The Magic Quill, Hagrid's Prejudice, Triwizard Portkey, Dobby/Harry

[elfundeb at 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.  <oh, dear, 
my cynicism is showing>

> 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]