body (and > it would need to be to allow Voldemort to escape), why didn't the > person who picked it up after Harry let go of it get transported > back to the graveyard? Hey, for all we know, that's exactly what happened. Do we ever see the Cup again after Harry gets dragged off by Moody? He gets his sack full of Galleons eventually -- he tries to give it to the Diggories -- but whatever happened to the trophy itself? Unless there's some mention of it that I've missed (which there might well be, as I am not, I fear, at all competent at that LOON stuff), we never see the thing again. Boy. A nasty shock *that* must have been for some souvenir-seeker, eh? Debbie also wrote: > Also, this was a pretty risky plan, even if Crouch Jr. was on > patrol at the edge of the maze. If he dropped the Portkey and > someone else picked it up, he would be stuck at Hogwarts, not > exactly a glorious climax to a triumphant return. He could have just held onto it, though. Simply letting go of it and then touching it again really wouldn't be all that difficult, I wouldn't think. There's risk involved, but not tremendous risk. Pippin: > He wouldn't need all the Death Eaters for that. If the blast was > aimed at the Judge's Booth, he might very well succeed in killing > Fudge, which would be perfectly adequate as far as demoralizing > everybody and disrupting the WW. Debbie: > Kill Fudge? Whether he's Ever So Evil or just Ever So Incompetent, > Fudge is one of Voldemort's best allies. Kill him? What could > Voldemort be thinking of? The assassination of even a weak leader is exceptionally demoralizing, and political chaos is even easier to exploit than Cornelius Fudge himself is. A leaderless wizarding world would be exceptionally vulnerable -- even more vulnerable than a wizarding world with a Fudge at its helm. Also, say what you like about Fudge (certainly everyone else around here does), but he presumably really does have some genuine political skills. He has held the office for quite some time, after all. I imagine that he's got quite a knack for consensus-building and bipartisan compromise and other skills that prove useful in maintaining order during times of peace. That the wizarding world is strongly politically divided is implied in Fudge's exchange with Dumbledore over the dementors: "'Half of us only feel safe in our beds at night because we know the dementors are standing guard at Azkaban!' 'The rest of us sleep less soundly in our beds, Cornelius, knowing that you have put Lord Voldemort's most dangerous supporters in the care of creatures who will join him the instant he asks them!'" They're speaking metaphorically, of course. But still, the fact that even Fudge uses the word "half" is somewhat suggestive to my mind. Fudge is an appeaser, a compromiser. That is both his particular flaw and his particular talent. With him gone, the wizarding world might well find itself at a political impasse which would benefit no one so much as Voldemort and his followers. Debbie put this entire of speculations into some doubt with this: > Except for one problem: If the Cup was originally set to carry the > first person to touch it back to the edge of the maze, why did > Crouch Jr. tell Dumbledore later that when he carried the Cup into > the maze, he "Turned it into a Portkey." Voldemort uses almost > exactly the same phrase ("the cup which my Death Eater had turned > into a Portkey") (GoF, pp. 657, 691). If it had been a portkey all > along, Crouch would have had to say that he'd fixed the Portkey to > go to the graveyard first, right? Aw, Debbie! Did you *have* to? Yeah, you're right. That does make it all seem rather unlikely. But if we don't imagine that the Triwizard Cup was always a Portkey, then we're left with that old question of how the contestants were supposed to get back out of the maze in the first place. And of how the judges would know for sure which contestant really touched it first. And of...of...well, and besides, it's ever so much more *interesting* this way, don't you think? > But the detour in the portkey makes so much sense I'm willing to > write this off as a FLINT. That's the spirit! -- Elkins From rowen_lm at yahoo.com Fri Jul 5 21:16:06 2002 From: rowen_lm at yahoo.com (Liz Muir) Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 14:16:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Wizarding Genetics / HP & Star Wars / Arthur Weasley / PP's House Message-ID: <20020705211606.73929.qmail@web20910.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40831 *****Wizarding Genetics***** dfrankiswork wrote: >>...neither wizards nor Muggles have any way of influencing whether their offspring are magical. (It has occurred to me that the reason Squibs are rare might be infanticide: what do you suppose the Malfoys would do if they had a Squib baby? The Fudges?)<< Er, I don't think infanticide has anything to do with squib rarity. Apparently, you can't really find out if your child is magical til they reach Hogwarts age. The common examples are Neville and Hermione. If Neville's relations had known he was a wizard, they wouldn't have gone through all of their crazy schemes to get magic out of him. So if the Malfoys were to have a squib (random query: does Draco have any (younger) siblings? Too lazy to check cannon. Anyone have it on hand?), they wouldn't know it until the child was 11. *****Harry Potter and The Force***** Eloise wrote: (after numerous HP/SW parallel examples): >>But aren't HP and Star Wars both modern myths which simply draw on the same mythic archetypes? There may well be parallels between the two, but I wouldn't go as far as to say that they are *connections* and I would certainly not suggest that the one is in any way derivative of the other. The saviour who waits to learn of and/or develop his powers until the time is ripe is not an uncommon theme.<< When you say "not uncommon", you mean "rampant", right? I'm totally siding with Eloise on this one. The unloved orphan discovering they have hidden powers/alternate identity/what have you is an extremely common archetype, especially among childrens/teens fantasy. It just really appeals to this age group who is looking for an identity. I'll just list a few examples: Bruce Coville's Into the Land of the Unicorns series, the Replica series (can't remember who it's by), Sabrina the Teenage Witch (American TV show. 16 year old lives with aunts and discovers her powers), the Lioness Quartet by Tamora Pierce (sorta), Circle of Magic by Tamora Pierce (VERY), Matilda by Ralph Dahl and tons of others. This theme is so frequent that it can make you sick! It's a huge archetype in literature. HP and SW happen to be prevalent examples. *****Arthur Weasley***** Gretchen wrote: >>In re-reading GoF, a line hit me that I did not notice before. On Page 203 of the US hardcover version, Malfoy is reading Harry and Ron an article from the Daily Prophet about Arthur Weasley at Moody's and the dustbins. Malfoy was commenting on how they got Arthur's name wrong in the article saying "imagine them not even getting his name right, Weasley. It's almost as thought he's a complete nonentity, isn't it?" Is he a nonentity? It was suggested he was an unmentionable-maybe he is, but uses another name for the sake of his family. Maybe he changed his name for other reasons? Could this be a "clue" into Arthur's past?<< My sources say . . . no. As mentioned by others, the DP doesn't seem to be the most reliable source in the world and I don't think it's very serious either. I think that the credibility of the press is slowly degenerating in the books. This reflects JKR's experiences with them. In book 1, the DP is where Harry and Ron find out about the Gringotts break in. The "Evening Prophet" reports fairly accurately the sighting of the flying car by muggles in CS. In GoF the press' standing has been reduced to the likes of Rita Skeeter and inaccuate "yellow journalism." *****PP's House***** Kristen wrote: >>I think I made a mistake in my last post in that it was Ron and not Hagrid woh made the comment about bad wizards and Slytherin. While I do realize that the arguments for James et al being in Gryffindor are very strong the comment raises questions. Everyone "knew" that Sirius Black had gone just about as bad as possible, including Ron. So why would he make that comment unless he had been a Slytherin?<< As this quote appears to be coming up in a lot of discussion where people don't check references, here's the quote once and for all. Ron says it at the sorting ceremony in the movie, but HAGRID says it in the cannon. Check your references!! It can be found on page 61-2 of the paperback PS and on page 80 in the SS hardback. For any other editions, it's in the Diagon Alley chapter, right after Harry meets Draco in Madam Malkin's. "Better Hufflepuff than Slytherin," said Hagrid darkly. "There's not a single witch or wizard who went bad who wasn't in Slytherin. You-Know-Who was one." And there you have it. My personal views on this? Hagrid is *exaggerating* his statement to make a point. It would be more accurately stated, "There were lots of dark witches and wizards who were in Slytherin." I don't think this means that, in the 1000+ year history of Hogwarts, *no one* who wasn't in Slytherin ever went bad. As to them not being able to be close friends if they were in different houses, this is definitely true. However, there seems to be more interaction between houses as students get older. We have several cases of dating between houses: Percy and Penelope, Cedric and Cho, etc. And there's always classes and free time. It does seem more likely that people will be close if they are in the same houses though. (So this paragraph is basically meaningless rambling.) ===== Rowen Avalon (Liz Muir) "We will not examine how grainy the frosting is. It's a cake. That's all we need to know." "Everyone keeps learn more and more about less and less until finally they know everything about nothing. It's called specializing." "The guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth then to the very center." "I have nothing but contempt for a man who can spell a word only one way." __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free http://sbc.yahoo.com From nailju_nailju at hotmail.com Fri Jul 5 21:54:57 2002 From: nailju_nailju at hotmail.com (nailju28) Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 21:54:57 -0000 Subject: Connections (HP and Star Wars) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40832 Of course I noticed the similarities between SW and Harry Potter!! Think about Harry?s and Luke?s childhood. Both grew up with their uncle and aunt.Both don?t know anything about their parents life, and their special powers ( magic, the force). If we have finally a Ron/Hermione ship, it?ll be like the Leia/ Han pairing. I really , really hope Voldemort is not going to be Harry?s father and Hermione his lost sister. Sorry I?m from Spain, and my english is not very goold. Hope you get the meaning! Nailjuu From meboriqua at aol.com Sat Jul 6 00:20:27 2002 From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw) Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2002 00:20:27 -0000 Subject: Redeemable! Dursleys? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40833 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "nplyon" wrote: > I really think that it's Petunia that has the latent abilities.> Hmmm... how do we know for sure that Petunia isn't already a witch? A while back Magda Grantwich (who unsubbed until OoP - I hope she remembers us!) came up with a wild theory that it was really *Petunia* who blew up Aunt Marge in PoA, and that Petunia did it because it was her family Marge was insulting, after all. We know how upset Harry gets when he feels his family is being insulted, but we have no idea what Aunt Petunia was thinking in that scene because, AFAIK, we never hear her say a thing after SS. If I am not mistaken, there are quite a few people here who believe the Dursleys are more involved in the WW than they seem to be. Perhaps Dumbledore has written more than one letter to them over the years. Or maybe Petunia, when she calls Mrs. Figg, talks about a lot more than just "can you watch Harry for a few hours?". >Hey, if my brother got a letter from Hogwarts, I would > probably grow to dislike him because I'd be jealous that he got to go off and be a part of this fantastic magical world and I didn't.> I am jealous right now that I can't go to Hogwarts! > Isn't it possible that Petunia feels the same way? Doesn't it stand > to reason that she wanted to be seen as special and important and > that Lily's abilities overshadowed those of Petunia?> Or maybe she's angry at Lily for all of those things and the fact that Petunia has the unenviable position of keeping her own abilities quiet. As unpleasant as the Dursleys are to Harry, I'm willing to bet that it has taken a hell of a lot of work to keep him that safe and anonymous over the years. What I am really curious about is if Dudley's diet works and he loses all the weight he gained at school - and then some. Will he come home next summer better for it, or worse? JKR did mention (of course I can't remember where) that Harry will have an opportunity to use his magic on Dudley and I can't explain the feeling in my stomach that develops every time I imagine this scenario. There's a little mean piece of me that loved the Ton-Tongue Toffee incident and that same piece will love seeing Harry effectively defending himself against a much bigger and meaner person. --jenny from ravenclaw, who hates bullies with a passion ********************************************** From Hailebop at hotmail.com Fri Jul 5 23:12:23 2002 From: Hailebop at hotmail.com (hailebop_h) Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 23:12:23 -0000 Subject: Imperious Curse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40834 I agree with what Eileen said (posted below). The main reason Crouch taught resistance of Imperious was that it was essential that Crouch played a realistic Moody, and that meant copying any quirky things he might do in particular as the real Moody's friends (i.e. Dumbledore) would spot faults in these. Eileen (again, the relevant section is below) also said that Moody was 'fascinatd' with Imperious. This is very true. I might also like to add that whatever Crouch's views on the Dark Arts were, he had suffered directly as a result of the Imperious curse. He was forced to live for over a decade without free thought - he knew from personal experience how horrific that was. He's still very much a bad guy, but the whole experience would probably change his politics about using Imperious a little. He would think that being able to resist the Imperious curse was useful for anybody, no matter which side they were on. Hailey --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lucky_kari" wrote: > > I know that this has been discussed, so please please point me to > > the correct thread, if there is one devoted to this. > > > > If Crouch! Moody is Barty Jr. and working for Voldemort (which we > > know he is), why does he teach Harry to throw off the Imperious > > curse in DADA class? I have always wondered about this. Does he do > > it because he is, as the DADA teacher, expected to do that? In my > > eyes, he seems to really be excited about Harry being the only one > > to be able to throw it off. Why is that? Any comments or > > suggestions? In GoF it says "Moody had insisted on putting Harry > > through his paces four times in a row, until Harry could throw off > > the curse entirely." (page 232, US) Why did he do this? Any > > insight would be much appreciated... > > > > Alora > 1. Crouch Jr. is fascinated with the Imperius curse, and theability > to resist it. > > 2. It shouldn't have made any difference, anyway. The plan wasn't for > Voldemort to Imperius Harry, but to kill him. > > 3. Crouch was trying to be a realistic Moody. > > 4. Crouch missed his real vocation: teaching. > > I see #2 and #3 as the justifications he offered to himself and #1 and #4 as the underlying reasons. > > Eileen From craigf4656 at hotmail.com Sat Jul 6 01:19:47 2002 From: craigf4656 at hotmail.com (Craig Frizzell) Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 20:19:47 -0500 Subject: Harry's Magic At Home (was: Re: Redeemable! Dursleys?) References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40835 jenny_ravenclaw wrote: > JKR did mention (of course I > can't remember where) that Harry will have an opportunity to use his > magic on Dudley and I can't explain the feeling in my stomach that > develops every time I imagine this scenario. I'm currently rereading GoF and something struck me as Harry was packing his things to go to the Weasley's - Why doesn't Harry use the invisibility cloak while at home? If nothing else, he could use it to play pranks on Dudley (which he'd find glee in, I think). Or, it would be a good way to sneak out from time to time. Craig From skelkins at attbi.com Sat Jul 6 01:47:48 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2002 01:47:48 -0000 Subject: The Magic Quill, Hogwarts' Admission and Squibs In-Reply-To: <0E1F4530.60F77291.6E93A4F5@netscape.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40836 The Catlady wrote: > JKR said in an interview long ago that there is a magic quill that > writes down the name of every magic child born in the UK. Once a > year, McGonagall looks in the quill's book for all the children > that 'are' 11 that 'year' and addresses Hogwarts admission letters > to them. This is yet another of those questions -- much like "how many students at Hogwarts?" -- on which I tend to disbelieve the author's answer as given in interview because it seems so difficult to reconcile with my reading of the actual canon. I'm not quite sure that I can believe that birth is when the name appears. Aldrea touched on my reasons why when she wrote: > Hagrid's remark..something like "He's had his name down since he > was a baby!"...would that be because of Harry's whole deflection > thing agianst Voldie? That was certainly my reading. Hagrid says this as if it is not at all *usual* for a child to have had their name down for Hogwarts since birth. I tend to agree with Aldrea's suggestion that a child's name first appears in the book not at birth, but rather at the moment that the child first manifests his or her magical talent. However, if we want to be able to reconcile JKR's statement as given in interview with this idea, then Aldrea suggested a terrific way to do so: > I think someone said earlier it writes down the name when magical > children are "born"... could born be used in a sort of spiritual > sense? Like when the Magical Moment, the moment when the child > first uses some sort of magic, -that's- when they are "born" as a > wizard? Sure! That works for me. The Catlady wrote: > I am worried how such a system could deal with Muggle-born magic > children who emigrated with their parents to UK after birth but > before age 11. Hmmm. Well, it's a Magical Quill, isn't it? It has a mystic ability to detect magical children. So I'm willing to accept that it might also be able to just *know* which magical children would be living in Britain at the age of eleven and which would not. It's a bit creepy, that, admittedly, since it raises some troubling questions of predestination and free will -- but then, so do Trelawney's "true prophecies." This touches on the question of why families are not notified the instant that their child's name goes down in that book, to save them the apprehension over their child's eventual future. My gut feeling about this is that the stewards of the Quill deliberately eschew such a policy on the very grounds of that thorny predestination/free will question. Had Neville's family already *known* that he was "magical enough" to go to Hogwarts, for example, would they have spent so much time trying to badger some magic out of him? And if they hadn't done so, then *would* he have qualified for Hogwarts? I don't think that the Keepers of the Quill know the answers to those thorny questions any more than any of the rest of us can, and I suspect that this is the reason that McGonagall only ordinarily checks the book for the names of those children that are eleven "that year." Harry Potter was likely an exception, as his eventual magical status would have been a question of particular interest for the wizarding world as a whole. Hagrid therefore knew that his name had been in the book since he was a baby, but he would not have had this type of knowledge about a less famous or portentious child. David suggested a rather more ugly reason, though, why the staff of Hogwarts might not want to let parents know about their children's magical status. He wrote: > IOW, most magic reflects the intention of the wizard or witch. This > is apparently not the case with birth, in the sense that neither > wizards nor Muggles have any way of influencing whether their > offspring are magical. (It has occurred to me that the reason > Squibs are rare might be infanticide: what do you suppose the > Malfoys would do if they had a Squib baby? The Fudges?) Well, if they could tell from the beginning that a child was a Squib, then I think that many families probably *would* leave it on a mountainside to die, or (if we were talking about the Malfoys) possibly even use it in some nasty Dark ritual. At the very least, I suspect that many of those "Fine Old Wizarding Families" would put a non-magical child up for Muggle adoption -- and then try to hide the evidence that the child had ever even existed. But I don't get the impression that most magical children first manifest their talent early enough in life for this to be a feasible policy. Neville admittedly does seem to have been an unusually late bloomer, but Hagrid speaks of Harry's name being down for Hogwarts since infancy as if this is quite unusual as well. My conclusion is therefore that most magical children first manifest their gift later than infancy, but well before the age of eight (which is when Great Uncle Algie finally browbeat some magic out of poor Neville by dropping him out of that window). I'd guess that the norm is for children to do their first bit of magic somewhere around toddlerhood. JKR has also intimated that people can sometimes show their first signs of magic quite late in life. This interests me very much. Does the wizarding world have any type of formalized "adult education" for extraordinarily late-blooming ex-Squibs? Or are they forced to see to their own training as best they can, relying on sorry excuses like Filch's Kwikspell Correspondence Course if they cannot afford private tutelage? Rather hard luck on them, isn't it? -- Elkins From skelkins at attbi.com Sat Jul 6 02:15:59 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2002 02:15:59 -0000 Subject: Hagrid's Reliability and Sirius' House (was: What House Was Peter Pettigrew In-Reply-To: <20020705151002.77909.qmail@web13102.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40837 Kristin (who was right the first time) wrote: > Hagrid tells Harry that "there wasn't a wizard that went bad who > wan't in Slytherin." And at this time, Sirius Black had not yet > been proven innocent. We know that Hagrid knew about Sirius' > alleged crimes and that he was most certainly considered a bad > wizard in his eyes, so for him to make this statement he must have > known Sirius to be in Slytherin. Yes, well. Hagrid also says that foreigners cannot be trusted, that Harry *must* be a magically-powerful wizard for the simple reason that his parents were, and that the Malfoys all have "bad blood." (I find that last comment particularly rich, given what we now know about what Hagrid's got running through his own oversized veins.) In short, Hagrid is an unthinking bigot. He is partial to sweeping generalizations, and he does not stop to consider their ramifications. I would imagine, for example, that he would be genuinely hurt to be accused of adhering to the pureblood aesthetic of the Malfoys and their ilk, even though that is *precisely* the sort of thinking that his comments all too often reflect. Nor does Hagrid take any particular care to make certain that his statements are in the least bit accurate. In truth, the fact that Harry's parents were magically powerful is *no* assurance that Harry himself will be: Squibs exist, and they can come from the very best families, right? I think it strongly suggested from the way that Sirius refers to House Slytherin and its members that he was not himself a member of that House. -- Elkins From craigf4656 at hotmail.com Sat Jul 6 01:51:12 2002 From: craigf4656 at hotmail.com (Craig Frizzell) Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 20:51:12 -0500 Subject: The Magic Quill, Hogwarts' Admission and Squibs References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40838 > The Catlady wrote: > > > JKR said in an interview long ago that there is a magic quill that > > writes down the name of every magic child born in the UK. Once a > > year, McGonagall looks in the quill's book for all the children > > that 'are' 11 that 'year' and addresses Hogwarts admission letters > > to them. Wait a second though - why would any parent be excited when they got the letter then? Craig From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Sat Jul 6 01:55:00 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2002 01:55:00 -0000 Subject: Neville Longbottom In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40839 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cathubodva_raven" wrote: > Bboy_mn wrote: > > >To me, that powerful flight > >shows the powerful wizard > >hidden underneath. Sometime, > >when circumstance are right, > >even the most frightened person > >can set aside that fear and > >do great things. I think this > >is what will happen with > >Neville. He will reach a point > >where the demands of his own > >internal needs and the demands > >of external circumstances will > >become so great that he will > >have no >choice but to drop his > >fear, and show us his true mettle. > cathubodva_raven wrote: > > My interpretation of this scene was entirely opposite. Yes, it does > demonstrate that Neville has power, but I can't see how it shows > Neville "setting aside his fear to do great things". In essence, the > broomstick attacks Neville, and I had always assumed it was *because* > he was afraid. Dogs can sense fear, and so (why not?) can > broomsticks. I think I am the victim of my own poor paragraph structure. The "setting aside his fear to do great things" was meant as a summary of Neville and life in general, not a statement specifically isolated to this incident. In that context, the context I assume you saw, you are right, but I still stand by my statement as a general summary of Neville and a projection of future possibilities. > > The more frightened and desperate Neville becomes, the more violent > are the broomstick's attempts to dislodge him. I would hardly > describe the results of this encounter as 'great': Neville ends up > with a torn robe, a broken wrist, and a large dose of humiliation. I don't agree with the 'broomstick attacks Neville' statement, but at the same time, I think a lot of people saw it that way. I do whole heartedly agree that the more frightened Neville became, the more out of control the broom became. But fear and insecurity are great paralysers. If you are controlled by fear then out of control circumstances become hopelessly and despearately out of control. So yes, I agree, the more frightened Neville became the more hopelessly out of control the situation and the broom became. Let me us a car accident metaphor to illustate how and why the broom got more out of control as Neville became more fearful and the same situation to illustate Neville as I see him in the future. Setting: You are driving down a narrow asphalt road, lose control of your car, go off the road, and are headed straight for a river. Situation 1: Ruled by Fear: You go off the road, let go of the steering wheel, grasp the sides of your head and go "I'M GOING TO DIE!" Now the car is completely and hopelessly out of control. The circumstances made disasterous by paralysing fear. Situation 2: In Spite of Fear: You go off the road, and say to yourself "I'm scared to death but I have to do something." So you keep driving the car, you keep struggling for control of the situation. In this case, there is fear, but there is also hope because you are not paralysed by this fear. RE: Situation 1: Neville on the broom, paralysed by fear, and desperately fighting to deny the obvious. Result: out of control becomes more out of control. RE: Situation 2: Neville in the future, scared to death, but accepting the circumstances and struggling for the best possible out come. Result: Hope, and the potential for great things. > > However, having checked up on the Neville v Harry history, I think > this scene contrasts with the Devil's Snare, where Harry (the 'Anti- > Neville'?) is able to relax, clearly overcoming his fear. > > Cathubodva. I guess I can't prove any of this; it just my feeling that Neville is a great wizard and will play a stronger more positive and more active role in the future. BBoy_MN From shadowgirl_900 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 6 02:04:08 2002 From: shadowgirl_900 at yahoo.com (shadowgirl_900) Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2002 02:04:08 -0000 Subject: What house was Peter Pettigrew in? In-Reply-To: <004401c2245c$8be188c0$477c63d1@texas.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40840 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amanda Geist" wrote: > No, you didn't. In the book, Hagrid says this. Ron says it in the *movie.* > We seem to be having a rash of people confusing the movie and the book > scenes, lately. I find this odd; several instances just in the past month or > so, when nobody seemed to have any trouble distinguishing them before. I think this is because it's now on out video and DVD and we are watching it more. > This has been discussed numerous times, but the best argument I recall is > that Hagrid (who *is* the source of the comment) is not always the best > source of factually accurate statements. He tends to be more the voice of > emotion, not clear history. In context, with this comment Hagrid is not > trying to impart a fact of history, he is trying to underscore the depths of > his dislike for Slytherin house. :::Nods::: Remember, when he said it, Harry was feeling terrible about knowing nothing about the wizarding world. (A few paragraphs before it, Hagrid had said, "Blimey, Harry, I keep forgettin' how little yeh know - not knowin' about Quidditch!" And Harry's reply was, "Don't make me feel worse." So we can guess Hagrid was feeling a bit bad about depressing Harry.) So, Harry then asks what Slytherin and Hufflepuff are, then gloomily says he's sure he'll be in Hufflepuff. Hagrid, seemingly as part warning and part a way to make Harry stop moping, tells him, "Better Hufflepuff than Slytherin. There's not a single witch or wizard who went bad who wasn't in Slytherin." > This is not unlike me saying, "There's not a person I know who lost weight > who wasn't in Weight Watchers." This isn't really true. But I might make > such a statement simply to underscore how well I think the program works. Exactly so! Above and beyond that, let's take into account that Harry is depressed and upset right now. He's feeling in over his head and is sure he'll fail. If you were Hagrid, would you make a statement like, "Better Hufflepuff than Slytherin. There was only one wizard who went bad who wasn't in Slytherin." You know if you do, Harry will ask, "Who was that?" And do you really want to explain Sirius Black right now? I wouldn't. Knowing that you will have the ability to see Harry every day while he's at Hogwarts, would it not be better to wait and pick a time when you think he'd ready to deal with the whole, ugly story on a plate? {{{{{{{{{{{Hugs}}}}}}}}} Laura From shadowgirl_900 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 6 02:24:48 2002 From: shadowgirl_900 at yahoo.com (shadowgirl_900) Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2002 02:24:48 -0000 Subject: What house was Peter Pettigrew in? In-Reply-To: <20020705151002.77909.qmail@web13102.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40841 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Kristin Cusack wrote: > I think I made a mistake in my last post in that it > was Ron and not Hagrid woh made the comment about bad > wizards and Slytherin. > While I do realize that the arguments for James et al > being in Gryffindor are very strong the comment raises > questions. Everyone "knew" that Sirius Black had gone > just about as bad as possible, including Ron. So why > would he make that comment unless he had been a Slytherin? Okay, we are getting a little confused in our logic here. If A = B, then A must be the same thing as B. So if one line of thought is proven to be one thing and is linked to another, then thought B must equal A. We have pretty much proven that all four boys must have been in the same house. There really is no other way that they could have spent the time together that it took for Peter to learn to become a rat. They had to do that at night and it took forever. (This isn't even adding in that in the climate of the school at the time, if you weren't a Slytherin, you weren't making friends with one.) Now, we are faced with the question of which house it was. We know it *wasn't* Slytherin. We know this because A) Remus was hoping Gryffindor would win the quidditch game. Why would he do that unless he was either an old Gryffindor, or trying to win Harry's trust for some evil cause of his own. I'm voting for reason A. B) J.K. Rowling answered to the "What possition did James play for Gryffindor?" question. I'm agreeing that she knew what she was answering to. She's a smart woman and I think if he wasn't in that house she might have said so. C) Hagrid says, "Better Hufflepuff than Slytherin. There's not a single witch or wizard who went bad who wasn't in Slytherin." Would he really have been saying such harsh things to Harry about the house Harry's father came from? Harry was eventually going to find out everything about his parents. Had James been a Slytherin, telling Harry how evil Slytherin was would be a BAD idea. D) (And I'll admit this is a weak one, but...) Dumbledore(Or was that Lupin? I can't remember.) told Harry that his rivalry with Malfoy was just like James' rivalry with Snape. Harry and Malfoy aren't in the same house and I'm betting neither were James and Snape. Okay, having eleminated Slytherin, doesn't it make the whole argument rather empty? I was all based on the "Better Hufflepuff than Slytherin. There's not a single witch or wizard who went bad who wasn't in Slytherin." line. And we *know* the marauders weren't in Slytherin, so Hagrid must have been exagerating. But for fun, I rather think it was Gryffindor the boys went to. Why else would Remus have been cheering for them at the quidditch game? Anywho, just my thoughts. :) {{{{{{{{{{{{{Hugs}}}}}}}}} Laura From bard7696 at aol.com Sat Jul 6 02:34:28 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2002 02:34:28 -0000 Subject: Hagrid's Reliability and Sirius' House (was: What House Was Peter Pettigrew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40842 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" wrote: > Kristin (who was right the first time) wrote: > > > Hagrid tells Harry that "there wasn't a wizard that went bad who > > wan't in Slytherin." And at this time, Sirius Black had not yet > > been proven innocent. We know that Hagrid knew about Sirius' > > alleged crimes and that he was most certainly considered a bad > > wizard in his eyes, so for him to make this statement he must have > > known Sirius to be in Slytherin. > Elkins wrote: > Yes, well. Hagrid also says that foreigners cannot be trusted, that > Harry *must* be a magically-powerful wizard for the simple reason > that his parents were, and that the Malfoys all have "bad blood." (I > find that last comment particularly rich, given what we now know > about what Hagrid's got running through his own oversized veins.) > Wellllllll, the first one is definitely xenophobic. But as for the second one, he's hardly the only one the believes Harry Potter will be great. Ollivander says it literally. McGonagall believes there will be a "Harry Potter Day" in the future and even Dumbledore seems to believe it. Even Draco believes it, you could argue, because he tries so hard to recruit Harry to his little clique. And hey, the third one has certainly proven to be true. Lucius is a Death-Eater and Draco is a little punk. In short, Hagrid is an unthinking bigot. He is partial to sweeping > generalizations, and he does not stop to consider their > ramifications. I would imagine, for example, that he would be > genuinely hurt to be accused of adhering to the pureblood aesthetic > of the Malfoys and their ilk, even though that is *precisely* the > sort of thinking that his comments all too often reflect. > Hey, Hagrid has his own prejudices and quirks, but he certainly doesn't adhere to the Malfoys' beliefs. It is Hagrid who directly refutes the whole mudblood garbage. Now, you could argue that Hagrid's xenophobia and skepticism of the Malfoys (thinking Harry will be great is neither bigoted nor unthinking) is on the same level as the vile venom that spews from Draco's mouth about Muggle-born wizards. However, I think any reasonable look at the situation would put wishing to exterminate an entire class of wizards and witches because of their parentage completely blows away not trusting foreigners and thinking "hey, like father, like son." But that's just me :) > Nor does Hagrid take any particular care to make certain that his > statements are in the least bit accurate. In truth, the fact that > Harry's parents were magically powerful is *no* assurance that Harry > himself will be: Squibs exist, and they can come from the very best > families, right? Given that Harry, as a baby, deflected a killing curse from the most powerful evil wizard of modern times would lead MOST of the Wizard community to believe Harry was powerful, no? Dumbledore knows the truth, that Lily's charm did the deflecting, but I don't see this as being common knowledge. So again, Hagrid is HARDLY the only one who thinks Harry is powerful. And within a few minutes of meeting Harry, Hagrid learns that Harry has shown magical ability, in the form of things "Harry couldn't quite explain" which seems to rule out Squib-ness. So, knowing that Harry ISN'T a Squib, it's hardly the greatest leap to figure that given his parentage, Harry will be pretty good. > I think it strongly suggested from the way that Sirius refers to > House Slytherin and its members that he was not himself a member of > that House. > Agreed. I think what Hagrid said is either a FLINT, an exaggeration, or a desire to shield Harry from the knowledge of his godfather going bad and betraying his folks. But I disagree that it's based on Hagrid being a bigot. Darrin From skelkins at attbi.com Sat Jul 6 04:38:59 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2002 04:38:59 -0000 Subject: Hagrid's Bigotry (was: Hagrid's Reliability and Sirius' House ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40843 I wrote: > Yes, well. Hagrid also says that foreigners cannot be trusted, that > Harry *must* be a magically-powerful wizard for the simple reason > that his parents were, and that the Malfoys all have "bad blood." > (I find that last comment particularly rich, given what we now know > about what Hagrid's got running through his own oversized veins.) Darrin replied: > Wellllllll, the first one is definitely xenophobic. > But as for the second one, he's hardly the only one the believes > Harry Potter will be great. It's not that he believes that Harry Potter will be great that I object to. It's the fact that he chooses to express this belief in terms of genetic inheritance. > And hey, the third one has certainly proven to be true. Lucius is a > Death-Eater and Draco is a little punk. No, it has *not* been proven to be true. That Lucius and Draco are both rotters does not mean that the Malfoys have "bad blood." "Bad blood" would mean that their nastiness is in some way genetic, heritable. There is absolutely no evidence that this is really the case, and if it were true, it would completely undercut what Dumbledore tells Harry at the end of CoS about the importance of choice. I find it particularly ironic for *Hagrid* of all people to suggest such a thing, given that it is precisely people like Hagrid whose victimization the "bad blood" rationale would be used to justify, should DEs like Lucius Malfoy have their way. > Hey, Hagrid has his own prejudices and quirks, but he certainly > doesn't adhere to the Malfoys' beliefs. It is Hagrid who directly > refutes the whole mudblood garbage. No, he doesn't adhere to the Malfoy's beliefs. He does, however, slip into precisely the same mode of thinking when he talks about the classes of people that *he* doesn't like. That he may have perfectly legitimate reasons for not liking certain people is really not the point. That he is prejudiced in his thinking is. This is a topic very dear to my heart, you know, because it's how I made my very first enemies on this list. ;-) Back in January, this is what I wrote: ------------------------------------------------------------ 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 us the 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- That's pretty much still my take on Hagrid. Darrin: > Now, you could argue that Hagrid's xenophobia and skepticism of the > Malfoys (thinking Harry will be great is neither bigoted nor > unthinking) is on the same level as the vile venom that spews from > Draco's mouth about Muggle-born wizards. No, it's not at all on the same level. I really can't imagine, for example, that Hagrid would ever advocate genocide. It is the same *logic,* however, and it's a logic that I consider dangerous. It's a logic that gets used to justify some very nasty things, both in our reality and in the Potterverse. I can't imagine Hagrid ever advocating genocide, but advocating some other ugly things? Well, who can say? He does insist that the House Elves enjoy bondage as a matter of racial disposition. Maybe he's right about that, and maybe he's wrong. Only time will tell us whether that statement is actually canonically true. But when you view this belief in light of Hagrid's general tendency to believe that "blood will tell," it does start to look a little bit ugly, don't you think? It's ugly in precisely the same way that Harry's Aunt Marge nattering on about Harry himself having "bad blood" is ugly. What makes it ugly isn't that Marge happened to be *wrong* about what the Potters were really like. Even if the Potters really had been criminals and drunkards, the assumption that their son must therefore be intrinsically worthless would still be completely vile. I wrote: > Nor does Hagrid take any particular care to make certain that his > statements are in the least bit accurate. In truth, the fact that > Harry's parents were magically powerful is *no* assurance that > Harry himself will be: Squibs exist, and they can come from the > very best families, right? Darrin wrote: > Given that Harry, as a baby, deflected a killing curse from the > most powerful evil wizard of modern times would lead MOST of the > Wizard community to believe Harry was powerful, no? Dumbledore > knows the truth, that Lily's charm did the deflecting, but I don't > see this as being common knowledge. So again, Hagrid is HARDLY the > only one who thinks Harry is powerful. Again, I think that you're missing my point here. The point isn't that Hagrid believes Harry to be powerful. *Everybody* believes that Harry is powerful. That Harry Potter defeated Voldemort at the age of one is common knowledge in the wizarding world. That's not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is Hagrid's tendency to view things in terms of the primacy of blood. "With a mum an' dad like yours, what else would yeh be?" > And within a few minutes of meeting Harry, Hagrid learns that Harry > has shown magical ability, in the form of things "Harry couldn't > quite explain" which seems to rule out Squib-ness. > So, knowing that Harry ISN'T a Squib, it's hardly the greatest leap > to figure that given his parentage, Harry will be pretty good. Why? Both Hermione and Justin Finch-Fletchley are Muggle-born, aren't they? Neither of their parents are magical. Yet I think it clear that Hermione is *more* magically talented than Justin is. I don't see why you would assume that the child of two magically- powerful people is likely to be one of two things: either magically strong, or a Squib. Children of Muggles can fall anywhere along the spectrum of magical talent, so why would the children of wizards be any different? > Agreed. I think what Hagrid said is either a FLINT, an > exaggeration, or a desire to shield Harry from the knowledge of his > godfather going bad and betraying his folks. > But I disagree that it's based on Hagrid being a bigot. I think that it's a bit of exaggeration, and a bit of prejudice. Hagrid does, after all, have some very *personal* reasons to dislike House Slytherin. Even aside from the fact that so many of its members supported Voldemort during the last war, one of them also was the one to get him expelled from Hogwarts. As for shielding Harry from the knowledge of his godfather, I certainly accept that Hagrid never mentioned Sirius to Harry for just this reason. But I honestly can't believe that Hagrid is thoughtful enough to have deliberately altered his phrasing from "There's only been one wizard who ever went bad who wasn't in Slytherin" to "There's not a single witch or wizard who went bad who wasn't in Slytherin" just to forestall Harry asking who the exception was. That's just not Hagrid. He's not that kind of strategic thinker. He *blurts* things. Constantly. That's just what he does. Also, I don't believe for an instant that Sirius (or, rather, Pettigrew) was really the only non-Slytherin ever to go bad. Not only doesn't that seem at all plausible, it also strikes me as completely inconsistent with the descriptions that both Hagrid and Sirius give of what life was like for the wizarding world during the days of Voldemort's first rise. People just didn't know who they could trust, right? Hardly likely, if members of House Slytherin had really comprised Voldemort's only supporters. -- Elkins From coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com Sat Jul 6 05:05:23 2002 From: coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com (coriolan_cmc2001) Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2002 05:05:23 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Hey,_Hey,_I=92m_a_Beetle_(filk)?= Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40844 Hey, Hey, I'm a Beetle (from GoF) (To the tune of The Monkees' Theme Song) Dedicated to Lilac THE SCENE: The grounds of Hogwarts. A solitary bug in flight hums triumphantly to herself SKEETER Here I fly An Animagic bug If your name starts with "H", I'm Pulling out the rug Hey, hey, I'm a beetle Quick-Quote elite'll go far Now I'm so busy spying On that kid with the scar. I write want I want to Who cares if it's untrue? I dish it up for my readers In a derisive stew Hey, hey, I'm a beetle Just watch as I beetle my brow I designate my victims They all wind up as my chow I'm just trying to be caustic Wanna keep some scandal in play Bring on their degradation `Cause it's now their turn to pay (Suddenly the beetle's free flight comes to abrupt end as a butterfly net swooshes over it. The camera pans back to reveal Hermione holding the net. She imprisons the insect Skeeter in a glass jar, and casts an Unbreakable Charm over it) HERMIONE There she was Spreading lies so far But now it seems that the buzz is She's been set ajar Hey, hey, you're a beetle You know from deceit you'll be barred You haven't any license Seems like I hold all the cards HERMIONE & RITA Hey, hey, you're/I'm a beetle It seems that you/I needled me/you much So now get/I'm busy chewing On leaves and twigs and such. HERMIONE You'll be retirin' for one year You are not to snoop or write You've got no ventilation It's seems my case is air-tight. HERMIONE & RITA Hey, hey, you're/I'm a beetle Hey, hey, you're/I'm a beetle Hey, hey, you're/I'm a beetle - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From tmarends at yahoo.com Sat Jul 6 05:00:56 2002 From: tmarends at yahoo.com (tmarends) Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2002 05:00:56 -0000 Subject: another Arther Weasley question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40845 Gretchen wrote: > > In re-reading GoF, a line hit me that I did not notice before. On > Page 203 of the US hardcover version, Malfoy is reading Harry and Ron > an article from the Daily Prophet about Arthur Weasley at Moody's and > the dustbins. Malfoy was commenting on how they got Arthur's name > wrong in the article saying "imagine them not even getting his name > right, Weasley. It's almost as thought he's a complete nonentity, > isn't it?" Is he a nonentity? It was suggested he was an > unmentionable-maybe he is, but uses another name for the sake of his > family. Maybe he changed his name for other reasons? Could this be > a "clue" into Arthur's past? > OK, so the Daily Prophet gets things wrong. Especially if they are written by Rita Skeeter. But COULD Ms. Skeeter have not been there for the story and was just relaying it, and heard Mr. Weasley was involved, but automatically assumed it was Arthur's twin brother Arnold? I mean, twins do run in families. Maybe the twin brother Arnold is an unmentionable, and stays out of sight, but every other wizard of any importance would know there was a Weasley set of twins. Right?? Tim A. From Pam at barkingdog.demon.co.uk Sat Jul 6 09:10:57 2002 From: Pam at barkingdog.demon.co.uk (pamscotland) Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2002 09:10:57 -0000 Subject: multi-culti wizarding education / Karkaroff / Pettigrew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40846 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "catlady_de_los_angeles" wrote: > I believed that Durmstrang was in Latvia, but JKR made me wrong by > saying in an interview that it is in northern Scandinavia. I can't > find the particular interview. > I heard JKR say it at a reading. She did a tour of Britain giving readings to raise money for the Maggie Centres (cancer support drop- in centres). The one in Glasgow started with some staff from Glasgow Zoo exhibiting and talking about some of the creatures mentioned in the books or their muggle equivalents - snowy owls, big lizards, etc. Then JKR read from GoF (the bouncing ferret bit) and then she answered questions from the audience - we all put up our hands and she chose the questioners, invariably children. One child asked where the three magic schools were. She said she didn't know because they were kept secret, but she was almost certain that Hogwarts was in Scotland, Durmstrang was probably somewhere near the Arctic Circle, northern Scandinavia sort of thing and Beauxbatons, she imagined, would be on the French Riviera somewhere. The impression she gave was that there were ONLY three magic schools in the whole of Europe - but, of course, she couldn't be sure because no muggle could be sure! I wanted to ask her where all the other magic schools were in the world but she didn't pick me - and my children were too embarassed by my jumping up and down waving my hand in the air to put up their hands. By the time it was my turn to get my book signed I'd forgotten I'd wanted to ask her about that and we started talking about the Comic Relief books instead! Cheers for now Pam From ickle_ronniekins at yahoo.com Sat Jul 6 12:00:11 2002 From: ickle_ronniekins at yahoo.com (ickle_ronniekins) Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2002 12:00:11 -0000 Subject: humour In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40847 I just got to add this one: '[Lockhart] ...Now I don't want any of you youngsters to worry -- you'll still have your Potions master when I'm through with him, never fear!' 'Wouldn't it be good if they finished each other off?' Ron muttered in Harry's ear. -CoS US p189 -Ron Yu From meboriqua at aol.com Sat Jul 6 13:04:09 2002 From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw) Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2002 13:04:09 -0000 Subject: Harry's Magic At Home (was: Re: Redeemable! Dursleys?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40848 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Craig Frizzell" wrote: > I'm currently rereading GoF and something struck me as Harry was packing his things to go to the Weasley's - Why doesn't Harry use the invisibility cloak while at home? If nothing else, he could use it to play pranks on Dudley (which he'd find glee in, I think). Or, it would be a good way to sneak out from time to time.> We learned in CoS that Harry is carefully monitored while at the Dursleys, obviously more so than other wizard children who are out of school (we know that Fred and George use magic continually while at the Burrow). He got in trouble when Dobby used magic at the Dursleys and in PoA, even though Harry didn't get in trouble for the Aunt Marge incident, the MoM knew about and were there to clean it up. Using the invisibility cloak, I'm guessing, would register on the MoM's magical use map or whatever they use to find out wizard children who are using magic outside of Hogwarts. Harry may very well get in trouble for using magic on Dudley if it does happen, but I have a feeling he'll be satisfied about it anyway, no matter how he uses magic and what the consequences are. --jenny from ravenclaw ****************************** From heidit at netbox.com Sat Jul 6 14:37:25 2002 From: heidit at netbox.com (heidit at netbox.com) Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2002 10:37:25 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Royal Family only for muggles? Message-ID: <16600080.143993364@imcingular.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40849 Tamara wrote: > Do magical folk follow the royal family, or have anything like that > of their own? And Darrin replied: Someone with more knowledge of the history of the Royal Family than I could probably imagine some of the weirder members of the line as being shipped off to Hogwarts *** Sorry to be so late in replying but I was off celebrating Independence Day) but I wanted to posit some theories about this, especially in light of the discussion of Merlin. In order to expound on muggle-wizard interaction, it's important to read Quidditch Through the Ages, which traces some of the stages of the split between Muggles and magical folk in the UK (I say UK, because the book doesn't provide much differentiation among the various countries). The book more-than-implies that until the 1600's wizards and muggles interacted with some regularity. The split certainly post-dates the time of Merlin and King Arthur's reign, which actually also predate the founding of Hogwarts, and iirc, comes not long after the ascent of the Stewarts and the end of the Tudors. The relevance of this? How many women in the House of Tudor were accused of witchcraft? King Henry VIII even purportedly married a witch - Nan Bullen - modernly known as Anne Boylen - and her red-haired daughter was also accused of knowing witchcraft. And Elizabeth I herself was even "out of court" for a number of her teenage years and her early 20s, during Mary's reign (and portions of Edward's and Jane Grey Dudley as well). Well, why not suppose that she was at Hogwarts and her keepers in semiexile just p rovided good cover stories. Of course, I could move even farther from Things That Actually Fit With Canon Timelines and factor in the rumors that Elizabeth bore a child to Robert Dudley - a red haired one of course - who took on one of his/her father's court nicknames as a surname and became a Weasley but that might go too far to fanfic. It's clear, though, that the split between muggle and wizard culture does not go back more than 500 years (more next) Please reply to Heidit at netbox.com From heidit at netbox.com Sat Jul 6 14:49:25 2002 From: heidit at netbox.com (heidit at netbox.com) Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2002 10:49:25 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Royal Family only for muggles? In-Reply-To: 8952a14 Message-ID: <16600080.803359766@imcingular.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40850 Continuing my prior reply... It's fascinating to see how jkr has little bits of Muggle life affect the wizarding world - clearly things from before the 1600s were regularly incorporated into the wizarding world (and possibly vice versa - do a search of the yahoogroup for *indoor plumbing*) but even more modern things like the Wireless did as well(but it's possible that happened because during world war II, wizards helped in the fight against the Axis because Grindlewald was helping the Axis) I think that jkr probably has reasons for having wizards aware of some things but not others, but I don't think we'll know what they are until the books are done. I have seen what I personally feel is an urge by some readers of the books - including some posters here - to pass off everything that didn't make sense at the end of one book as a flint (error) or inconsistency, and while I don't deny that jkr's made her share of glitches (wand order?) I think the overarching decisions really do hang together. I do wonder if people who read all 4 books right through are more prone to this, whereas those of us who waited for books 2, 3 and 4 to come out are more accepting of the fact that there are Things We Don't Know. Heidi Tandy Follow me to FictionAlley - Harry Potter fanfics of all shapes, sizes and ships - 7 sickles an ounce http://www.FictionAlley.org From lav at tut.by Sat Jul 6 02:53:17 2002 From: lav at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 05:53:17 +0300 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Imperious Curse In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1812794824.20020706055317@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 40851 Greetings! > hailebop_h wrote: h> I agree with what Eileen said (posted below). The main h> reason Crouch taught resistance of Imperious was that it h> was essential that Crouch played a realistic Moody, and h> that meant copying any quirky things he might do in h> particular as the real Moody's friends (i.e. Dumbledore) h> would spot faults in these... h> Hailey Actually, AFAIK it's written write in the book that it was Dumbledore who wanted students to become familiar with these spells. So it was not Barty's initiative, but Dumbledore's. Whatever Barty thought about it, he could do nothing without revealing himself. Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed, always happy to throw weird ideas into community. Saturday, July 6, 2002, 5:51 local time (GMT+2:00) From lav at tut.by Sat Jul 6 15:43:53 2002 From: lav at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 18:43:53 +0300 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Durmstrang language/location In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <61063504.20020706184353@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 40852 Greetings! > catlady_de_los_angeles wrote: c> I suspect that the language of instruction at Durmstrang c> is German, like its name. I wonder if the wizarding folk c> have spells or potions to learn languages quickly and c> easily. Do they have translator earrings (other language c> to native language) and translator tongue piecings c> (native language to other language)? Name may be German, but I can find no reasons for language being German as well. So far all students from Durmstrang that we know about are of Slavic origin, and of Slavic languages, Russian has been a consensus for long time. I agree that *originally* language of Durmstrang was German. But for now it's most likely Russian. I can name no other Slavic language of similar popularity. Even now in Eastern Europe many people can speak Russian (in times of USSR it was default second language in schools). c> I believed that Durmstrang was in Latvia, but JKR made me c> wrong by saying in an interview that it is in northern c> Scandinavia. I can't find the particular interview. Yes, I too support the idea that Durmstrang is somewhere in Northern Norway (i.e. Lapland). Latvia just doesn't fit the image - I have been there a couple of times. Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed, always happy to throw weird ideas into community. Saturday, July 6, 2002, 5:56 local time (GMT+2:00) From tmarends at yahoo.com Sat Jul 6 18:17:18 2002 From: tmarends at yahoo.com (tmarends) Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2002 18:17:18 -0000 Subject: multi-culti wizarding education / Karkaroff / Pettigrew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40853 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "catlady_de_los_angeles" wrote: > > Canon asserts that some people served the Dark Lord under the > Imperius Curse (and when he fell, they kinda came out of trances -- > wouldn't their trance-like state have been visible before, and served > as a warning that there was Something Wrong?) rather than having > *chosen* evil (and currently it appears that Ludo Bagman passed > information out of sheer stupidity). So one *could* claim that all > Gryffindors who served the Dark Lord acted under Imperius or because > they had been fooled I don't think you can assume you could tell who was under the Imperius Curse. Some Death Eaters claimed to be when they weren't... they just didn't want to go to Azkaban. In GoF Moody/Crouch Jr. put Krum under one to attack Fleur and Cedric, and they didn't know he was under one at the time. Tim A. From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Sat Jul 6 20:32:50 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2002 20:32:50 -0000 Subject: Royal Family only for muggles? In-Reply-To: <16600080.143993364@imcingular.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40854 > Tamara wrote: > > Do magical folk follow the royal family, or have anything like that > > of their own? > Heidi, appropriately celebrating Independence day: > > The book [QTTA] more-than-implies that until the 1600's wizards and muggles interacted with some regularity. The split certainly post- dates the time of Merlin and King Arthur's reign, which actually also predate the founding of Hogwarts, and iirc, comes not long after the ascent of the Stewarts and the end of the Tudors. > > It's clear, though, that the split between muggle and wizard culture does not go back more than 500 years > (more next) > OK, there are two questions here. First, the royal family. It seems pretty clear that the wizarding world is politically fairly closely aligned with the Muggle one. The Minister for Magic is understood to be the UK such. There are some misaligments: Transylvania has its own (national) Quidditch team, but in the main, countries are the same. (It's even possible that Transylvania holds a similar position to Scotland and England as a 'nation'.) Furthermore, there is a some sort of official link between the UK prime minister (PM) and the MOM (see the Daily Prophet on the Knight Bus in POA). The split between Muggle and Magical worlds is therefore not complete even at the time of the books. I would say it's most likely therefore that UK wizards regard themselves as British (or at least Welsh, Irish, etc.) and see the Queen as head of state. But, like most British people, they don't pay any attention to the royal family in day to day life, except on the odd special occasion. Second, the history of the split. I remain to be convinced that QTTA supports the notion of an early integrated world followed by a sharply split one, even assuming the split was not sudden. Laws were being passed forbidding Quidditch near cities as early as 1362. Wendelin the Weird's burnings took place in the fourteenth century, too. It would be interesting to know whether Merlin is supposed to be any more historical a figure in the WW than he is in the Muggle one. If he is, even then he may have been the then-equivalent of the MOM to Arthur's PM, just as the MOM was preceded by the Chief of the Wizard's Council. There is a clear indication of a definite move into hiding in the late middle ages (see FB p xv, esp. note 4); however, this seems to have been just as likely because of a growing Muggle awareness of wizards, as because of a breakdown in friendly relations. In short, there has probably always been a degree of connection between the WW and the MW, which may have waxed and waned through history and from one nation to another. A long-standing move from an integrated world to a dualistic one is much harder to show from canon, IMO. David From slinkie at nids.se Sat Jul 6 21:04:54 2002 From: slinkie at nids.se (eledhwen_0) Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2002 21:04:54 -0000 Subject: Limitations of magic Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40855 Hi everyone! I've allways wondered about the limitations of magic. It seems pretty certain that you can not just conjour up whatever you want (food, clothes etc) because then nobody would be poor and all the stores would go bankrupt, but in PoA Dumbledore conjors up sleeping bags for the whole school, while searching the school for Sirius. This doesn't make sense. If you can make sleeping bags by magic then you can make anything else you want, but that doesn't work as I've written above. My theory is that you can conjour things up only for a certain amount of time and then they disapear. Thus food made by magic will disapear afte a while and leave you just as hungry as before, clothes made by magic will also disapear after a while as will money and everything else. This would make it necesary to earn money and either buy or make other things, since the ones aquired by magic will not last. I'm not sure if this makes any sense and I admitt that my theory probabaly needs some fine tuning, but the fact that Dumbledore was able to just get sleeping bags like that has always bothered me. Got any ideas or opinions? Eledhwen From crana at ntlworld.com Sat Jul 6 21:22:29 2002 From: crana at ntlworld.com (rosie) Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 22:22:29 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Limitations of magic - Dobby/Harry's Magic References: Message-ID: <001301c22533$3d12d780$493168d5@xxx> No: HPFGUIDX 40856 Eledhwen said: "I've allways wondered about the limitations of magic. It seems pretty certain that you can not just conjour up whatever you want (food, clothes etc) because then nobody would be poor and all the stores would go bankrupt, but in PoA Dumbledore conjors up sleeping bags for the whole school, while searching the school for Sirius. This doesn't make sense. If you can make sleeping bags by magic then you can make anything else you want, but that doesn't work as I've written above. My theory is that you can conjour things up only for a certain amount of time and then they disapear. Thus food made by magic will disapear afte a while and leave you just as hungry as before, clothes made by magic will also disapear after a while as will money and everything else. This would make it necesary to earn money and either buy or make other things, since the ones aquired by magic will not last. I'm not sure if this makes any sense and I admitt that my theory probabaly needs some fine tuning, but the fact that Dumbledore was able to just get sleeping bags like that has always bothered me. Got any ideas or opinions?" Yes, I like your idea that the objects might be only temporary. Another explanation could be that Dumbledore already had the sleeping bags, and was just (in a way) summoning them. Presumably, an event like a troll break-in meaning that all the children had to sleep in the hall would happen often enough to make having the sleeping bags worthwhile. Perhaps in the past, Hogwarts had entertained guests who did not have their own carriage or ship to sleep on, and who had to sleep in the hall.... I don't know. It could be possible, though. For example, Mrs Weasley's book "Charm your own Cheese": presumably, you would have to have the milk and the charm would just turn it into cheese? +++++++++++++++++++++ Jenny said: "He got in trouble when Dobby used magic at the Dursleys and in PoA, even though Harry didn't get in trouble for the Aunt Marge incident, the MoM knew about and were there to clean it up. Using the invisibility cloak, I'm guessing, would register on the MoM's magical use map or whatever they use to find out wizard children who are using magic outside of Hogwarts." I've always wondered why Harry got into trouble and not Dobby. The MoM seemed to base their presumption that it was Harry who was responsible on the fact that he lived there. What if an underage wizard did magic in a public place? You would think that a magical detection system could detect who carried out the magic, not just where it was. Just a plot device? Evidence of the MoM's incompetence? or a clue about the mysteries of house-elf magic....? Rosie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lyss_2410 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 6 20:10:33 2002 From: lyss_2410 at yahoo.com (lyss_2410) Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2002 20:10:33 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore/GOF Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40857 Sorry if this has been asked before, but I am new here and haven't read all of the messages. I've been wondering why Dumbledore didn't know that something strange was going on - seeing how he saw Harry's name and a different school on the piece of paper (when Fred put his name on the paper, he put both his name and Hogwarts) or did the GOF just spit out the name and not the school? Alyssa From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Sat Jul 6 20:24:39 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2002 20:24:39 -0000 Subject: Another Flint? In-Reply-To: <004301c14de0$89714740$3fae1e3e@StephenDawson> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40858 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Lucy Austin" wrote: >...edit... The counter to the Stunning Curse 'Stupefy', is the word 'Enervate' to bring the victim back round. ... edit ..... ... the English word 'enervated' ..., means to deprive of vigour and vitality. ... it should create an even deeper Stun, rather than waking them up? ... edit .... > > Can I be a L.O.O.N now? > > Lucy Know I'm not suppose to post extremely short answers, but maybe they'll let me get away with this one. Just a guess but maybe it is depriving the SPELL of vigour and vitaltity, rather than depriving the victim. In other words, it could be a charm for weakening any spell, thereby restoring the victim. Just out of curiosity, I tried to find similar words that JKR might have intended to use, but grabbed this one by mistake. I search my digital dictonary for every word relating to energize, vitalize, revitalize, revive, and any other word I could think of and couldn't find a substitute. Then I tried running all those words through a Latin Dictionary ... http://cawley.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/lookdown.pl?oil ... to see if any of them produce a word similar to 'enervate'; no luck. So I have to conclude that you really did find a mistake. Unusual, when you consider how knowledgable and meticulous JKR usually is. By the way, the Latin Dictionary I gave a link to is excellent. It simultaneously searches English and Latin, so all you have to do is enter any word or word fragement in either language and it give you all occurances. Very hand. BBoy_MN From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Sat Jul 6 20:52:07 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2002 20:52:07 -0000 Subject: Another Flint? In-Reply-To: <004301c14de0$89714740$3fae1e3e@StephenDawson> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40859 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Lucy Austin" wrote: > ...The counter to the Stunning Curse 'Stupefy', is the word 'Enervate' to bring the victim back round. ... the English word 'enervated' which this must be related to, means to deprive of vigour and vitality. ... it should create an even deeper Stun, rather than waking them up? Wouldn't 'Energate' for 'energise' have been a better counter spell? > > Can I be a L.O.O.N now? > > Lucy Well, now I really screwed up (pardon my French... or is that Latin). In another post in this thread, I search for words spelled similar to 'Enervate' but having an alternative meaning, and searched for word like revitalize and revive, searching for words similar to 'enervate'. Well, I gave up too soon. My original conclusion was that 'enervate' weakened the spell not the victim. Then I looked a little more after someone mentioned 'eNNervate' and found the word 'INnervate' which means - 2. To stimulate (a nerve, muscle, or body part) to action. Innervate, and ennervate sound so close to the same that JKR may have simply made a mistake. As far as the spelling, I can't find 'eNNervate' in my dictionary, so it could be that the proof readers at the publishers assumed it was a misspell and change it to 'eNervate'. Now I'm guessing the mistake was the accidental use of 'ENNervate' when she meant to use 'INnervate'. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. BBoy_MN From heidit at netbox.com Sat Jul 6 22:13:19 2002 From: heidit at netbox.com (heiditandy) Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2002 22:13:19 -0000 Subject: Royal Family only for muggles?/ Spelling spells In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40860 I wrote: > > > > The book [QTTA] more-than-implies that until the 1600's wizards and > muggles interacted with some regularity. The split certainly post- > dates the time of Merlin and King Arthur's reign, which actually also > predate the founding of Hogwarts, and iirc, comes not long after the > ascent of the Stewarts and the end of the Tudors. > > > > It's clear, though, that the split between muggle and wizard > culture does not go back more than 500 years > > (more next) > > Then davewitley wrote: > OK, there are two questions here. First, the royal family. It seems > pretty clear that the wizarding world is politically fairly closely > aligned with the Muggle one. I'm not sure I would say "closely" but there definitely is an alliance and information sharing. I wonder if it's closer to the way the US and USSR shared information back during the cold war (i.e. not very happily) or the way the US and UK share information these days (am in mind now of how Tony Blair was given the task of publicizing the evidence tying Bin Laden to the 9/11 attacks). But that's my idle curiousity and further discussion might be better on OT-Chatter. > The split between Muggle and Magical worlds is > therefore not complete even at the time of the books. Well, there is clearly synergy between the two, but there seems to be a pretty solid split among kids who grow up in wizarding households and kids who grow up in Muggle households. And like others have wondered these past few days (and years!) - does a witch or wizard have more contact with the magical world than with their families? These kinds of things, like weddings for Muggle-borns, or even childbirth and education (especially university level schooling) have been explored in many fanfics, including Trouble in Paradise (AngieJ) and Lori's Paradigm of Uncertainty. > Second, the history of the split. I remain to be convinced that QTTA > supports the notion of an early integrated world followed by a > sharply split one, even assuming the split was not sudden. I do agree. I have my own doubts that the magical and Muggle worlds have been integrated much over the last thousand years as a general rule, but it's true that in QTTA, there was a discussion of why brooms were the transportation of choice in Olden Days, and the book noted that it was so that witches and wizards wouldn't have obviously magical devices hovering around when a Muggle came to borrow a cup of mead. In contrast, I think it's unlikely that the Weasleys worry about the nearest Muggle dropping in for some sugar. > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Lucy Austin" wrote: > >...edit... The counter to the Stunning Curse 'Stupefy', is the word > 'Enervate' to bring the victim back round. > ... edit ..... > ... the English word 'enervated' ..., means to deprive of vigour and > vitality. ... it should create an even deeper Stun, rather than waking > them up? B_boy wrote: > Just a guess but maybe it is depriving the SPELL of vigour and > vitaltity, rather than depriving the victim. That certainly works if you want to presume that she used the word simply for that purpose. However, if you consider that she possibly chose that word BOTH for the reason B_boy posted above and because the word sounds like a combination of "energize" and "invigorate", rather than simply for the dictionary definition of one word alone, that is equally likely to be accurate. I mean, simply put, *she is making up the language*. These are words that *she* is using to mean different things. She gets to make the rules and the definitions. Are we now going to start concluding that because the word "muggle" has, in times past, meant marijuana, that JKR was using it improperly in the HP books, or are we to believe her when she says that she coined it by extending the word "mug", which in the UK means "fool"? heidi From Ali at zymurgy.org Sat Jul 6 22:14:05 2002 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison) Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2002 22:14:05 -0000 Subject: Royal Family only for muggles? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40861 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "davewitley" wrote: SNIP > OK, there are two questions here. First, the royal family. It seems pretty clear that the wizarding world is politically fairly closely aligned with the Muggle one. The Minister for Magic is understood to be the UK such. There are some misaligments: Transylvania has its own (national) Quidditch team, but in the main, countries are the same. (It's even possible that Transylvania holds a similar position to Scotland and England as a 'nation'.) > Furthermore, there is a some sort of official link between the UK > prime minister (PM) and the MOM (see the Daily Prophet on the Knight Bus in POA). The split between Muggle and Magical worlds is > therefore not complete even at the time of the books. > > I would say it's most likely therefore that UK wizards regard > themselves as British (or at least Welsh, Irish, etc.) and see the > Queen as head of state. But, like most British people, they don't > pay any attention to the royal family in day to day life, except on > the odd special occasion. > David I fully agree with this line of reasoning, and there is canon to support the idea that the British WW see the Queen as its head of state. When Crouch-Moody places Harry's class under the Imperius Curse, "Dean Thomas hopped three times around the room, singing the national anthem". GoF p.203 UK Hardback edition. IMO this national anthem MUST be the British Muggle one, or it would have been signed posted as the WW national anthem for us Muggles to understand that there is a separate one (Harry would notice this, just like Wizard Chess is specifically named so that we know it's different). As our national anthem is "God Save the Queen", this would imply that they recognise the Queen. Ali Who wonders if Dean knew the words to the second verse as she doesn't know many people who do! From scaliff42 at ev1.net Sun Jul 7 01:10:14 2002 From: scaliff42 at ev1.net (dantefyre2112) Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2002 01:10:14 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Motives? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40862 Hi all. I've been re-reading the first book recently and I've come across a few things that are troubling me. I checked that FAQ and searched the archive as best I could, but didn't see this mentioned. If it has been discussed before, I wouldn't mind being directed to the discussion. What's bothering me is Dumbledore's timing as far as bringing the Philosopher's Stone to Hogwarts. Did he know someone was planning on stealing it? He probably guessed that the stone could be used to revive Voldemort from his weakened state - I mean, what else was it really good for (besides the whole near-immortality thing)? But, if that's the case, why did he leave it in Gringotts for long? Why wasn't it moved to Hogwarts right after Voldemort's defeat, when his followers were still floundering about? For that matter, why wasn't it just destroyed? What brought this to my attention was something McGonagall said just after she caught Harry, Hermione, Neville, and Draco wandering the halls after the incident with Norbert: "...nothing gives you the right to walk around the school at night, especially these days, it's very dangerous..." What? What does she mean, "these days" and "dangerous?" As far as the reader was concerned at this point, nothing very serious was going on at the school. Sure, there was a troll running around at Halloween, but that was explained away as an isolated incident, right? What I think this says is that the faculty was aware of *something* going on, something we weren't been told about. This something probably had to do with Voldemort, but I'm not sure the faculty knew that particular fact. Or did they? Snape at the very least knew. He was suspicious of Quirrell from the start, even since the first Quidditch match. Surely he would have mentioned Quirrell's alarming behavior to Dumbledore, whom Snape respects. I mean, he tried to kill a student! Why didn't Dumbledore do anything about it? I have a great many suspicions concerning Dumbledore's motives in the series, most of which are not well received. I have this feeling he's manipulating everybody for some other purpose, one that isn't necessarily in the best interest of all concerned. I just don't see how he couldn't know Voldie was stuck on the back of Quirrell's head, especially if Snape suspected his involvement with the Dark Lord. If he DID know, then having the stone stored at Hogwarts was just asking for Voldemort to be revived! The same thing goes for Crouch. How could Dumbledore NOT know that it was somebody else in a Moody-skin suit? I thought he and Dumbledore were close friends. I don't understand how Crouch, who had been isolated for the past twelve or thirteen years or so, could so easily fool Dumbledore. Unless, of course, Dumbledore DID know, just like he knew about Quirrell, and was looking for subtle a way to get Voldemort back in power. What better way to put yourself in power than to defeat some great evil and make yourself a hero? Dumbledore already has his vigilante fighting force (the Aurors), the "side of the light" on his side, and is slowly undermining the Ministry's power. If he manages to overthrow Voldie on his own (with Harry Potter, the golden boy, at his side), while at the same time managing to cause the rest of the wizarding world to doubt and loose confidence in the Ministry, I could very easily see the people putting him solely in charge, which is potentially dangerous. *whew* I'm ranting, but I really am confused. Does anyone have any ideas on this? Dante "Creationists make it sound as though a ?theory? is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night." - Isaac Asimov From swimminwoman86 at aol.com Sun Jul 7 01:22:53 2002 From: swimminwoman86 at aol.com (swimminwoman86 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 21:22:53 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore's Motives? Message-ID: <1e.2ab264a4.2a58f1ed@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40863 In a message dated 7/6/2002 8:10:51 PM US Eastern Standard Time, scaliff42 at ev1.net writes: > Snape at the very least knew. He was suspicious of Quirrell from the > start, even since the first Quidditch match. Surely he would have > mentioned Quirrell's alarming behavior to Dumbledore, whom Snape > respects. I mean, he tried to kill a student! Why didn't Dumbledore > do anything about it? > I agree with you, Dante. I said the exact same thing not too long ago. If Dumbledore is the greatest wizard of all time then how come he seems to keep missing things that seem so obvious? And of course there is always that look of triumph in book 4 that has been discussed to death. As much as I would hate to admit it, it does seem that Dumbledore has missed a lot of things. Maybe, as Lucious Malfoy says, he is too old for the job of headmaster now. Don't take this the wrong way, because I love Dumbledore and hope that he is truly on the good side but things are a bit strange. But then again, Dumbledore has had so many chances to finish Harry off and it seems that Dumbledore is only trying to keep Harry safe. Anyway, I am rambling also and I think I will just leave this up to discussion and see what everyone else thinks! ~Cindy~ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From catlady at wicca.net Sun Jul 7 01:31:37 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2002 01:31:37 -0000 Subject: very short replies Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40864 Alexander wrote: << AFAIK it's written write in the book that it was Dumbledore who wanted students to become familiar with these spells. >> It's written in the book that Fake!Moody *said* that Dumbledore wanted the students to learn about the Unforgiveable Curses. Fake!Moody *could* have been lying, but I think that lie would have been likely to be found out: Dumbledore is so attentive to student gossip, surely he would hear if all the students were telling each other how "cool" the Unforgiveable Curses lesson had been. << I agree that *originally* language of Durmstrang was German. But for now it's most likely Russian. I can name no other Slavic language of similar popularity. >> The wizarding folk appear to be 'conservative', in the sense of not liking change. How many centuries of German being an unknown foreign language to almost all students would Durmstrang need before it thought of changing its language of instruction? Especially if wizards have magic ways to learn languages quickly and easily. Dave Witley wrote: << It would be interesting to know whether Merlin is supposed to be any more historical a figure in the WW than he is in the Muggle one. >> He has a Famous Wizard card, and I thought they were all supposed to be historical figures, aka real people. "Soon he had not only Dumbledore and Morgana, but Hengist of Woodcroft, Alberic Grunnion, Circe, Paracelsus, and Merlin. He finally tore his eyes away from the druidess Cliodna" Eledhwen wrote: << If you can make sleeping bags by magic then you can make anything else you want, but that doesn't work as I've written above. >> Rosie already suggested that Dumbledore may have been Summoning rather than creating the sleeping bags. Another possibility is that Dumbledore is an EXCEPTIONALLY powerful, skilled, and learned wizard, so maybe HE can create things even tho' normal powerful wizards can't. However, there must also be a theory to explain how Sirius was able to conjure up manacles in the Shrieking Shack in PoA, and Snape to shoot ropes out of his wand. Alyssa wrote: << or did the GOF just spit out the name and not the school? >> Maybe the Goblet burned off the part of the parchment with the school name? From ksnidget at aol.com Sun Jul 7 01:26:23 2002 From: ksnidget at aol.com (ksnidget at aol.com) Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 21:26:23 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Inconsistancies was Re: Royal Family only for muggles? Message-ID: <1bc.6b0176e.2a58f2bf@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40865 Heidi Tandy writes: >I have seen what I personally feel is an urge by some readers of the books - >including some posters here - to pass off everything that didn't make sense at the >end of one book as a flint (error) or inconsistency, and while I don't deny that jkr's >made her share of glitches (wand order?) I think the overarching decisions really do >hang together. There are several traditional approaches to story telling. The child who is raised unaware and then is tossed back into the world they belong to is one of the fairly traditional ones. One cool advantage is that it gives the author a handy way to explain the world to the reader. As the child discovers things about the world they are also explained to the reader. (The Harry says something, Ron reacts to it and then has to explain it to Harry just what the deal is sort of thing.) However this tends to mean we only know this world based on how it becomes exposed to the main character. IMHO some of the "what doesn't add up" may be that there are some pieces to the puzzle (rules for magic, history of characters, etc.) that Harry hasn't encountered yet and so far (to use a fable/folk tale) he has felt the ear and the tail of the "elephant" and that incomplete sampling of the entirety that is the wizarding world IMO tends to make things perhaps appear more inconsistent than they may, in the end, turn out to be. JKR seems to love dropping little bits of puzzle pieces here and there in the story whose meaning only really becomes apparent much later (sometimes books later) and some of what appears inconsistent or incomplete may (I certainly hope) become much clearer as more pieces to the puzzle get filled in. However that same tendency makes it hard to overlook anything as something that is potentially very important. Who knew when Harry first talked to the snake where *that* was going? What *could* have been just a detail that helps to establish that he is an unusual boy turns out to be very important later on. >I do wonder if people who read all 4 books right through are more prone to this, >whereas those of us who waited for books 2, 3 and 4 to come out are more >accepting of the fact that there are Things We Don't Know. Not sure how that alters one's view of the books having read them straight through. I'm fairly comfortable with the "we just don't know yet" view because I like this type of story telling where things unfold in layers. And a piece may sit for chapters or books without making a whole lot of sense. That and my learning style is *really* random so having a piece here and a piece there with a big gap to be filled in later pretty much matches my approach to the world, so inconsistancies/unknown things is exactly the way *I* think things *should* be (much to the annoyance of some of my concrete-sequential friends). So some of what is going on may be more of how people approach things, rather than how long they had to wait between books. The more people on the list, the more the approaches are going to vary. Ksnidget. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kellybroughton at yahoo.com Sun Jul 7 01:37:22 2002 From: kellybroughton at yahoo.com (kelly broughton) Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 18:37:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: "Fanged Servant" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020707013722.74285.qmail@web21103.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40866 I am currently rereading HPatCoS (US version, 1999). On page 210, the Weasley twins are providing comic relief and acting as Harry's bodyguards at Hogwarts. There is a line on this page that just now caught my eye: "Yeah, he's off to the Chamber of Secrets for a cup of tea with his fanged servant," said George, chortling. 'Fanged servant'? Do the twins know something? A Flint? -kel __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free http://sbc.yahoo.com From heidit at netbox.com Sun Jul 7 01:54:53 2002 From: heidit at netbox.com (heidit at netbox.com) Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2002 21:54:53 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] "Fanged Servant" In-Reply-To: 0 Message-ID: <16600080.749353267@imcingular.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40867 As many snakes have fangs for injecting poison into their victims, and as the Heir of Slytherin is presumed to be a parsletongue as Salazar was a parsletongue, by saying "fanged servent" in connection with "heir of slytherin", the twins are merely reminding everyone of the rumors in a jokey way. 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: kelly broughton Subject: [HPforGrownups] "Fanged Servant" Real-To: kelly broughton I am currently rereading HPatCoS (US version, 1999). On page 210, the Weasley twins are providing comic relief and acting as Harry's bodyguards at Hogwarts. There is a line on this page that just now caught my eye: "Yeah, he's off to the Chamber of Secrets for a cup of tea with his fanged servant," said George, chortling. 'Fanged servant'? Do the twins know something? A Flint? -kel __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free http://sbc.yahoo.com ________HPFGU______Hexquarters______Announcement_______________ Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File! http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/admin Remember to use accurate subject headings and to snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying! Is your message... An announcement of merchandise, news 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 divaclv at aol.com Sun Jul 7 02:58:19 2002 From: divaclv at aol.com (c_voth312) Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2002 02:58:19 -0000 Subject: "Fanged Servant" In-Reply-To: <20020707013722.74285.qmail@web21103.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40868 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., kelly broughton wrote: > "Yeah, he's off to the Chamber of Secrets for a cup of > tea with his fanged servant," said George, chortling. > > 'Fanged servant'? Do the twins know something? > > A Flint? > > -kel Not necessarily. A "fang" can be any long, sharp tooth (think vampires for one of multiple examples), not just the venomous variety found on snakes. My guess is "fanged" was hit on by George as a general description for the then-nameless Big Nasty. ~Christi From swimminwoman86 at aol.com Sun Jul 7 01:41:30 2002 From: swimminwoman86 at aol.com (swimminwoman86 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 21:41:30 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] "Fanged Servant" Message-ID: <177.ad66244.2a58f64a@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40869 In a message dated 7/6/2002 8:38:05 PM US Eastern Standard Time, kellybroughton at yahoo.com writes: > I am currently rereading HPatCoS (US version, 1999). > On page 210, the Weasley twins are providing comic > relief and acting as Harry's bodyguards at Hogwarts. > There is a line on this page that just now caught my > eye: > > "Yeah, he's off to the Chamber of Secrets for a cup of > tea with his fanged servant," said George, chortling. > > 'Fanged servant'? Do the twins know something? > > A Flint? > > -kel > I don't think that they know anything I just think that they were saying "fanged" for no reason other than to make fun of the other students. After all, there are a lot of things that are fanged, such as vampires, dogs, etc. It probably would have been better on Rowling's part to say "horned" or something else to that extent, but I don't think that the statement was made to imply that the twins knew anything. ~Cindy~ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lyssa_2410 at yahoo.com Sun Jul 7 01:59:14 2002 From: lyssa_2410 at yahoo.com (lyssa_2410) Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2002 01:59:14 -0000 Subject: "Fanged Servant" In-Reply-To: <20020707013722.74285.qmail@web21103.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40870 Kel wrote: > "Yeah, he's off to the Chamber of Secrets for a cup of >tea with his fanged servant," said George, chortling. >'Fanged servant'? Do the twins know something? > A Flint? Nah, I don't think it's a Flint. I just think that is the Weasley twins associating the Heir of Slytherin with snakes, or "fanged servants", since that's what Slytherin was known for. Alyssa From wedgeaholic at icqmail.com Sun Jul 7 03:11:34 2002 From: wedgeaholic at icqmail.com (cathubodva_raven) Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2002 03:11:34 -0000 Subject: The Fall of the House of Longbottom/Re: Neville Longbottom. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40871 First of all, apologies to Amanda Geist & Bboy_mn. Yes, that example of Harry was a case of movie poisoning. I've taken the antidote potion and I'm feeling much better now, thank you. I do think that even though the example was rotten, the point was valid, blah blah blah. I swear never to post from work again (or maybe I need to purchase a second set of books to keep at work - an idea, no?) -------------------------------***---------------------------------- Moving right along (and I just know I'm setting myself up for another fall, but I'm a masochist, I like it), in reading GoF yesterday I began to suspect someone else of being the Longbottoms' attacker. I'd like to nominate this for the Humphrey Boggart *Riddikulus!* award for the theory least likely to be true without actually being impossible. I'd also like to make it clear that I don't actually believe it, I tend to favour the 'Dark Aurors' theory myself, but I thought this might be good for a laugh... You're Valdemort. You've tried to AK baby Harry and found out that your body has gone. Whoops. In the Graveyard scene, LV talks about being bodiless, angles for a bit of sympathy, then says "Only one power remained to me. I could possess the bodies of others. But I dared not go where other humans were plentiful, for I knew that the Aurors were still abroad and searching for me." (GoF ch33) The very first time I read this, I thought 'more fool you, LV', because where do you hide a leaf? In the forest. If I wanted to be safe from Aurors, I'd be hiding in their back pocket. Voldemort isn't an idiot. That's been established to my satisfaction, so I'm going to take that as a given. So maybe, just maybe, Voldemort had the same thought I did. Maybe the lines I quoted above were a lie with a grain of truth. (An interesting thing to note is that Brittish use of the word 'abroad' seems to mean 'outside of Britain' in a very concrete way. If Aurors were searching for you 'abroad', then the safest place would be 'not abroad' ie, Britain.) Let's suppose that Voldemort can possess people's bodies, but that he's lying to Harry when he says he dared not hang around people. You're Valdemort, what kind of a plan does this suggest to you? I'd want to possess an Auror. You're not likely to be suspected, and you get to keep a very close eye on how the Aurors' search for you is going. You'd want to pick an individual who is trustworthy, well liked, a good wizard, popular...Frank Longbottom? But there's a problem with this plan. FL is an Auror, his mind/body is too well protected. Maybe there's an episode where LV tries to possess Frank, but fails. Curses, foiled again. Do evil overlords give up so easily? I think not. Possessing an Auror isn't going to work. But you still want to be somewhere where you can watch them, where they won't suspect you, maybe even somewhere they'll go out of their way to protect you... ...Voldemort posesses baby Neville. There's no way to guess how long this goes on for, my guess is it would be a bit like The Omen. Perhaps, gradually, horrible suspicions dawn on the Longbottoms. Maybe Mrs Longbottom refuses to believe it, she explains away the dark detectors by saying that they're broken, even though they behave normally away from Neville. No matter what happens, she will refuse to believe that there's anything wrong with him, he's just a child! But Frank is an Auror. He can recognise dark magic, he doesn't want to believe it, but there is too much evidence to explain away. This is where I think this theory does something that none of the others do. It explains how the rumor gets around that Frank Longbottom knows where Voldemort is. Still, it isn't easy for him. He's not just going to walk in the front door and AK his only son. He needs a plan, he needs to talk to his colleagues, but he's frightened. What kind of a parent lets his son get possessed in the first place? What if the others *do* want to go and AK little Neville? What if, dear God, what if he's wrong! Frank wants to face up, but he's too scared. He tries on several occasions, but his nerve fails him. He needs more time. Frank makes up his mind. Right or wrong, there's more at stake than just his family. He goes to his study to talk to someone through the fire, maybe Moody. He 'fesses up. 'Voldemort's got my son,' he sobbs, 'what can I do?' Moody(?) says the only thing you can say: Wait there, I'll get the guys, we're coming over. But lurking outside Daddy's door is Voldemort!Neville. His cover has been blown, he has to act fast. He's stolen Mum's wand again, and he slaps the Crucio on Dad. Mum hears the screams, she comes running. Same medicine for her. Voldemort now has a real problem. He has to think fast, the Aurors will be there any minute. He doesn't want the general public to know that he can squat in their bodies, it might cramp his style later on. Killing the Longbottoms would be nice, but it would draw too much attention to his cover identity, particularly considering the last little boy who survived the double-murder of his parents. No, Valdemort is trying to lie-low, he won't kill them, he'll just memory-charm their brains out of existance. There's a knock on the door. This is where you can take your pick of the other theories to insert at this point. 1) The Aurors turn up. The Longbottoms are drooling, baby Neville is crying, and Voldemort is nowhere to be seen. They work out that he's fled, they round up The Usual Suspects, they slap the memory charm on Neville so that he doesn't have to remember the terrible things he did to his own parents. 2) The Lestrange party turns up. They really were looking for their master. Voldemort tells them to take the wrap and cover up for him, then, having successfully changed the focus of the Auror's search from 'abroad' to 'home', he then takes off for abroad. That's the kind of thing he does. This gives another explanation for why Mrs Lestrange is positively glowing at their trial. "We alone tried to find him!" she shouts, but she doesn't add that they *did* find him, and help him escape and that's why she's so sure that LV's coming back, and that they will be rewarded. Also, in this version, Barty jnr was telling the truth when he says he didn't do it. So, maybe the Lestrange party memory charmed Neville to protect their master. Does it end there? Not quite. Neville gets older. But having shared his body with the Dark Lord has given him power. (Why didn't LV possess a death eater? Only because it's the worst possible hiding place). Neville is a good boy, he doesn't like his dark powers, that's why he tries to suppress them. (If I were Trevor, I'm not sure I'd be keen to hang around Neville either) Maybe Gran knows the whole story. Maybe she's trying to bully the dark magic out of him. Maybe she just can't forgive him for what Voldemort!Neville did. And one other thing. There are two people who know how criminals work. The detectives, and the criminals. As a former DE, the sensuous and succulent Severus Snape also recognises the taint of the Dark Lord on Neville, and that's why he makes his life so dificult. So, that's the whole haddock. Give the head & tail to Mrs Norris, the rest you can use as bait. (waiting to be deafened by canons) Cathubodva. From theresa_ryan85 at hotmail.com Sun Jul 7 04:50:34 2002 From: theresa_ryan85 at hotmail.com (theresa ryan) Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2002 04:50:34 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Digest Number 1964 Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40872 > Yes, well. Hagrid also says that foreigners cannot be trusted, that > Harry *must* be a magically-powerful wizard for the simple reason > that his parents were, and that the Malfoys all have "bad blood." (I > find that last comment particularly rich, given what we now know > about what Hagrid's got running through his own oversized veins.) Sorry, I forgot who wrote this! take a bow whoever it was anyway... The reason, remember, that Hagrid said that foreigners weren't to be trusted was because he was still stinging from the reject from Mme Maxime-- wasn't that just a couple of days after she snubbed him? I can imagine feeling that way myself if someone treated me like that...(btw I'm sure he thought that area was secluded, it took him long enough to broach the subject with his girlfriend, never mind anyone else). I can also understand him thinking, if wizardry is genetic, as in a way it seems to be, that if Harry showed such great magic at such a young age, with two very powerful magicians as parents that he would be too (think of two parents being both excellent musicians, if you showed talent from a young age, people would assume it was from your parents). He probably said that about Malfoy because let's face it, as they are all rotten apples, it's in the family right? so.....it's in the "blood" if we were shown someone in the family who was on the good side, well then i can't see Hagrid saying that. just my two euro cent worth (not cent*s* for some reason) theresa. _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com From kellybroughton at yahoo.com Sun Jul 7 06:48:00 2002 From: kellybroughton at yahoo.com (kelly broughton) Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 23:48:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] "Fanged Servant" In-Reply-To: <16600080.749353267@imcingular.com> Message-ID: <20020707064800.96125.qmail@web21108.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40873 Keep in mind... they say this (jokingly, of course) long before anyone, including HRH, understand that the creature is a basilisk. Although it is common knowledge at this point that Harry is a parseltongue, I still fail to see why the Heir of Slytherin's 'servant' would automatically be assumed to be a snake. If that was the common assumption, then why didn't anyone clue in earlier that the creature turning the students into stone was in fact a basilisk? It just doesn't "jibe". -kel --- heidit at netbox.com wrote: > As many snakes have fangs for injecting poison into > their victims, and as the Heir of Slytherin is > presumed to be a parsletongue as Salazar was a > parsletongue, by saying "fanged servent" in > connection with "heir of slytherin", the twins are > merely reminding everyone of the rumors in a jokey > way. > > > From: kelly broughton > Subject: [HPforGrownups] "Fanged Servant" > Real-To: kelly broughton > > I am currently rereading HPatCoS (US version, 1999). > On page 210, the Weasley twins are providing comic > relief and acting as Harry's bodyguards at Hogwarts. > There is a line on this page that just now caught my > eye: > > "Yeah, he's off to the Chamber of Secrets for a cup > of > tea with his fanged servant," said George, > chortling. > > 'Fanged servant'? Do the twins know something? > > A Flint? > > -kel > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free http://sbc.yahoo.com From awillia2 at gladstone.uoregon.edu Sun Jul 7 04:02:54 2002 From: awillia2 at gladstone.uoregon.edu (Aesha Williams) Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 21:02:54 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Royal Family only for muggles? References: Message-ID: <005101c2256b$2c90a300$bfd2df80@hppav> No: HPFGUIDX 40874 Okay, I don't know a whole lot about my own country's (USA) politics, and much less about that of the UK. But the way I understand it, the Royal Family is kind of a nice symbol, not really of a whole lot of power (such as laws and things)- that's what Parliment and the Prime minister are for? If that were even remotely true, then I would think it is kind of the same way for wizards and the Royal family. They acknowledge they are there, but the ministry of magic really makes all the decisions. The reason I think this is that (and I don't pretend to know how the average Briton feels about the Royal family) at the Quidditch match, Seamus' mom makes some remark and gives some looks along the lines of, "You sure as heck better be rooting for Ireland" (obviously, not verbatim). This would indicate pride in the Ireland team and pride in being Irish... which I would assume extends to the British wizards... pride in their heritage, a little bit of patriotism hiding in there. And that might include allegiance to the Royal family. Aesha [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From miss_dumblydore at yahoo.com Sun Jul 7 04:08:53 2002 From: miss_dumblydore at yahoo.com (Heather Gauen) Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 21:08:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Fall of the House of Longbottom/Re: Neville Longbottom. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020707040854.43484.qmail@web20416.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40875 Regarding the possibility (however slim) of baby Neville being possessed, I have one question: How much power does Voldemort have over the person whose body he shares? I got the sense that it was *sharing*, not complete *possession*. When Voldemort shared Quirrell's body, he really didn't take over Quirrell's entire persona, he just basically tagged along on the back of his head. Quirrell followed Voldemort's orders because he was a dark lord supporter, not because Voldemort was literally making him. So if Voldemort infested Neville's body, I don't think he could actually use that body to crucio the Longbottoms; all he could do would be to order Neville to attack them, which a baby wouldn't even understand, much less be capable of doing. Also, the use of dark detectors to discover this probably wouldn't be necessary; I bet the Longbottoms would notice a face on the back of their son's head. Just a thought :) Heather __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free http://sbc.yahoo.com From Edblanning at aol.com Sun Jul 7 07:36:51 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 03:36:51 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Imperius Curse Message-ID: <60.226131a5.2a594993@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40876 Alora: > I know that this has been discussed, so please please point me to > the correct thread, if there is one devoted to this. > > If Crouch! Moody is Barty Jr. and working for Voldemort (which we > know he is), why does he teach Harry to throw off the Imperious > curse in DADA class? I have always wondered about this. Does he do > it because he is, as the DADA teacher, expected to do that? In my > eyes, he seems to really be excited about Harry being the only one > to be able to throw it off. Why is that? Any comments or > suggestions? In GoF it says "Moody had insisted on putting Harry > through his paces four times in a row, until Harry could throw off > the curse entirely." (page 232, US) Why did he do this? Any > insight would be much appreciated... > > Last time round, I suggested that it was to do with the fact that it is essential, for Crouch's plan to work, that Harry *wins* the Triwizard Tournament. The castle is host to Durmstrang students whom, it is assumed, are taught the Dark Arts. It is host to Karkaroff, whom Crouch knows was a DE, and who is clearly ambitious for his student to win. Crouch could justifiably assume that either Karkaroff or Viktor might attempt to put Harry under Imperius in order to make him throw the Tournament. Teaching him to resist it made his job of guiding Harry through it that much easier. Alexander: > Actually, AFAIK it's written write in the book that it was >Dumbledore who wanted students to become familiar with these >spells. So it was not Barty's initiative, but Dumbledore's. >Whatever Barty thought about it, he could do nothing without >revealing himself. I agree that it is in Dumbledore's style to want the students shown. It is canon at least that Crouch says this (and remember that he normally speaks the truth, even if the interpretation of what he says is not the surface meaning). However, I think that he saw it as a heaven-sent opportunity to coach Harry so that he was more likely to win the tournament. BTW, putting on my LOON hat for a minute, could I point out that the curse is 'Imperius' with a Latinate ending (no 'U')? 'Imperious', which seems to be widely used on the list at the moment and is undoubtedly of the same root, means something slightly different! ;-) Eloise hoping *she* hasn't let any typing errors (of which there were many) through. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From crana at ntlworld.com Sun Jul 7 08:42:05 2002 From: crana at ntlworld.com (rosie) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 09:42:05 +0100 Subject: Dumbledore's Motives - Fanged Servant - Abroad - French Message-ID: <002d01c22592$2c996ae0$ebb168d5@xxx> No: HPFGUIDX 40877 Dante said: "What brought this to my attention was something McGonagall said just after she caught Harry, Hermione, Neville, and Draco wandering the halls after the incident with Norbert: "...nothing gives you the right to walk around the school at night, especially these days, it's very dangerous..." What? What does she mean, "these days" and "dangerous?" As far as the reader was concerned at this point, nothing very serious was going on at the school. Sure, there was a troll running around at Halloween, but that was explained away as an isolated incident, right? What I think this says is that the faculty was aware of *something* going on, something we weren't been told about. This something probably had to do with Voldemort, but I'm not sure the faculty knew that particular fact. Or did they?" I always thought she meant Fluffy...I'm not disparaging your theory though! ++++++++++++ kel said: "I am currently rereading HPatCoS (US version, 1999). On page 210, the Weasley twins are providing comic relief and acting as Harry's bodyguards at Hogwarts. There is a line on this page that just now caught my eye: "Yeah, he's off to the Chamber of Secrets for a cup of tea with his fanged servant," said George, chortling. 'Fanged servant'? Do the twins know something? A Flint?" I wondered about that too. Maybe they were going on the idea of monsters having big drooly fangs - dragons, snakes, maybe some kinds of horrible magical beasts - and it was just to make it sound good? I don't know. Ohh - and I had a really random thought last night. Wouldn't Fred & George make the best spies? I thought of this because of their lock-picking skills, their ability to construct amazing magical devices and so on. Hmm... that was random. +++++++++++++ Cathubodva said: "If Aurors were searching for you 'abroad', then the safest place would be 'not abroad' ie, Britain.)" Except that "abroad", if you're from Britain, is much, much bigger than "not abroad" :) ++++++++++++ I'm cracking on with the French version, it's good, but some of the names and the way things have been translated are truly weird. For example, in the English, Aunt Petunia's face is "pale", in the French she's "livid". Sort of opposite, really! Fawkes has become Fumseck (which just sounds so rude and I dont know why)! Rosie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Edblanning at aol.com Sun Jul 7 10:24:37 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 06:24:37 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Imperius Curse erratum Message-ID: <198.9566e89.2a5970e5@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40878 Of course, the danger of nit-picking is that we are all fallible. When I said there is no 'U' in 'Imperius', I of course meant that there is no 'O' ! ;-) Eloise, profoundly grateful that it is still very early on Sunday morning for the majority of this list and that she could nit-pick herself first! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zoomphy at yahoo.com Sun Jul 7 09:26:46 2002 From: zoomphy at yahoo.com (zoomphy) Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2002 09:26:46 -0000 Subject: Clothes/Distinguishing between muggle and wizard things In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40879 Cindy wrote: > I was also thinking just the other day that it seems that > we "muggles" seem to be doing just fine without magic considering > that if we were at school and wanted to find out who a certain person > was like Harry, Ron, and Hermione were looking for Nicholas Flamel, > we would just have to get on a computer and look it up on the > internet. It seems strange that we have such a good resource when it > took them forever to find it. I also wonder why Ron had never heard > of Nicholas Flamel before when he was supposed to have collected > almost every famous wizard card from the chocolate frog's packs. Why > hadn't he ever come across Nicholas Flamel or at least knew that he > was missing it like he knew he was missing the Agrippa card? Surley > Professor Dumbledore's partner and the only owner of the Sorceror's > Stone would have a card. Sorry if this has been disscussed before it > was just something that was bothering me! Cindy, I totally agree with you on the library research thing. You would think that they would have a far more efficient method of doing research than we have. Yet it seems that they have no organized method of categorizing the books in the Hogwarts library at all. Which seems rather odd to me. Maybe Hermione should concentrate her humanitarian efforts on making library research easier for the students; it would probably prove more successful than her SPEW campaign. ;) And you know, you have a point on the Nicholas Flamel card thing. You'd think Nicholas Flamel would have his OWN card. He is certainly important enough. He shouldn't be relegated to a small reference on Dumbledore's card. And if he had his own card, you would think Ron would know whether or not he owned it. Maybe you've discovered a plothole! LOL K. From crana at ntlworld.com Sun Jul 7 11:12:07 2002 From: crana at ntlworld.com (rosie) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 12:12:07 +0100 Subject: Internet in Hogwarts References: Message-ID: <000a01c225a7$228b0ee0$95b068d5@xxx> No: HPFGUIDX 40880 Cindy wrote: > I was also thinking just the other day that it seems that > we "muggles" seem to be doing just fine without magic considering > that if we were at school and wanted to find out who a certain person > was like Harry, Ron, and Hermione were looking for Nicholas Flamel, > we would just have to get on a computer and look it up on the > internet. It seems strange that we have such a good resource when it > took them forever to find it. Yeh, I thought that too. Maybe there *is* a spell you can perform that looks up information or some such but the students don't know it yet... maybe such wizarding technology does exist but is not available to these students because it would enable plagiarism or mean that the restricted section couldn't be restricted or something. Or maybe it was just convenient that it didn't exist, for the Gillyweed episode too. Rosie If I was a Hogwarts student, I'd want a Quick-Homework-Quill! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From elfundeb at aol.com Sun Jul 7 12:03:36 2002 From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb at aol.com) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 08:03:36 EDT Subject: The Magic Quill, Hagrid's Prejudice, Triwizard Portkey, Dobby/Harry Message-ID: <154.1077083a.2a598818@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40881 In a message dated 7/5/2002 9:48:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time, skelkins at attbi.com writes: > Well, it's a Magical Quill, isn't it? It has a mystic ability > to detect magical children. So I'm willing to accept that it might > also be able to just *know* which magical children would be living in > Britain at the age of eleven and which would not. > > > This touches on the question of why families are not notified the > instant that their child's name goes down in that book, to save them > the apprehension over their child's eventual future. [snip] > > I don't think that the Keepers of the Quill know the answers to those > thorny questions any more than any of the rest of us can, and I > suspect that this is the reason that McGonagall only ordinarily > checks the book for the names of those children that are eleven "that > year." Harry Potter was likely an exception, as his eventual magical > status would have been a question of particular interest for the > wizarding world as a whole. Hagrid therefore knew that his name had > been in the book since he was a baby, but he would not have had this > type of knowledge about a less famous or portentious child. > If it's a Magic Quill, is there any reason why the book in which the names are inscribed is not also magical? Everyone seems to assume that it's available to be read all along and that the failure to notify parents of magical children is some kind of conspiracy. But maybe the book simply doesn't reveal the names until the time comes to send that group an admission letter. I'm not sure Hagrid's statement about Harry's name being down from birth wasn't just a bit of hyperbole on Hagrid's part. Exchange between Elkins & Darrin on Hagrid's bigotry: > In short, Hagrid is an unthinking bigot. He is partial to sweeping > > generalizations, and he does not stop to consider their > > ramifications. I would imagine, for example, that he would be > > genuinely hurt to be accused of adhering to the pureblood aesthetic > > of the Malfoys and their ilk, even though that is *precisely* the > > sort of thinking that his comments all too often reflect. > > > > Hey, Hagrid has his own prejudices and quirks, but he certainly > doesn't adhere to the Malfoys' beliefs. It is Hagrid who directly > refutes the whole mudblood garbage. > But is it? As I read the passage, it's Ron who does the refuting, not Hagrid. Hagrid offers only two comments, one about there not being a spell that Hermione doesn't know -- which is supportive of Ron's refutation, but not a direct refutation. His other statement is that it was a good thing Ron's wand backfired because otherwise Lucius would have tried to get Ron in trouble. (Sorry, I had to point this out since there seems to be a curse on this list that Imperio's listees into attributing Hagrid's negative comments to Ron and Ron's positive comments to Hagrid.) Elkins again: > I like to think that we're supposed to notice this unsavory > tendency of Hagrid's, that this is Rowling's way of showing > us the 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. > I have different thoughts on Hagrid's prejudices. I don't think he so much believes in egalitarianism as much as he wants to adopt the beliefs of Dumbledore, whom he idolizes. He really doesn't seem to have opinions of his own; they are drawn either from his culture or from Dumbledore, and his sweeping generalizations reflect his childlike need to have simple explanations for the realities of his world. On the other hand, Hagrid's need for simple explanations may derive from his own childhood experience -- his mother left home, which is a devastating thing for a child, and he really needs to believe that it's not in the nature of giants to be maternal. This sets him up to accept unthinkingly the WW's other prejudices, because it's so important to him for this one to be *right*. Hagrid is clearly on the right side of the fence on the Mudblood issue, though Muggle-born prejudice seems not to be a general WW prejudice (if you look at the history of the founding of Hogwarts and the split between Slytherin and the others) but a Slytherin prejudice. Theresa Ryan suggested: > The reason, remember, that Hagrid said that foreigners weren't to be trusted > was because he was still stinging from the reject from Mme Maxime-- wasn't > I agree that Hagrid's experience with Mme Maxime had something to do with it, but Hagrid made his comments five months later (at the end of May), and Hagrid didn't just badmouth foreigners; he also slammed a foreign guest of Hogwarts into a tree. Either giants really *are* vicious, or there's something much deeper going on in Hagrid's mind. I said, regarding the Triwizard Portkey: > If the Portkey was rigged to take > > Voldemort back out of Hogwarts after dropping off Harry's body (and > > it would need to be to allow Voldemort to escape), why didn't the > > person who picked it up after Harry let go of it get transported > > back to the graveyard? > To which Elkins responded: > Hey, for all we know, that's exactly what happened. Do we ever see > the Cup again after Harry gets dragged off by Moody? He gets his > sack full of Galleons eventually -- he tries to give it to the > Diggories -- but whatever happened to the trophy itself? Unless > there's some mention of it that I've missed (which there might well > be, as I am not, I fear, at all competent at that LOON stuff), we > No, we never see it again, IIRC. But the unfortunate soul who did pick up the Cup would have had a face-to-face encounter with Voldemort and his merry band of Death-Eaters, and if the treatment of Cedric is any indication, that person is dead (especially since Voldemort can't be in a good mood after Harry's escape). But no other victims are mentioned at the Leaving Feast. So the odds are, IMO, that it wasn't rigged for a third trip. I also wrote: > > Also, this was a pretty risky plan, even if Crouch Jr. was on > > patrol at the edge of the maze. If he dropped the Portkey and > > someone else picked it up, he would be stuck at Hogwarts, not > > exactly a glorious climax to a triumphant return. > > > He could have just held onto it, though. Simply letting go of it and then > touching it again really wouldn't be all that difficult, I > wouldn't think. No, it's not too difficult, but I have visions of him having to drop it then reach down to pick it up, or crouching down to let go and grab it again, both of which would give someone time to grab him. > > Pippin: > > > If the blast was > > aimed at the Judge's Booth, he might very well succeed in killing > > Fudge, which would be perfectly adequate as far as demoralizing > > everybody and disrupting the WW. > > Debbie: > > > Kill Fudge? Whether he's Ever So Evil or just Ever So Incompetent, > > Fudge is one of Voldemort's best allies. Kill him? What could > > Voldemort be thinking of? > > > The assassination of even a weak leader is exceptionally demoralizing, and > political chaos is even easier to exploit than > Cornelius Fudge himself is. A leaderless wizarding world would be > exceptionally vulnerable -- even more vulnerable than a wizarding > There was a bit of tongue in cheek to my last comment, since Fudge's real rise to power seems to have begun with his capture of Sirius, after Voldemort's fall; hence Voldemort may not know how useful it is to keep Fudge in power. Nevertheless, I do think Voldemort is in a much better position as things stand than if he had assasinated Fudge. While initially the assasination might be demoralizing, there are better leaders waiting in the wings (like Dumbledore himself, for instance, who has refused the top MOM job in the past) who could use Fudge's assasination as a rallying point for the resistance. I think the more spectacular the opening gambit, the quicker the opposition is likely to come together. With Fudge remaining in power, Voldemort has time to consolidate his support, develop better action plans to carry out the master plan he outlined at the graveyard, etc. while the opposition remains poorly organized and not well supported by the public. Elkins: > Also, say what you like about Fudge (certainly everyone else around > here does), but he presumably really does have some genuine political > skills. He has held the office for quite some time, after all. I > imagine that he's got quite a knack for consensus-building and > bipartisan compromise and other skills that prove useful in > maintaining order during times of peace. My take on Fudge is that he does as little as possible, and when he acts, it's for appeasement, like when he carted Hagrid off to Azkaban in order to make it look like he was doing something about the Heir of Slytherin. It's all about making him look good. These skills may work in times of peace when there is no direct threat, but he's not going to handle Voldemort's return very well, because he lacks the capacity for decisive leadership. > That the wizarding world is strongly politically divided is implied in > Fudge's exchange with > Dumbledore over the dementors: > > "'Half of us only feel safe in our beds at night because we know the > dementors are standing guard at Azkaban!' > > 'The rest of us sleep less soundly in our beds, Cornelius, knowing > that you have put Lord Voldemort's most dangerous supporters in the > Indeed. Fudge's use of Voldemort's most dangerous supporters is what makes him one of Voldemort's best allies, and without Fudge needing to be Ever So Evil at all. That's not to say, of course, that Voldemort is so brilliant he would realize this before he acts. But I do think he was taking things one step at a time that day. Rosie asked, regarding Harry's letter from the Improper Use of Magic Office: > I've always wondered why Harry got into trouble and not Dobby. The MoM > seemed to base their presumption that it was Harry who was responsible on > the fact that he lived there. What if an underage wizard did magic in a > public place? You would think that a magical detection system could detect > who carried out the magic, not just where it was. Just a plot device? > Evidence of the MoM's incompetence? or a clue about the mysteries of > house-elf magic....? > I suggested some time ago (#36843), that the Improper Use of Magic Office does indeed have a map that operates as a magic detector, but that the map only shows humans so Dobby did not appear on the map, and therefore the Hovering Charm was attributed to Harry. But you make a good point about house-elf magic; perhaps it was Dobby's magic that was able to fool the detector. Debbie, who someday will astound everyone by saying something nice about Hagrid [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From heidit at netbox.com Sun Jul 7 12:28:07 2002 From: heidit at netbox.com (heidit at netbox.com) Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2002 08:28:07 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Internet in Hogwarts In-Reply-To: 9536e15c Message-ID: <16600080.136340412@imcingular.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40882 Jkr has said in an interview that at Hogwartd they have something similar in use to the internet, but different. However, I want to point out that when Hermione went home over the Christmas hols in PS/SS, the likelihood of her hopping on the internet and typing in Flamel's name and getting anything - evenif she was trying for a bizarre longshout, would've been anachronistic, as in 1991, the internet as we know it did not exist. Really, iirc, the penetration of the internet in the uk only vaguely resembles what it is now in 1995 or even 1997 - and 95 is where we are now, at the end of GoF. 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: "rosie" Subject: [HPforGrownups] Internet in Hogwarts Real-To: "rosie" Cindy wrote: > I was also thinking just the other day that it seems that > we "muggles" seem to be doing just fine without magic considering > that if we were at school and wanted to find out who a certain person > was like Harry, Ron, and Hermione were looking for Nicholas Flamel, > we would just have to get on a computer and look it up on the > internet. It seems strange that we have such a good resource when it > took them forever to find it. Yeh, I thought that too. Maybe there *is* a spell you can perform that looks up information or some such but the students don't know it yet... maybe such wizarding technology does exist but is not available to these students because it would enable plagiarism or mean that the restricted section couldn't be restricted or something. Or maybe it was just convenient that it didn't exist, for the Gillyweed episode too. Rosie If I was a Hogwarts student, I'd want a Quick-Homework-Quill! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ________HPFGU______Hexquarters______Announcement_______________ Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File! http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/admin Remember to use accurate subject headings and to snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying! Is your message... An announcement of merchandise, news 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 i_am_erasmas at yahoo.ca Sun Jul 7 10:41:40 2002 From: i_am_erasmas at yahoo.ca (i_am_erasmas) Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2002 10:41:40 -0000 Subject: Limitations of magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40883 Hi, Eledhwen wrote: > I've allways wondered about the limitations of magic. . . . > My theory is that you can conjour things up only for a certain amount of time and then they disapear. . . > Got any ideas or opinions? I've thought a fair bit about what the limitations, or as I think of it, the rule set that operates in the story. Many of the rules, like the limitations on conjuring material items that Eledhwen mentions, could be extracted from the books through careful inductive reasoning, so long as they're consistent. In a number of interviews, Jo speaks of these rules saying she spent a long time early on deciding what wizards and witches can't do, to give a framework for what could be done within the plot. It seems to me that the rule set would form a basis for testing the different theories that we see in this list. I haven't been reading the messages here for long, but I've tried to search to see if any members have attempted to rebuild the rules that the stories operate on. Haven't found anything, but it's likely i'm just using the wrong search terms. I'm wondering if any of the veterans to these boards know of any lists of rules have been developed over the years? I'm thinking of rules in a broader sense that what I've found in places like the HP lexicon, that lists spells and what they do but as far as I've found fall short in terms of general laws applied to the wizarding world. Anyone want to have a go at this? Think it's worth while? Erasmas From pen at pensnest.co.uk Sun Jul 7 13:08:24 2002 From: pen at pensnest.co.uk (Pen Robinson) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 14:08:24 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Magic Quill, Hogwarts' Admission and Squibs In-Reply-To: References: <0E1F4530.60F77291.6E93A4F5@netscape.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40884 Elkins wrote : >Hagrid speaks of Harry's name being down for Hogwarts >since infancy as if this is quite unusual as well. There may be a slight cultural issue at play here, since I didn't parse it as unusual at all. In a Muggle context, one might have put one's child's name down for Eton when he was born. People do. The infant will still have to take his entrance exam, of course. So the wizarding families might well put their children down for Hogwarts as soon as they can - Muggle-borns and perhaps half-bloods would have to rely on the magical Quill. Pen From meboriqua at aol.com Sun Jul 7 13:38:28 2002 From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw) Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2002 13:38:28 -0000 Subject: Hagrid's Prejudice In-Reply-To: <154.1077083a.2a598818@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40885 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., elfundeb at a... wrote: > I have different thoughts on Hagrid's prejudices. I don't think he so much believes in egalitarianism as much as he wants to adopt the beliefs of Dumbledore, whom he idolizes. He really doesn't seem to have opinions of his own; they are drawn either from his culture or from Dumbledore, and his sweeping generalizations reflect his childlike need to have simple explanations for the realities of his world.> This confuses me a bit. What beliefs of Dumbledore's is Hagrid trying to adopt? We rarely, if ever, hear Dumbledore express any opinion about another person, and we see him angry only once, in GoF. That is one of the things I love about Dumbledore: he really does make an effort to see past people's weaknesses, pasts, problems, etc. to their strengths (even Hagrid, though I don't think he made a wise choice there). Hagrid, however, doesn't have much to base his prejudices on, and his dislike of Tom Riddle isn't enough for me, especially to still harbor such an intense dislike for *all* Slytherins so many years later. --jenny from ravenclaw ******************************* From bard7696 at aol.com Sun Jul 7 13:39:37 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2002 13:39:37 -0000 Subject: The Magic Quill, Hagrid's Prejudice, Triwizard Portkey, Dobby/Harry In-Reply-To: <154.1077083a.2a598818@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40886 Debbie recounted the: > Exchange between Elkins & Darrin on Hagrid's bigotry: > Elkins wrote: > > In short, Hagrid is an unthinking bigot. He is partial to sweeping > > > generalizations, and he does not stop to consider their > > > ramifications. I would imagine, for example, that he would be > > > genuinely hurt to be accused of adhering to the pureblood aesthetic > > > of the Malfoys and their ilk, even though that is *precisely* the > > > sort of thinking that his comments all too often reflect. > > > I wrote: > > Hey, Hagrid has his own prejudices and quirks, but he certainly > > doesn't adhere to the Malfoys' beliefs. It is Hagrid who directly > > refutes the whole mudblood garbage. Debbie writes: > But is it? As I read the passage, it's Ron who does the refuting, not > Hagrid. Hagrid offers only two comments, one about there not being a spell > that Hermione doesn't know -- which is supportive of Ron's refutation, but > not a direct refutation. His other statement is that it was a good thing > Ron's wand backfired because otherwise Lucius would have tried to get Ron in > trouble. I write again: Ah, but way before CoS even takes place, Hagrid lets known his feelings about the whole issue. In PS/SS (pg 61 UK; pg 79 US) Harry has just met with Malfoy for the first time and has heard Malfoy's belief that Muggle families shouldn't be allowed to Hogwarts. Hagrid responds: "Yer not from a Muggle family. If he'd known who yeh were - he's grown up knowin' yer name if his parents are wizardin' folk -- you saw 'em in the Leaky Cauldron." OK, letting Harry know that Malfoy is full of it. Now, next sentence: "Anyway, what does he know about it, some o' the best I ever saw were the only ones with magic in 'em in a long line o' Muggles - look at yer mum! Look what she had for a sister!" His comments in CoS just reinforce this. But I have come around more to Elkins examination of Hagrid's character flaws here: Hagrid's insult of Aunt Petunia could be taken as an attack on Muggles and Hagrid does use the word Muggle in a different way than anyone else. "I'd like to see a great Muggle like you stop him," Hagrid tells Vernon. "Family of the biggest Muggles I ever laid eyes on," he says to Harry about the Dursleys. It seems to go from a bland description of whether someone is magic or not to a description of a character flaw. I'm interested to see the history of the word Muggle. Its two- syllable rhythm and double-G in the middle give it more than a passing resemblance to the vile-N word, but it seems to have gained acceptance in common use. Even a law, "Muggle Protection Act" uses it. And "mudblood" is the obvious parallel to our N-word, given how everyone reacts to it. Only at the very end of GoF, when Draco says: "Muggle-lover" am I reminded of the term applied to whites who worked in the Civil Rights movement or to free the slaves. "N-lover." But Hagrid uses Muggle as an insult. It is a clearly an insult to Vernon and the family to be Muggles. He seems to be insulting their lack of imagination and the fact that they embody the worst qualities of human beings. Early on, McGonagall says: "You couldn't find two people who are less like us" when describing the Dursleys. Hagrid says: "The biggest Muggles I ever laid eyes on." Essentially saying the same thing -- Dursleys are bad news to anyone magic -- but Hagrid expresses it differently. This makes me wonder how the word Muggle was once used. I'd bet it used to have darker connotations. However, I refuse to have a grain of sympathy for Uncle Vernon, Aunt Petunia or Dudley. They are the wicked stepparents and stepbrother of this little drama and I don't wish to spend my time worrying over how badly they are being treated when I consider the fact that a blood nephew has been locked in a cupboard for most of his life. And they tried to "stamp out" the magic in Harry, in Vernon's words. We have hints that this involved physical beatings as well. Not to put too fine a point on it, but to Hell with the Dursleys. Of course, JKR could pull a fast one on us, and make us reexamine the Dursleys, but until then, I'm going with what she's written so far - they are loathsome human beings and I'm not going to pore over the text trying to find good in them. If it exists, it will come in the next three books. BUT... Hagrid does have some problems with language. His -- justifiable, in my mind -- hatred of the Dursleys is coming out in ways that at least raise eyebrows. Debbie: > I have different thoughts on Hagrid's prejudices. I don't think he so much believes in egalitarianism as much as he wants to adopt the beliefs of Dumbledore, whom he idolizes. He really doesn't seem to have opinions of his own; they are drawn either from his culture or from Dumbledore, and his sweeping generalizations reflect his childlike need to have simple explanations for the realities of his world. On the other hand, Hagrid's need for simple explanations may derive from his own childhood experience -- his mother left home, which is a devastating thing for a child, and he really needs to believe that it's not in the nature of giants to be maternal. This sets him up to accept unthinkingly the WW's other prejudices, because it's so important to him for this one to be *right*. Hagrid is clearly on the right side of the fence on the Mudblood issue, though Muggle-born prejudice seems not to be a general WW prejudice (if you look at the history of the founding of Hogwarts and the split between Slytherin and the others) but a Slytherin prejudice. I write: I would wager that the Muggle-born prejudice isn't just Salazar Slytherin's feelings, but old Double-S is the most extreme case. It would be similar to the differences between the die-hard KKK member and the person who despises outright racism, but would be horrified if his son or daughter came home with a minority fiancee. I'd bet, over the centuries, there was grumbling about Muggle-borns, but only the Slytherins advocated throwing them out. "I believe in Muggle-born rights, but I don't want one moving next door," I can almost hear other wizards saying. And Fudge obviously has some of the same tendencies and I really don't see how he could be a Slytherin. One, he doesn't seem the type and two, how could he maintain such a delicate political post while being from the house that spawned Voldemort? > Theresa Ryan suggested: > > > > The reason, remember, that Hagrid said that foreigners weren't to be trusted > > was because he was still stinging from the reject from Mme Maxime- - wasn't > > > > I agree that Hagrid's experience with Mme Maxime had something to do with it, > but Hagrid made his comments five months later (at the end of May), and > Hagrid didn't just badmouth foreigners; he also slammed a foreign guest of > Hogwarts into a tree. Either giants really *are* vicious, or there's > something much deeper going on in Hagrid's mind. > I write: Of course, Hagrid was RIGHT about Karakoff. That's the interesting thing, and what makes me believe JKR isn't really trying to teach us a lesson about racism. Hagrid is usually right, even if his road to getting there is questionable. Based on what we know, he's right about the Dursleys. He's right about the Malfoys. (at least the two we know of and until the good- hearted brother Gabriel Malfoy is introduced, the Malfoys we know are evil) And he was right about Karakoff. He's even right about Snape when HRH kept trying to tell him Snape was bad. If she was giving us a lesson, you'd think his character judgements would be wrong once in a while. Maybe that's coming. snip some stuff about the Portkey > > > Elkins writes: > > > > Also, say what you like about Fudge (certainly everyone else around here does), but he presumably really does have some genuine political skills. He has held the office for quite some time, after all. I imagine that he's got quite a knack for consensus-building and bipartisan compromise and other skills that prove useful in maintaining order during times of peace. Debbie writes: > > My take on Fudge is that he does as little as possible, and when he acts, it's for appeasement, like when he carted Hagrid off to Azkaban in order to make it look like he was doing something about the Heir of Slytherin. It's all about making him look good. These skills may work in times of peace when there is no direct threat, but he's not going to handle Voldemort's return very well, because he lacks the capacity for decisive leadership. > > > That the wizarding world is strongly politically divided is implied in Fudge's exchange with Dumbledore over the dementors: > > > > "'Half of us only feel safe in our beds at night because we know the > > dementors are standing guard at Azkaban!' > > > > 'The rest of us sleep less soundly in our beds, Cornelius, knowing > > that you have put Lord Voldemort's most dangerous supporters in the > > > > Indeed. Fudge's use of Voldemort's most dangerous supporters is what makes > him one of Voldemort's best allies, and without Fudge needing to be Ever So > Evil at all. That's not to say, of course, that Voldemort is so brilliant he > would realize this before he acts. But I do think he was taking things one > step at a time that day. > I write: The dementors are an obvious parallel to the death penalty debate in America. Poll after poll shows Americans in favor of the death penalty, even though there are real issues of justice involved here. Everytime someone hints that the dementors are a problem, I'd bet there is a Victims Rights Group in Wizardry that comes out with sob- stories about how the prisoners in Azkaban ruined their lives. What Fudge seems to be saying is essentially the same thing many American politicians have said: "If I come out against the death penalty, I'll lose my job." Fudge's view of the job seems to be: "How do I keep this job?" In times of peace, when members of the Ministry can spend hours debating the thickness of cauldrons, that's not so bad. But as Debbie said, the leadership now must be decisive. Darrin -- It is SOOO cool having both the UK and US versions. From igenite_olwyn at blueyonder.co.uk Sun Jul 7 15:41:02 2002 From: igenite_olwyn at blueyonder.co.uk (Olwyn) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 16:41:02 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Clothes/Distinguishing between muggle and wizard things References: Message-ID: <000701c225cc$b3682c20$0200a8c0@blueyonder.co.uk> No: HPFGUIDX 40887 Zoomphy >>And you know, you have a point on the Nicholas Flamel card thing. You'd think Nicholas Flamel would have his OWN card. He is certainly important enough.<< Ok, I'll probably get flamed for this, but in the extras on the DVD of the celluloid that must not be named he /does/ have a wizard card, you can collect it. Possibly the only reason it's never come up in any of the books is that it's a really rare card and Ron doesn't have one or know anyone that does. Olly [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From elfundeb at aol.com Sun Jul 7 18:46:30 2002 From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb at aol.com) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 14:46:30 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hagrid's Prejudice Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40888 In a message dated 7/7/2002 9:39:33 AM Eastern Daylight Time, meboriqua at aol.com writes: > I don't think he > so much believes in egalitarianism as much as he wants to adopt the > beliefs of Dumbledore, whom he idolizes. He really doesn't seem to > have opinions of his own; they are drawn either from his culture or > from Dumbledore, and his sweeping generalizations reflect his > childlike need to have simple explanations for the realities of his > world.> > > This confuses me a bit. What beliefs of Dumbledore's is Hagrid trying > to adopt? We rarely, if ever, hear Dumbledore express any opinion > about another person, and we see him angry only once, in GoF. That is > one of the things I love about Dumbledore: he really does make an > effort to see past people's weaknesses, pasts, problems, etc. to their > strengths (even Hagrid, though I don't think he made a wise choice > there). Hagrid, however, doesn't have much to base his prejudices on, > and his dislike of Tom Riddle isn't enough for me, especially to still > harbor such an intense dislike for *all* Slytherins so many years > later. > My sentence was very badly worded. I definitely wasn't referring to any views of Dumbledore with respect to an individual. What I was really trying to say is that IMO Hagrid doesn't think for himself. He has views that, IMO, he adopted from Dumbledore and the views I was thinking of particularly here aren't necessarily germane to his prejudices. For example, in PS/SS (ch. 4) when Hagrid talks about Voldemort not being dead, I just get the feeling that he is parroting things he's heard Dumbledore say. (And I should acknowledge here that I may be influenced by my general dislike of Hagrid into reading more into this than I should, but that's how I see his statements.) There are other examples of Hagrid expressing opinions that I think are Dumbledore's but I can't place any of them right now. I think Hagrid's prejudices do not come from Dumbledore, but reflect WW culture. I agree completely with your assessment of Dumbledore; he evaluates everyone based on personal qualities, but Hagrid, I'm afraid, adheres to the nature-over-nurture philosophy. Darrin pointed out that Hagrid deserves more credit for expressing his views on Muggle-borns than I gave him credit for. Ah, but way before CoS even takes place, Hagrid lets known his feelings about the whole issue. In PS/SS (pg 61 UK; pg 79 US) Harry has just met with Malfoy for the first time and has heard Malfoy's belief that Muggle families shouldn't be allowed to Hogwarts. Hagrid responds: "Yer not from a Muggle family. If he'd known who yeh were - he's grown up knowin' yer name if his parents are wizardin' folk -- you saw 'em in the Leaky Cauldron." OK, letting Harry know that Malfoy is full of it. Now, next sentence: "Anyway, what does he know about it, some o' the best I ever saw were the only ones with magic in 'em in a long line o' Muggles - look at yer mum! Look what she had for a sister!" I respond: Darrin is right, demonstrating that I still don't have those books memorized. I think the only sentence I remembered from this exchange is his protest that Harry is "not from a Muggle family!" I guess for me that set the tone of the conversation. Perhaps I should lighten up on Hagrid a bit. I think Darrin is right, though, in that Hagrid makes a clear distinctions between those with magical ability and those without. Debbie, who like Darrin is pleased to finally have the UK edition on her bookshelf [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From SaalsG at cni-usa.com Sun Jul 7 13:36:34 2002 From: SaalsG at cni-usa.com (Grace) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 08:36:34 -0500 Subject: Snowballs References: <1026038715.993.18545.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <00a601c225bb$50435fe0$a94053d1@SaalsD> No: HPFGUIDX 40889 >From the Sorcerer's Stone: "Christmas was coming. One morning in December, Hogwarts woke to find itself covered in several feet of snow. The lake froze solid and the Weasley twins were punished for bewitching several snowballs so that they followed Quirrell around, bouncing off the back of his turban." The first time I read this, not knowing just what was under that turban, I thought to myself "pretty gutsy" to be doing that to a teacher...and did they get a Howler for that one. Later, I began to wonder if Voldemort knew it was the Fred & George who was pelting him in the face with snowballs since the twins were later punished for it. If Quirrell knew it was the Weasley twins when they were punished, then Voldemort would know it too. Voldemort doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who would shrug that kind of thing off. -Grace From rvotaw at i-55.com Sun Jul 7 19:08:52 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 14:08:52 -0500 Subject: HPforGrownups] Re: Connections (HP and Star Wars)/ Imperious Curse Message-ID: <036d01c225e9$ccf04020$909dcdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 40890 > Ah but didn't someone ask JK in an interview if Harry was related to > Voldemort at all and she said 'that would be a bit 'Star Wars' > wouldn't it?' :) > > Belinda Yes, she did. Which I thought was a sort of strange answer. Which is also part of my "evidence" for Harry being related to Voldemort! (No would've been easier to say, right?) To refer to Star Wars specifically makes it sound as if she's thought of it before. Alora writes: > If Crouch! Moody is Barty Jr. and working for Voldemort (which we > know he is), why does he teach Harry to throw off the Imperious > curse in DADA class? I have always wondered about this. Does he do > it because he is, as the DADA teacher, expected to do that? In my > eyes, he seems to really be excited about Harry being the only one > to be able to throw it off. Why is that? Any comments or > suggestions? In GoF it says "Moody had insisted on putting Harry > through his paces four times in a row, until Harry could throw off > the curse entirely." (page 232, US) Why did he do this? Any > insight would be much appreciated... I think it's a combination of things. First, he may have been instructed to use the Imperious Curse as part of his curriculum by Dumbledore due to his thoughts that Voldemort was growing stronger. Since the teachers usually seem to have freedom to choose whatever curriculum they want and to teach it as they want. Second, I think he may have been curious to see how Harry reacted to it. Out of the entire class he was the only one who was able to at least partially throw it off on the very first try. Did he try to teach anyone else to throw it off? I only remember him repeating something like four more times on Harry until he could successfully throw it off (bruised knees and all). Was there any mention of the others in the class trying again? Not that I can remember, but correct me if I'm wrong please! Third, it didn't really help Harry against Voldemort anyway. Not for the time being anyway (it may come in handy later on!). All Harry did was keep from saying No when Voldemort wanted him to. It was the Crutacius curse that hurt so bad and the AK that nearly killed him. Richelle [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Sun Jul 7 19:54:01 2002 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 12:54:01 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Triwizard Portkey In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <996827915.20020707125401@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40891 Friday, July 5, 2002, 3:42:22 PM, ssk7882 wrote: s> He does seem rather undismayed by the fact that Harry *escaped,* s> though, doesn't he? I find it very tempting to speculate that Crouch *wanted* Harry to survive, so that *he* could be the one to finish him off... Then the DE's would say, "Hey, Crouch did what our Lord and Master couldn't -- he finally ridded us of that Potter kid...! Maybe *he's* the most powerful one and we should be bowing to *him* instead of old Snake Face!" -- Dave From bard7696 at aol.com Sun Jul 7 20:06:53 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2002 20:06:53 -0000 Subject: Hagrid's Prejudice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40892 Debbie wrote: > Darrin is right, demonstrating that I still don't have those books memorized. > I think the only sentence I remembered from this exchange is his protest > that Harry is "not from a Muggle family!" I guess for me that set the tone > of the conversation. Perhaps I should lighten up on Hagrid a bit. I think > Darrin is right, though, in that Hagrid makes a clear distinctions between > those with magical ability and those without. > > Debbie, who like Darrin is pleased to finally have the UK edition on her > bookshelf > I write: Not memorized :) I happened to be pretty close to that very chapter when this discussion started. I just got my UK editions Friday and I was reading PS. By the way, my UK edition says nothing about Sirius having vault 712. Is that in another book? Two more Hagridisms that I remember from PS and CoS. Near the end of PS, when Hagrid is apologizing for giving up the secret of Fluffy to Quirrell/Voldemort. "I should be cast out and made to live as a Muggle." Obviously, that's the harshest punishment Hagrid can fathom. In the beginning of CoS, after Harry arrives safely at Hogwarts after being mistreated pretty badly by the Dursleys: "Lousy Muggles, if I'd known." I need to re-read all four books closely, but I THINK that last one in the beginning of CoS is Hagrid's last real anti-Muggle comment, which, if I'm right, gives me an idea as to where it comes from. Hagrid basically was forced to be a Squib. He had natural abilities as far as working with animals and his size and strength make him more powerful than the average Muggle, but he was forbidden to use magic except in certain circumstances where he had clear instructions. (Bringing baby Harry to the Dursleys and then later rescuing him from the Durselys.) He cheated a bit, but living at Hogwarts, probably didn't get much chance to do so. But Hagrid, because of his half-Giant lineage, couldn't fit in the Muggle world. So, he probably feels inferior to all of the people around him, with the possible exception of Filch. But, because he is stronger and does know, and is even allowed to use once in a while, magic, he is superior, in his eyes, to Muggles. It strikes me that Hagrid's anti-Muggle rants are his way of reinforcing that superiority to stave off the inferiority he must feel. When Hagrid is cleared, allowed to use magic again, and made a teacher at Hogwarts, it seems he lets go of some of the harshness toward Muggles. Darrin -- Thinks that the slur "Dursleys" should be created to describe nasty Muggles. From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Sun Jul 7 20:15:03 2002 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 13:15:03 -0700 Subject: Other Historical Wizards? (was: [HPforGrownups] very short replies) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1888089780.20020707131503@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40893 Saturday, July 6, 2002, 6:31:37 PM, catlady_de_los_angeles wrote: c> << It would be interesting to know whether Merlin is supposed to be c> any more historical a figure in the WW than he is in the Muggle one. >>> c> He has a Famous Wizard card, and I thought they were all supposed to c> be historical figures, aka real people. BTW, are there any other real people (in our world) besides Flamel who were Wizards in the Potterverse? I was thinking maybe Johannes Kepler was, since he dealt in astrology (though he eventually rejected it, Hermione-style), wrote a book (factual in the P-verse??) about a witchcraft-aided trip to the moon, and his mum was in fact tried as a witch. -- Dave From rvotaw at i-55.com Sun Jul 7 21:04:13 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (rvotaw1) Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2002 21:04:13 -0000 Subject: Can Voldemort kill Harry? (was Re: The Triwizard Portkey) In-Reply-To: <996827915.20020707125401@mindspring.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40894 > > Friday, July 5, 2002, 3:42:22 PM, ssk7882 wrote: > > s> He does seem rather undismayed by the fact that Harry *escaped,* > s> though, doesn't he? Then Dave wrote: > I find it very tempting to speculate that Crouch *wanted* Harry to > survive, so that *he* could be the one to finish him off... Then the > DE's would say, "Hey, Crouch did what our Lord and Master couldn't Surely it would make Crouch look pretty good to kill Harry that's true. But is it really true that Voldemort *can't* kill Harry? I mean, the first time around was a sort of freak thing with the AK bouncing off (due to his mother's sacrifice). Then in SS/PS Voldemort didn't even have his own body, but was using Quirrell's, which couldn't get past Harry's mom's protective powers. Which have now, I suppose worn off, or been used up, or however it goes. Anyway, in GoF, Voldemort makes the mistake of giving Harry his wand back. If Harry hadn't had his wand, what would have happened? The "brother" wands were forced to duel and thus created an unexpected situation. Of course Harry knew the wands were "brothers," but did not what this would do, and Voldemort didn't know at all. Voldemort of course was trying to be noble or something (if you can call it noble to attempt to murder a fourteen year old half trained wizard whether he has his wand or not) by giving him his wand to have a "duel." Voldemort was certainly able to hurt Harry through the Crutacious curse, and I still believe if Harry hadn't had the sense to shout out a spell (any one would've done I believe) to meet Voldemort's AK spell in mid air and thus create the unforeseen occurance of the clashing brother wands he would've been killed by it. Well, enough said. Richelle From lyssa_2410 at yahoo.com Sun Jul 7 20:46:47 2002 From: lyssa_2410 at yahoo.com (lyssa_2410) Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2002 20:46:47 -0000 Subject: Snowballs In-Reply-To: <00a601c225bb$50435fe0$a94053d1@SaalsD> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40895 Grace wrote: >If Quirrell knew it was the > Weasley twins when they were punished, then Voldemort would know it too. > Voldemort doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who would shrug that kind of > thing off. > > -Grace I'm going to think that Voldemort had a lot more on his mind then killing the twins for throwing snowballs at him. Although I had never thought of that before. JKR put that in the book to make fun of Voldemort, I'm sure. I don't see Voldemort, risen again, coming after Fred/George and saying, "Ah ha! It was you who threw snowballs at me years ago!" hehe. Alyssa From pkerr06 at attglobal.net Sun Jul 7 22:15:55 2002 From: pkerr06 at attglobal.net (bluesox4113) Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2002 22:15:55 -0000 Subject: Will HP become classic? In-Reply-To: <3CC874BD.84F81B9B@ksu.edu> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40896 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Philip Nel wrote: > Dear Bernadette > > (and anyone else who happens to be interested in this question, of course), > > Thanks for your kind words about the discussion questions. > > You ask: > > > Would it be inappropriate to ask what the name of the collection > > will be or who is putting it out? As a Communications Student > > with a love for literary commentary, I'd love to see what > > Academia is saying about the HP books. > > With apologies for being self-promotional, the editor of the collection is Lana Whited, and the publisher is the University of Missouri Press. I *think* the title will be _The Ivory Tower and Harry Potter_. > Jack Zipes, _The Troublesome Success of Children's Literature from Slovenly Peter to Harry Potter_ (2001) -- there's a chapter on _Potter_. Zipes doesn't like Potter. > > To be honest, a lot of the lit crit isn't that great. > > Phil Belatedly: Thanks for this list, Phil. I'm going to track down some of these books, because I've been asked to be on a panel with Jack Zipes, probably sometime this September or so, squaring off on Harry Potter among other things, although my second novel might be discussed, too. The moderator who's setting it up mentioned he may put up an editor or possibly a librarian, but I've definitely being put up on the panel as the Potter-positive person. If anyone has any questions they'd like me to ask Jack, or some other reading to suggest to help me prepare, please let me know. Cheers, Peg Kerr (yeah, anyone remember me???) website: http://www.tc.umn.edu/~d-lena/PegKerrBibliog.html LiveJournal: http://pegkerr.livejournal.com/ From rowen_lm at yahoo.com Mon Jul 8 02:02:15 2002 From: rowen_lm at yahoo.com (Liz Muir) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 19:02:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Harry's Magic at Home / Dumbledore's Motives? In-Reply-To: <1026012408.11715.41057.m3@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20020708020215.79681.qmail@web20902.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40897 *****Harry's Magic at Home***** Jenny from Ravenclaw wrote: (on Harry using an invisibility cloak at home): >>We learned in CoS that Harry is carefully monitored while at the Dursleys, obviously more so than other wizard children who are out of school (we know that Fred and George use magic continually while at the Burrow). He got in trouble when Dobby used magic at the Dursleys and in PoA, even though Harry didn't get in trouble for the Aunt Marge incident, the MoM knew about and were there to clean it up. Using the invisibility cloak, I'm guessing, would register on the MoM's magical use map or whatever they use to find out wizard children who are using magic outside of Hogwarts. Harry may very well get in trouble for using magic on Dudley if it does happen, but I have a feeling he'll be satisfied about it anyway, no matter how he uses magic and what the consequences are.<< I doubt an invisibiliy cloak would register on the MoM's scale if a flying car was legal. Harry didn't enchant the cloak to give it invisibility powers, he only used it, just like the Weasley's use the car. I personally have been wondering about the MoM's methods of detecting magic use by underage wizards. I'm guessing that all the system can detect is when magic is used in a location, but not by who. This would explain why F & G can use magic at home. Since their parents, and now Percy, are full-blown wizards, the MoM's detection system doesn't work because it could be Mr or Mrs Weasley doing magic legally. This is kind of unfair to muggle borns, but I guess they could depend on the magical parents to keep their underage wizards in line. lol Now this brings up an interesting point in SS. It has always been a mystery why Lilly could come home "with her pockets full of frog spawn, turning teacups into rats" if underage wizards aren't allowed to use magic over the summer. If the MoM's system truly can only detect if magic is used in a certain place, Lily woudl be able to use magic over the summer if another wizard lived at the house. Hmmm. Perhaps Harry's grandparents? However the books do make it sound as if Lily is muggle born, but maybe they were hiding it from Petunia? Any thoughts? *****Dumbledore's Motives?***** Dante wrote: >>What's bothering me is Dumbledore's timing as far as bringing the Philosopher's Stone to Hogwarts. Did he know someone was planning on stealing it? He probably guessed that the stone could be used to revive Voldemort from his weakened state - I mean, what else was it really good for (besides the whole near-immortality thing)? But, if that's the case, why did he leave it in Gringotts for long? Why wasn't it moved to Hogwarts right after Voldemort's defeat, when his followers were still floundering about? For that matter, why wasn't it just destroyed?<< Time for me to play Devil's advocate here. I'm just going to be extremely sceptical on all these theories. I believe Dumbledore knew someone was planning on stealing the stone. (He does have "sources" which inform him about Voldemort. See CoS) So he talks it over with Flamel and then sends Hagrid to pick it up. He left it in Gringotts for so long because, first of all, it belongs to Flamel and not to him and, second, why move it if it is save there? It must have taken some time for Quirrell to figure out how to break into a high security vault at Gringotts, which is a pretty safe place. Who says it was even in Gringotts the whole time? Flamel must have been using it to make elixer of life a few times. He could have just moved it there, or maybe five years ago, or ten, or ... It wasn't destroyed because Flamel was still using it! He's not volunteering to die so Voldemort won't come back. Anyway, I think this is pretty explainable. >>What brought this to my attention was something McGonagall said just after she caught Harry, Hermione, Neville, and Draco wandering the halls after the incident with Norbert:<< >>"...nothing gives you the right to walk around the school at night, especially these days, it's very dangerous..."<< >>What? What does she mean, "these days" and "dangerous?" As far as the reader was concerned at this point, nothing very serious was going on at the school. Sure, there was a troll running around at Halloween, but that was explained away as an isolated incident, right? What I think this says is that the faculty was aware of *something* going on, something we weren't been told about. This something probably had to do with Voldemort, but I'm not sure the faculty knew that particular fact. Or did they?<< Well, I do think the faculty knew something was going on. After all, quite a few did spells to protect the stone. How would Dumbledore ask them without telling them about the stone and why it's not at Gringotts? "Hello, Professor McGonagall. Tell me, if you hypothetically had to protect something of value from a hypothetical evil wizard, what would you do? Could you give me a demonstration?" Not very likely methinks. >>Snape at the very least knew. He was suspicious of Quirrell from the start, even since the first Quidditch match. Surely he would have mentioned Quirrell's alarming behavior to Dumbledore, whom Snape respects. I mean, he tried to kill a student! Why didn't Dumbledore do anything about it?<< I doubt Snape told Dumbledore about Quirrell, though it is possible. Otherwise, why would he have to sneak away on his own to stop Quirrell when the troll came in? Wouldn't Dumbledore have realized? Snape could have gotten help keeping Quirrell from the stone. No, Snape seems pretty loner-ish. I think he would try to handle this on his own. >>I have a great many suspicions concerning Dumbledore's motives in the series, most of which are not well received. I have this feeling he's manipulating everybody for some other purpose, one that isn't necessarily in the best interest of all concerned. I just don't see how he couldn't know Voldie was stuck on the back of Quirrell's head, especially if Snape suspected his involvement with the Dark Lord. If he DID know, then having the stone stored at Hogwarts was just asking for Voldemort to be revived!<< How could he have known about Quirrell's "second face"? Quirrell wore the turban for a reason and Voldemort didn't exactally go around being obvious. >>The same thing goes for Crouch. How could Dumbledore NOT know that it was somebody else in a Moody-skin suit? I thought he and Dumbledore were close friends. I don't understand how Crouch, who had been isolated for the past twelve or thirteen years or so, could so easily fool Dumbledore. Unless, of course, Dumbledore DID know, just like he knew about Quirrell, and was looking for subtle a way to get Voldemort back in power. What better way to put yourself in power than to defeat some great evil and make yourself a hero? Dumbledore already has his vigilante fighting force (the Aurors), the "side of the light" on his side, and is slowly undermining the Ministry's power. If he manages to overthrow Voldie on his own (with Harry Potter, the golden boy, at his side), while at the same time managing to cause the rest of the wizarding world to doubt and loose confidence in the Ministry, I could very easily see the people putting him solely in charge, which is potentially dangerous.<< The Crouch!Moody thing is something I can't come up with a good explaination for right now, unless it's that Moody and Dumbledore haven't seen each other for awhile. I mean, Dumbledore spends lots of time at the school and Moody's off doing his thing .... I really don't see Dumbledore as the evil dictator type. :) Then again, maybe that's what he saw in the mirror of Erised. ===== Rowen Avalon (Liz Muir) "We will not examine how grainy the frosting is. It's a cake. That's all we need to know." "Everyone keeps learn more and more about less and less until finally they know everything about nothing. It's called specializing." "The guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth then to the very center." "I have nothing but contempt for a man who can spell a word only one way." __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free http://sbc.yahoo.com From rowen_lm at yahoo.com Mon Jul 8 02:24:50 2002 From: rowen_lm at yahoo.com (Liz Muir) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 19:24:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Fanged Servant / Fall of the House of Longbottom Message-ID: <20020708022450.82659.qmail@web20902.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40898 *****Fanged Servant***** Kel wrote: >>Keep in mind... they say this (jokingly, of course) long before anyone, including HRH, understand that the creature is a basilisk. Although it is common knowledge at this point that Harry is a parseltongue, I still fail to see why the Heir of Slytherin's 'servant' would automatically be assumed to be a snake. If that was the common assumption, then why didn't anyone clue in earlier that the creature turning the students into stone was in fact a basilisk?<< I favor that, perhaps in "Hogwarts, A History", Slytherin wrote a loverly little poem about his chamber that mentioned a "fanged servant." Tom Riddle says it took him years to figure it out, but he can't figure it out without ANY clues. I think that it must mention it somewhere. And why couldn't it be assumed to be a snake? I mean, the guy's a Parseltounge, the symbol of his house is a snake, he's obviously obsessed with snakes. What better servant than something snake based? *****The Fall of the House of Longbottom***** Heather wrote: >>Regarding the possibility (however slim) of baby Neville being possessed, I have one question: How much power does Voldemort have over the person whose body he shares? I got the sense that it was *sharing*, not complete *possession*. When Voldemort shared Quirrell's body, he really didn't take over Quirrell's entire persona, he just basically tagged along on the back of his head. Quirrell followed Voldemort's orders because he was a dark lord supporter, not because Voldemort was literally making him. So if Voldemort infested Neville's body, I don't think he could actually use that body to crucio the Longbottoms; all he could do would be to order Neville to attack them, which a baby wouldn't even understand, much less be capable of doing. Also, the use of dark detectors to discover this probably wouldn't be necessary; I bet the Longbottoms would notice a face on the back of their son's head. Just a thought :)<< Since this is a combined reply, I don't feel so bad about this extremely short post. This is exactally what I was thinking. Voldemort!Quirrell seemed to have to personalities. They didn't even share thoughts, since they had to talk to each other. Voldemort even says himself that he shares other's bodies. (SS, pg. 293, final confrontation scene) Perhaps, since Neville was a baby, his will was "less strong" and Voldemort could possess him. I doubt it though. ===== Rowen Avalon (Liz Muir) "We will not examine how grainy the frosting is. It's a cake. That's all we need to know." "Everyone keeps learn more and more about less and less until finally they know everything about nothing. It's called specializing." "The guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth then to the very center." "I have nothing but contempt for a man who can spell a word only one way." __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free http://sbc.yahoo.com From catlady at wicca.net Mon Jul 8 02:53:31 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2002 02:53:31 -0000 Subject: Famous Wizards that even Muggle history knows about Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40899 Dave wrote: << Thinks that the slur "Dursleys" should be created to describe nasty Muggles. >> Kind of hard on the town of Dursley. << BTW, are there any other real people (in our world) besides Flamel who were Wizards in the Potterverse? I was thinking maybe Johannes Kepler >> Famous Wizard Cards: Ron: "I've got about five hundred, but I haven't got Agrippa or Ptolemy." Narrator: "Soon he had not only Dumbledore and Morgana, but Hengist of Woodcroft, Alberic Grunnion, Circe, Paracelsus, and Merlin." Agrippa, Ptolemy, and Paracelsus are known in Muggle history. (see below) Morgana, Circe, Merlin, and Cliodna are known in Muggle mythology: IIRC Circe is said to be a nymph, daughter of Helios. Merlin is sometimes said to be the son of the Devil by a nun, but usually to be a human who studied hard. Cliodna is said to be a Celtic goddess. Morgana is Morgan le Fay from the matiere de Bretagne -- I think she's generally supposed to be a human mage. Does anyone know anything about any Hengist of Woodcroft or Alberic Grunnion? http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/p/paracelsus.html "Paracelsus who was born Philippus Aureolus (1493-1541) took the pseudonym of Theophrastus Bombastus Von Hohenheim.He became a renown physician, alchemist and occultist. Supposedly he invented the name Paracelsus, which he was widely known by, which means "superior to Calsus." Celsus was an early Roman physician." http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/7850/ ""In his influential work De occulta philosophia libri tres (1531), Agrippa combined magic, astrology, Qabbalah, theurgy, medecine, and the occult properties of plants, rocks, and metals. This work was an important factor in the spread of the idea of occult sciences." http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/people/ancient_epoch/ptolemy.ht ml "Ptolemy was a Greek astronomer who lived between 85-165 A.D. He put together his own ideas with those of Aristotle and Hipparchus and formed the geocentric theory." Actually, I'm sure there was a geocentric theory before Ptolemy computed all those epicycles to make the theory agree with observations. From rowen_lm at yahoo.com Mon Jul 8 02:53:37 2002 From: rowen_lm at yahoo.com (rowen_lm) Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2002 02:53:37 -0000 Subject: Other Historical Wizards? (more very short replies) In-Reply-To: <1888089780.20020707131503@mindspring.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40900 Dave wrote: > BTW, are there any other real people (in our world) besides Flamel who > were Wizards in the Potterverse? I was thinking maybe Johannes Kepler > was, since he dealt in astrology (though he eventually rejected it, > Hermione-style), wrote a book (factual in the P-verse??) about a > witchcraft-aided trip to the moon, and his mum was in fact tried > as a witch. Oh there's loads. Most of the wizard cards mentioned are at least based on people that had some connection to their wizarding field. I find it almost humorous. :) Rowen Avalon From dantefyre2112 at hotmail.com Mon Jul 8 02:58:07 2002 From: dantefyre2112 at hotmail.com (dantefyre2112) Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2002 02:58:07 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Motives? In-Reply-To: <20020708020215.79681.qmail@web20902.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40901 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Liz Muir wrote: > *****Dumbledore's Motives?***** > >>Snape at the very least knew. He was suspicious of Quirrell from the > start, even since the first Quidditch match. Surely he would have > mentioned Quirrell's alarming behavior to Dumbledore, whom Snape > respects. I mean, he tried to kill a student! Why didn't Dumbledore do > anything about it?<< > > I doubt Snape told Dumbledore about Quirrell, though it is possible. > Otherwise, why would he have to sneak away on his own to stop Quirrell > when the troll came in? Wouldn't Dumbledore have realized? Snape could > have gotten help keeping Quirrell from the stone. No, Snape seems > pretty loner-ish. I think he would try to handle this on his own. No, this doesn't seem right to me. Snape is on his second chance with Dumbledore. He was spying against Voldemort for him in the last war. When Harry overhears Snape talking to Quirrell, Snape says something to the effect of "We'll have another little chat soon, when you've had time to think things over and decided where you loyalties lie." If he's questioning Quirrell's loylaties, then he must know he's in league with Voldemort and probably knows why he wants to stone. As much of a loner that Snape is, it seems unbelieveable to me that he wouldn't go to Dumbledore. The stone is at Hogwarts. The idea is to keep it safe. If Quirrell 'helped' safe guard the stone, then it was very much at risk. No, I think Dumbledore had to know. He's supposed to be this all-seeing kind of guy, esp. where Hogwarts is concerned. How could a trio of nosy first years figure something out that he wasn't aware of? Seems unlikely. > How could he have known about Quirrell's "second face"? Quirrell wore > the turban for a reason and Voldemort didn't exactally go around being > obvious. He takes that little interest in the welfare of his faculty? Even Snape picked up on something off about the man. Who knows how long Quirrell had been working at Hogwarts - we don't know if the high turnover rate of DADA teachers occurred before Harry's time. Even if Dumbledore didn't know Voldie was actually on Quirrell's head, he should have suspected something, don't you think? Dante From rvotaw at i-55.com Mon Jul 8 03:20:09 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 22:20:09 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] re: Famous Wizards that even Muggle history knows about References: Message-ID: <006b01c2262e$601d9de0$dba1cdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 40902 Catlady wrote: Does anyone know anything about any Hengist of Woodcroft or Alberic Grunnion? Found this on a HP site (http://www.theninemuses.net/hp/h.html) Hengist of Woodcroft - featured on a chocolate frog wizard card Hengist is the name of the first King of Kent (from 455-488) He was the first Saxon, with his brother Horsa, brought in by Vortigern to fight the Picts and Scots. I see no connection to magic whatsoever, but oh well. And from the same site (http://www.theninemuses.net/hp/g.html) Grunion, Alberic - featured on a chocolate frog card Alberic was a common name in the Medieval Europe, including two saints. One was a bishop and missionary. The other was a hermit and co-founder of the Cistercian order. Alberic is also the name of the dwarf in Wagner's ring cycle. "Grunion" is a type of fish native to southern California, related to the mullet, which come inshore to spawn. That's all I could find! Richelle [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Mon Jul 8 04:43:02 2002 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 8 Jul 2002 04:43:02 -0000 Subject: File - hbfile.html Message-ID: <1026103382.77281288.18561.m12@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40903 An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From annickbrown at yahoo.co.uk Sun Jul 7 22:28:06 2002 From: annickbrown at yahoo.co.uk (annickbrown) Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2002 22:28:06 -0000 Subject: Historical figure in The ww and the muggle world Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40904 in answer to what Dave wrote wrote about Merlin and other wizards being big historical figures in the WW and the muggle world I would say that Merlin is much more of a "figure"in the ww because They (wizards and witches) have proof that he existed and maybe he helped or trained??? the founders of Hogwarts??...Whereas walk up to a muggle and tell him Merlin really existed and that he was a real wizard and it's doubtless to say that they would think you were off your rocker... Nick From swimminwoman86 at aol.com Sun Jul 7 22:41:56 2002 From: swimminwoman86 at aol.com (swimminwoman86 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 18:41:56 EDT Subject: Touching Quirrel's hand Message-ID: <196.96d9b10.2a5a1db4@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40905 I just re-read Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone for the hundreth time(ok maybe not that many times but it't been a lot), and it struck me odd that in the beginning of the book, Professor Quirrell shakes Harry's hand, yet this has no effect at all on him. Shouldn't Harry's touch have blistered his hand the way that it did at the end of the book? Or did it not blister him because he wasn't feeling so full of hate and rage at that time? Yet, I would think that Quirrell would have some hate and anger towards Harry since he is Voldemort's loyal subject and Voldemort just happens to be a parasite on the back of his head. Maybe at the time, Voldemort was not yet living on Quirrell. Why, then would he have been wearing it when they first met at The Leaky Cauldron, then? Even so, why does Quirrell seem nervous when they first meet? The way Quirrell says "Who would suspect p-p-poor st-stuttering P-Professor Quirrell?", it implies to me that it was all an act. Any thoughts on this? ~Cindy~ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Sun Jul 7 22:53:02 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2002 22:53:02 -0000 Subject: YES! The Great Alchemist Debate Solved (sort of) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40906 Is an Alchmeist typically a wizard thereby making Flamel a wizard, some what, by default? Well, we know Ron need the Agrippa card, and we know he need the Ptolemy card, and we know Ptolemy was a real person, and we know Flamel was a real person. SO WHO WAS AGRIPPA? Answer- he was an ALCHEMIST and a real Person. Cornelius Agrippa - AKA: Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa von Nettesheim, 1486-1535, German mystic and alchemist. Agrippa of Nettesheim was born of a once-noble family near Cologne, and studied both medicine and law there, apparently without taking a degree. In 1503, he assumed the name Cornelius Agrippa von Nettesheim, adopting the von to suggest a noble background; three years later, he established a secret society in Paris devoted to astrology, magic, and Kabbalah. Agrippa's wrote on a great many topics, including marriage and military engineering, but his most important work is the three-volume De occulta philosophiae (written c. 1510, published 1531), a defense of "hidden philosophy" or magic, which draws on diverse mystical traditions -- alchemy, astrology, Kabbalah. A later work, De incertitudine et vanitate scientiarum (Of the Uncertainty and Vanity of the Sciences), attacks contemporary scientific theory and practice. Some believed him to be not only an alchemist but a demonic magician,... Taken from: http://www.english.upenn.edu/~jlynch/Frank/People/agrippa.html There seemed to be some implicatin that being an alchemit, eliminated the possiblility of Flamel also being a wizard. Given this new information, I would think the being an alchemit now is likely to confirm that Flamel was a wizard. BBoy_MN I have way too much time on my hands From ksnidget at aol.com Sun Jul 7 23:00:40 2002 From: ksnidget at aol.com (ksnidget at aol.com) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 19:00:40 EDT Subject: Other Historical Wizards? (was: [HPforGrownups] very short replies) Message-ID: <17.2ad0441a.2a5a2218@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40907 Dave asked: "BTW, are there any other real people (in our world) besides Flamel who were Wizards in the Potterverse?? I was thinking maybe Johannes Kepler was, since he dealt in astrology (though he eventually rejected it, Hermione-style), wrote a book (factual in the P-verse??) about a witchcraft-aided trip to the moon, and his mum was in fact tried as a witch." Looking in _The Magical Worlds of Harry Potter__ by D. Colbert. The following Wizards are listed as real people Agrippa-- Wrote _On Occult Philosophy_ in 1529 Ron was looking for Agrippa's card in SS Paracelsus--founder of modern chemistry and medicine Harry gets this card on the train in SS. He lived in the 1500's as well He also lists Ptolemy (second century AD Egypt) But I don't know where that is referenced in HP books. He was an astronomer. Ksnidget [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Sun Jul 7 23:56:47 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2002 23:56:47 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore/GOF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40909 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lyss_2410" wrote: > Sorry if this has been asked before, but I am new here and haven't > read all of the messages. > > I've been wondering why Dumbledore didn't know that something strange > was going on - seeing how he saw Harry's name and a different school > on the piece of paper (when Fred put his name on the paper, he put > both his name and Hogwarts) or did the GOF just spit out the name and > not the school? > > Alyssa Of course he knew something was up. Even if Harry managed to get his name in the Goblet, the Goblet hade already given Cedric's name. So Moody/Couch tricked the Goblet into thinking there was another school. The book doesn't say, to my knowledge no other school is specified by name, but he could have tricking into thinking that the name of the other school was "." (period) or " " (space), or the school name could have been invisible (that's kind of weak though). My personal read is that the name of some four school was implied by the piece of paper, but it may not have been in a way that gave a discernible name. Another thought, the Hogwarts names were entered by house, if I understand correctly, so in that case, the name of the school was implied, not specified. So the absents of a specific school name alone may have been enough to imply to the Goblet the existance of another school. So without a doubt everyone new something was dodgy. But the theory goes that the presents of your name in the Goblet consitutes entering into a binding magical contract, so if you name comes out, like it or not, you are bound by that contract to compete. I will admit that my read of the story says this whole scene and it's justification was a little weak, but not so unbelievable that it distracted me from the story. It wasn't perfect, but it was enough that my mind accepted it and was ready to move on. BBOY_MN From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Mon Jul 8 00:29:44 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2002 00:29:44 -0000 Subject: Other Historical Wizards? (was: [HPforGrownups] very short replies) In-Reply-To: <1888089780.20020707131503@mindspring.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40910 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Dave Hardenbrook wrote: > > Saturday, July 6, 2002, 6:31:37 PM, catlady_de_los_angeles wrote: > > c> << It would be interesting to know whether > >Merlin is supposed to be any more historical a figure > in the WW than he is in the Muggle one. > >>> > c> He has a Famous Wizard card, and I thought they > > were all supposed to be historical figures, aka > > real people. > > BTW, are there any other real people (in our world) > besides Flamel who were Wizards in the Potterverse? > I was thinking maybe Johannes Kepler was, since he > dealt in astrology (though he eventually rejected it, > Hermione-style), wrote a book (factual in the P-verse??) > about a witchcraft-aided trip to the moon, and his mum > was in fact tried as a witch. > > -- > Dave You'll see an extended BIO of Agrippa in another post of mine. I'm still on probation so it may take a while to get threw. Agrippa - was a real person, born in Germany, studied alcheny and wrote several books. Ptolemy - was an Egyptian Emporer, the decoding of hieroglyphic occurred when someone noticed common letters in Cleopatra's name and Ptolemy's name. Merlin - there is a REAL history of a person who is accepted as THE Merlin, although, since his life spans over 150 yrs. Some people think Merlin is really the history of two people merged together over time. But ther is a real person in English muggle history that is said to be Merlin. Morgana - Morgana appears in the Italian translation of Arthurian tales as "Fata Morgana". That doesn't quite prove she was real, but I thought it was worth noting. and of course Flamel. JKR must really know this subject well, to have come up with such obscure historical figures. I can only assume that if the names of other historical witches and wizards are researched, some of them will also be real people. Some additional comment on Merlin, indirectly related to this post. I think Merlin is considered the pinnacle of wizardom. The greatest wizard who ever lived (in the western world). My impression is that he is like a god (in a non-religious sense, if that makes sense) to wizarding people. I can see them saying things like "By Merlin's ghost I swear I didn't take your homework." or "I swear on Merlin's grave, I'm telling the truth." This isn't quite proven by the book, and I don't have any specific reference to site, but I vaguely remember Merlin being used in a similar context, although much more subtle. I'm rereading the series and if I come across the reference I'm think of, I'll post it. BBOY_MN From rcsalamat at hotmail.com Mon Jul 8 00:41:01 2002 From: rcsalamat at hotmail.com (rcsalamat) Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2002 00:41:01 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Motive Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40911 dantefyre2112 writes: "What's bothering me is Dumbledore's timing as far as bringing the Philosopher's Stone to Hogwarts. Did he know someone was planning on stealing it? He probably guessed that the stone could be used to revive Voldemort from his weakened state - I mean, what else was it really good for (besides the whole near-immortality thing)? But, if that's the case, why did he leave it in Gringotts for long? Why wasn't it moved to Hogwarts right after Voldemort's defeat, when his followers were still floundering about? For that matter, why wasn't it just destroyed?" "...Unless, of course, Dumbledore DID know, just like he knew about Quirrell, and was looking for subtle a way to get Voldemort back in power. " I think Dumbledore wanted to *revive* Voldemort--revive but not put back in power. In SS Harry says, "I think he knows more or less everything that goes on here." So I think Dumbledore and the faculty knows that Voldemort is after the Stone. Now I really believe that Dumbledore is good but why would he want Voldemort revived? Because I think reviving him is the only way to finish him off. Dumbledore says in SS that they could always try and delay Voldemort's return but it will just be that, delaying. Hagrid said in GoF that he knew he would return and it was just a matter of time. In SS he also says "Some say he died. Codswallop in my opinion. Dunno if he had enough left human in him to die..." This explains "the gleam of something like triumph" in Dumbledore's eyes. Now that Voldemort's back in his human form, albeit stronger, he could now *die*. The problem now is that The Parting of the Ways makes it more difficult to fight Voldemort. The Minister doesn't believe in Dumbledore. Plus add the fact that Dumbledore's allies include a werewolf, a fugitive from Azkaban (though Fudge isn't aware of this, yet...), a former Death Eater, half-giants etc. So that's what I think. I don't think Dumbledore wants Voldemort back to power and Harry dead. He says "The only one against whom I intend to work is Lord Voldemort." And I believe him. Ron S. From lilac_bearry at yahoo.com Mon Jul 8 02:41:02 2002 From: lilac_bearry at yahoo.com (Lilac) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 19:41:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Harry Skywalker (WAS: Connections) Message-ID: <20020708024102.96186.qmail@web40310.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40912 The ever so evil "Yahoomort" ate this email last time, so I'm sending it again. A little out of date, but here goes anyway... Message: 23 Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 16:50:52 -0000 From: "tmarends" Subject: Connections Sophia wrote: > > Live long and pr....NO, NO, I mean, >>>> May the fo...<<<< >nope...Ah! How about: Draco > dormiens numnquam titillandus. > tmarends said: <<